I was interested to see the letter from Dr J H Payne of Frome(Chronicle May 26), describing how he was approached by a friend inLondon asking him to take part in The Recreation Ground consultationin order to support Bath Rugby's campaign to stay on The Rec.
The beneficiaries of the 1956 covenant are the "Mayor, Aldermenand Citizens of the City of Bath". Despite this, on the first pageof the consultation document the trust asserts that thebeneficiaries are "the people of Bath and its environs" This alteredwording seeks to significantly widen the scope of the beneficiariesof the trust.
On May 5 I wrote to the trust challenging their wording andasking why the consultation exercise is not limited to Bathcitizens, (i.e. those living within the boundaries of Bath). I havenot received a reply. The alteration to the scope of thebeneficiaries and the lack of any attempt to identify the addressesof contributors to the consultation (by inclusion of an addressfield) must raise suspicion as to the motivation behind the exerciseand whether the trust can truly claim to represent the interests ofthe beneficiaries. Any potential proposal to transfer land at TheRec to Bath Rugby PLC would also involve a transfer of significantfinancial value from a charity representing the citizens of Bath toa PLC, due to the difference in land values at The Rec and atLambridge.
For any consultation to be valid it must be transparent and aboveboard and only voted by the beneficiaries.
I do not believe the current exercise meets those conditions.
After all, if the position were reversed Bath Rugby PLC wouldcertainly not allow non-shareholders to vote through the internet,(possibly multiple times).
The citizens of Bath should be afforded no less courtesy in termsof their assets, which include the land at The Rec.
I note that the trust now has a new team of councillors leadingit.
However, the new chairman has indicated, worryingly, that he is"not envisaging any change of direction".
I say "worryingly" because as a Bath council tax payer I do notwant any more money spent by the council defending this issue in theHigh Court.
Based on the letters in the Chronicle so many Bath people lackconfidence in the actions of the trust that I believe it should nowtake the opportunity to review what it is trying to achieve and re-consider whether it is legally defensible.
ARTHUR STREATFIELD Penn Lea Road Bath It has been madeabundantly clear to all that neither the rugby club nor the councilown The Rec -nor can either build any permanent buildings on it.
For verification please visit the Bath Heritage Watchdog site fora factual and unbiased explanation of the current covenant.
The many trusts I have been involved with require the trustees toensure that they are run correctly and legally for the benefit ofthe beneficiaries.
They are charged to ensure that the trust is finically viable butthis does not allow them to sell the trust assets to do this.
The Charity Commission has, on many occasions, pointed this outthus I am at a loss to see the benefit there is to be had from thisonline consultation.
The future of The Rec can not be decided upon in the mannerprogrammes like X Factor or Big Brother.
For the consultation to hold water it will be necessary to ballotall beneficiaries i.e. residents of Bath living within the limits asdefined at time of gift.
Thus, club members and any others who live outside these limitsmay not vote. The same can be said for the all retailers exceptthose who live here and own their own businesses.
To satisfy all legal requirements the ballot will have to be heldalong the lines of a General Election with everyone having to provetheir right to vote so eliminating any possible jiggery-pokery.
GRENVILLE GORE LANGTON Lower Weston Bath
No comments:
Post a Comment