charitable status and units -are they really?

[Noddy]

quote:
Oddly the unit you refer to (I assume...) is one that takes its educational role very seriously, possibly the best in the country at this? and definitely not an 'aggressive' charity.

I totally agree, they are almost certainly one of the best archaeological educational charities about and going back to the original point of this topic they are really a 'charity' in the obvious sense of the word. If they were just doing it on research excavations I wouldn't have a problem at all. It just seems (to me at least) to make a total mockery of the 'polluter pays' and 'competitive' tendering principles.

[Unitof1]

Red rag to a bull

A quick trawl for the types of charitable advantages.

http://www.tynedale.gov.uk/residents/ser...p?type=151

http://www.chiene.co.uk/pdf/chartaxemp.pdf

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/faq_gen.htm

Now try and read the charity commission accounts and see if you can work out which exemptions they are involved with. Things like trading will be hit by tax, things like charitable income wont. You will probably find it is almost all charity. Its that a 30% plus advantage even before you start trying to work out their rents and asset advantages. You might like to search the accounts for Local government pension scheme and try and work out if that is also of some considerable advantage over the purely commercial cowboys

Another way at this subject is what would you expect an archaeological charity do?

[RedEarth]

quote:
if they were just doing it on research excavations I wouldn't have a problem at all. It just seems (to me at least) to make a total mockery of the 'polluter pays' and 'competitive' tendering principles.

It does strike me as a bit pointless evening having the IFA and attempting to improve the lot of archaeologists if organisations can use volunteers on commercial projects. There is no hope of anything changing if that carries on. I can't recall what the IFA policy on volunteers is but I'm sure someone out there will know. I am sick of being undercut by organisations that I know make use of volunteers in some way - I can't be certain they are use on commercial projects, but how difficult would it be for this to happen, especially with something like finds washing - 'While you're here you could just wash those other bags too'.

As for the tax issues may I rest my case?

[Unitof1]

In order for the charities to convince themselves that they are charities they have to have the occasional volunteer. Its part of their out reach educating the public pretence. You might lite to note that sometimes when they make a claim of volunteers in their accounts they might be refereeing to some members of their board of trustees. There a slight reference to that affect in the comments section of Profiling the Profession 2008 about some claims of volunteers being trustees.

I don’t really agree on your take on volunteers. I think that it is based around their use in undercutting site assistant types. If you imagine that you are an archaeologist that is in competition with other archaeologists, such as the charity mobs with all their tax exemptions, for work, that possibly volunteers are a great untapped resource. Theres no reason why whole sites cannot be dug with them.

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by Unitof1

In order for the charities to convince themselves that they are charities they have to have the occasional volunteer. Its part of their out reach educating the public pretence. You might lite to note that sometimes when they make a claim of volunteers in their accounts they might be refereeing to some members of their board of trustees. There a slight reference to that affect in the comments section of Profiling the Profession 2008 about some claims of volunteers being trustees.

I don’t really agree on your take on volunteers. I think that it is based around their use in undercutting site assistant types. If you imagine that you are an archaeologist that is in competition with other archaeologists, such as the charity mobs with all their tax exemptions, for work, that possibly volunteers are a great untapped resource. Theres no reason why whole sites cannot be dug with them.

Indeed, but I'm sure you could find volunteers that could pretty much do every job on site if you looked hard enough, which would basically result in unemployment for everyone apart from a few managers. I might be wrong, but that seems a bit like a step backwards...

[Unitof1]

It’s a step backwards if you think volunteers evolved from site assistants rather than site assistants evolved from volunteers.

As I said untapped resource. How about each site assistant has to bring their own volunteer or two, those with the most volunteers get the job..

[BAJR Host]

Ah, the old Norman way of Hidage... where a knightmust provide men based on the area of land

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by Unitof1

It’s a step backwards if you think volunteers evolved from site assistants rather than site assistants evolved from volunteers.

As I said untapped resource. How about each site assistant has to bring their own volunteer or two, those with the most volunteers get the job..

I don't think that, why would anyone? Oh, what's the use...

[BAJR Host]

You answered your own question there Red!

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[Noddy]

I wasn't just talking about the use of volunteers. I was talking about (what appears to me) subsidising commercial excavation with members of the public who are paying hundreds of pounds to take part. While I admit the outreach and educational aspect is good, and possibly part of the remit of their charitable status, how can other non-charitable units possibly compete with this in a competitive tendering situation? The only way (that I can see) is to make their tenders so low that their site staff are paid next to nothing and they have to reduce the quality of their work in order to stay within budget.