Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Page 1 of 6
Chapter 3: Recent taking notes, while she stood nearby like a teacher scrutinising school-children at
history of the Trust, an exam. Under such circumstances mistakes were inevitable.
and Royal Charters
Chapter 4: Harvard In addition to this, the time available to view the documents was limited, and I was not surprised
business school and when I typed up the hand written notes to notice that repeated spelling errors were evident. I put
the Second
Supplementary this down to my bad spelling, which is a result of my leaving school at the age of 15 with nothing
Charter more than a leaving certificate to my name.
Chapter 5: Is
Pittencrieff Park The spelling errors in the draft charter surely could not have been down to the drafters—aided by
safe with a Trust the professional advice of highly educated lawyers whose knowledge I have since been advised by
that can’t spell it?
the Trust’s CEO was imparted to the trustees—could they?
Chapter 6: Reflection
on how the Trust has
Did the trustees see the supplemental terms?
failed Carnegie and
the people How could such spelling errors escape the scrutiny of the trustees if they considered the
supplemental terms in detail?
Chapter 7: Future
campaigns to oppose
commercial Pittencrieff—can’t even spell it.
development in the
When in November 2006 I purchased a copy of the Supplementary Charter from the Registers of
Glen.
Scotland I was astonished to see that the errors that I had perceived in the draft document were
Contact Form still in the final Charter! The Charter which begins by telling us how Elizabeth The Second
acknowledges that a “Humber Petition” (I am familiar with humble petitions but Humber is not a
Recent term that I am familiar with other than the Yorkshire river) has been presented and then goes on
Comments to detail the new terms of the Supplementary Charter which mentions the Glen specifically on 11
TheMill on Chapter 7: occasions.
Future campaigns to
oppose commercial
development in the On every occasion the Glen is given the title of “Pittencreiff”! Not once is the correct spelling of
Glen.
Pittencrieff used! This suggested to me that–contrary to the statements made by the Trust’s CEO–
john.lynne on Welcome
the draft and the final charter cannot have been, seen, checked, properly discussed or reviewed by
to Saveourglen.com
those tasked with stewarding the Glen for the people—the trustees.
jlowry on Chapter 7:
Future campaigns to
oppose commercial Trustees can’t talk—CEO can but doesn’t.
development in the
Glen. I had wished to discuss the process by which the terms of the Draft Supplementary Charter were
agreed, and perhaps develop this discourse further into the 6 references to the “core” Glen with
individual trustees—as the Chairman and C.E.O. refused to enter into any meaningful dialogue on
these matters—and as a first step had written to all of the trustees who had held office when the
draft document was approved.
I asked all trustees several simple questions regarding the process of determining the
supplemental terms. In doing so on a personal level I had hoped to strike up a dialogue with a
trustee. Unfortunately although I wrote to every trustee personally, at their home addresses—
including a first class stamped address envelope for reply—the replies I received to my letter were
identical letters on Trust letterhead paper signed by the trustee stating that the trustee was
http://www.saveourglen.com/?page_id=11 22/04/2008
» Chapter 5: Is Pittencrieff Park safe with a Trust that can’t spell it? Page 2 of 6
With control that would do credit to a Maoist dictator, the CEO apparently controlled the trustees
like glove puppets, and then, after promising via the trustees, to respond to my questions
regarding the process of changing the charter, she failed to do this in a satisfactory manner but
did complain that the trustees were upset that their privacy was invaded.
This mantra was in line with the statement of C.E.O. Nora Rundell who categorically told a
deputation from PPS that the changes were nothing more than “tweaking to bring them into line
with current legislation” and Angus Hogg who parroted this canard in press statements. Quite
simply such assertions are patently untrue, as can be seen by a comparison of the old and the new
charter terms.
The notice in the Edinburgh Gazette gave no details of the changes and the Introduction to the
2006 Report simply states: “During 2006 a supplementary Royal Charter to modernise the
statutory and management process of the Trust was granted by the Privy Council”
It seems to me that what follows in the seventeen pages that replace the original Charter repeat
and modify much of the Carnegie Dunfermline Trust but are silent on the terms of the Hero Fund
Trust. The very specific requirement that the Hero Fund Trust with its separate accounts and Fund,
which can only be spent in accordance with the very specific terms that relate to the award of
sums and pensions to heroes and their dependants would seem to have been deleted entirely. It
seems as if the Hero Fund Trust is being wound up to bail out the Dunfermline Trust and this would
seem to be borne out by the Audited Accounts for 2006 which state with regard to hero awards:
“no new cases were recognised during the year”! For the first time ever in the 98-year history of
the Hero Trust (during which period 4,439 heroes or on average 45 a year have been honoured)
no heroes have been recognised—where have all the heroes gone? Article 7 of the original Hero
Fund Trust made it clear that when the Sovereign awarded a medal for civil heroism the Trustees
had a duty to make immediate and careful enquiries into the circumstances of the recipient so
that they may be considered for recognition by the Hero Fund Trust. Are we to believe that HM The
http://www.saveourglen.com/?page_id=11 22/04/2008
» Chapter 5: Is Pittencrieff Park safe with a Trust that can’t spell it? Page 3 of 6
I am not saying that the Trust will never again honour a hero, but rather if they do then it will be
at their discretion and not as an obligation enshrined in the Trust deeds.
Link to Preamble of Supplementary Charter. After which are 5 new or amended Articles and
21 Clauses (only two of which refer to recent charity legislation), which effectively replace the
1919 Royal Charter.
The new terms in this clause have the effect of allowing the Trust to invite up to six trustees at
their discretion as long as they have “some connection with the town of Dunfermline” as opposed
to inviting them from Fife Council who in the past have chosen from councillors representing
Dunfermline district wards. This could see the Trust dispense with councillors and chose trustees
from members of the Dunfermline Abbey Church, Dunfermline Tennis and Bridge Club, etc; in fact
it could be considered that someone living in Timbuktu whose grandmother came from
Dunfermline would qualify under the new terms!
Link to Article 1“Page Third” of Supplementary Charter.
http://www.saveourglen.com/?page_id=11 22/04/2008
» Chapter 5: Is Pittencrieff Park safe with a Trust that can’t spell it? Page 4 of 6
I have tried to shame the Trust by sending copies of previous accounts prepared by their
predecessors which gave all manner of clear detail of transactions as opposed to the present terse
http://www.saveourglen.com/?page_id=11 22/04/2008
» Chapter 5: Is Pittencrieff Park safe with a Trust that can’t spell it? Page 5 of 6
and meaningless figures that accompany the annual report. The Trust hide behind the law in
stating that they are reporting in accordance with the legal requirements. This may be so but it
is not what Carnegie stipulated.
Tellingly there is no mention of any obligation to the public in this new clause.
Link to Article 4. “Page Sixteenth & Seventeenth” of Supplementary Charter.
Whether or not the misleading is deliberate is difficult to prove. Ms Rundell or Mr Hogg can hide
behind the drafter’s legalese, or their lack of personal knowledge of the supplemental terms, or
their interpretation of the original charter, but it is as sure as night follows day that the charter has
been changed in a manner that would allow sale or lease of parts of the Glen to a commercial
development not associated with the people’s leisure.
I am at a loss for words to describe just how plain it is for anyone to see the charter has been
changed in ways that are repugnant to the original trust deeds and letters and I am left to explain
it by an old Fife saying that my late mother-in-law often used. When something was patently
obvious she would say that a “bairn wi a biscuit erse would ken that” I can think of no better way
of putting it. For readers who are not from these parts the saying implies that even a young child
(one whose bottom is no larger than a tea biscuit) would be aware of the obvious.
I am at a loss to understand how Nora Rundell and Angus Hogg can say otherwise and invite
readers to study the terms of the old and new charters and make up their own minds.
Share This
Write a comment
Name:
E-mail:
Website:
Your comment:
Submit
http://www.saveourglen.com/?page_id=11 22/04/2008
» Chapter 5: Is Pittencrieff Park safe with a Trust that can’t spell it? Page 6 of 6
http://www.saveourglen.com/?page_id=11 22/04/2008