Vanilla 1.1.6 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
-
- CommentAuthoramurray
- CommentTimeMay 3rd 2009
The present position is deep but not sudden. The management of the Trust have known the seriousness of the position for several years (at least 7) and have failed to take appropriate action. Three operational reviews and re-organisations have failed dismally and probably increased overheads. The management continued to fill postions in the face of the crisis and no doubt those who were employed are now likely to lose their jobs. The major issue with most properties is that they were inadequately endowed when "gifted" to the Trust - a sustainablity exercise to identify properties at risk was started but not completed 3 or 4 years ago. The expansion of the regional structure over the past decade was an unsustainable expense. Council have no say in what goes on. The management drive comes directly from the Chair person and her placements - not sure that anyone stands up to her. The time has come for a "back to basics" approach with new management. -
- CommentAuthorCWol
- CommentTimeMay 3rd 2009
The financial problems are clear, but it is far from clear that the answer is to axe well loved properties on the grounds that they are suddenly assessed as falling short of profitable. The one I know and love, Inveresk Garden, has run at a 'steady state' for many years without fear of closure. Surely it is poor management to have made no clear effort to identify problems or opportunities over previous years and try and improve things, rather than arbitrarily rule that it should be closed to meet a central office deficit.
For example, members and locals have now rallied round and proposed a fully costed busines plan for improving things at Inveresk. It would be very sad if the Trust management have their ears closed to constructive proposals that show it is no drain on their resources. -
- CommentAuthorgareth
- CommentTimeMay 4th 2009
I fully support this forum after bitter disappointment regarding the Trusts suggestion to close various sites.
Some questions that may be relevant are :
1. How many residential properties does the Trust hold ?
2.How many of those properties have been left vacant for 6 months?
3. How many of those properties have been left vacant for over 12 months?
Each of these properties could have been gaining revenue for the trust instead of sitting empty. -
- CommentAuthorRichardA
- CommentTimeMay 6th 2009
Friends of Barry Mill is campaigning to prevent the closure of our local NTS property. We have so far been unable to discover the criteria that were used to select the properties under threat, or the procedure followed to reach the decisions - all we have been told by NTS is that the Board has made the decision, which we knew anyway from reading the local press. Barry Mill has an annual operating deficit of under 30K, yet other properties making far bigger losses are not currently under threat. If the selection has been made on other than purely economic grounds, then what were they? -
- CommentAuthormargaret
- CommentTimeMay 21st 2009
The loss to the Trust of the Director of Conservation, who appears to have resigned because of frustration with the current leadership, cannot be underestimated. He is the ONLY member of senior management who has an understanding of, and a sympathy with, the conservation policies of the Trust. It seems that he, like others has been arguing that Trust management is approaching these problems with entirely the wrong attitude for some time now. Such arguments seem to have been totally ignored by the chairman and her associates. The lack of foresight and understanding shown by those who are currently pushing through cuts with little thought to the repercussions of their actions is breathtaking. Whoever heard of mothballing gardens? The new Chief Executive has little experience of an organisation of the size and complexity of the Trust and is therefore at the mercy of the Board whose members have shown little in the way of teeth when it comes to challenging the actions proposed by the Chairman and those who want to push through cuts at any cost. We all know that the Trust needs to do things better and to make savings, but if it does this by sacrificing conservation what is the point of the Trust at all? -
- CommentAuthortennand
- CommentTimeJun 28th 2009
Why did the previous CEO leave and was he part of the problem or part of the solution? -
- CommentAuthoramurray
- CommentTimeJul 8th 2009
I note that the proposer of the AGM resolution in the statement calls into question the competence of current post holders to carry forward the affairs of the Trust. I am not a regular reader of Private Eye but recently they stated that "Lesley Watt and Henk Berits were finance and marketing directors of Scotland's biggest ever dotcom flop Globalfarmers.com".
It is worth noting also that One of Henk's early actions at the Trust was to award the contract for the new Web site to a company which he had part owned - his name appeared on their web as an owner. It was quickly removed.
Both Lesley and Henk were Shonaig's appointments. I therefore support the question of competence in respect of at least three post holders
1 to 7 of 7