The Government have recently passed laws in the UK (applicable to England and Wales) to make charities and other not for profit organisations pay for a licence when they play recorded music in their own premises – such as for fundraising discos. Even school Christmas concerts need to be licensed. This new licensing system, which is due to come into force in April 2010, will cost the voluntary and community sector up-to £20 million.
The main points to remember about the new legislation are:
School performances open to friends and family are licensable – they count as public performances.
The rationale is to prevent noise, crime and disorder, to ensure public safety, and the protection of children from harm.
For the first time, private performances raising money for charity are licensable.
The unlicensed provision of even one musician is a potential criminal offence (although some places are exempt, including places of public religious worship, royal palaces and moving vehicles)
Broadcast entertainment, including sport and music, is exempt – no matter where, and no matter how powerfully amplified
Maximum penalty: £20,000 fine and six months in prison.
A Temporary Event Notice (in effect a temporary entertainment licence) is required but only 12 are allowed per premises per year. They will cost £21 each.
The Professional Associations Research Network (PARN) is dedicated to the development of the professions, increasing understanding and raising awareness of issues relating to professionals, professionalism, and professional bodies through research and networking. PARN’s work focuses on ethics and standards, CPD, governance, member relations and internationalisation.
In PARN’s International Benchmarking Survey 2009 all professional associations who participated said that a statutory requirement to be a member would increase membership !!!
However, as debate about what it means to be a professional in the 21st century and how access to the professions might be made ‘fairer’ continues, PARN’s ‘Why Join a Professional Body?’ research explores the expectations of professionals and the strategies that help professional associations to position themselves as essential to both professionals and their employers.
The 2010 research will analyse what successful professional bodies are doing to retain and increase their membership and how you can learn from their experiences. It will investigate interesting practice around their ability to persuade employers and professionals to recognise the benefits of membership and demonstrate how you can adapt it to your organisation.
The research will culminate in a final written report including in-depth case studies of successful professional associations, and an analysis of the different strategies professional bodies use to attract members and an evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses.
Research Project Leader Sarah Ellis stated, “PARN is very excited to be carrying out this research. We think understanding why professionals choose to join a professional body when there is no compulsion to do so will help us and our members understand essential aspects of both recruiting and retaining members.”
This project will run until November 2010, and professional associations are invited to sign up as research participants. Anyone interested in learning more about this project should contact Sarah Ellis at email@example.com or 0117 929 4515
In these challenging times, trade and membership organisations are under intense pressure to provide high return on investment on services and events to their members. The conference will demonstrate how to maintain and grow your membership base and revenues and maintain relevance in the face of increasing commercial pressures.
Damian Hutt, Executive Director of Association Resource, said “We are pleased once again to have such widespread industry support – it has enabled us to produce a comprehensive educational programme for each of the specialists within associations.“
The organisers are conducting their fourth annual associations survey, and would value your input and opinions. The survey feeds into the ‘Annual Associations Report 2010’ as well as feeding topics to be addressed at the Association Congress 2010.
If you complete the survey you will be provided with a reduced rate to attend the congress and sent a copy of the full annual report. The survey has been kept short, and should take about 5-10 minutes to complete.
For more details and to register for the event click here
A number of prominent companies have formed a steering committee to be responsible for establishing the Association. The Chairman of the Steering Committee, Ian Gerrard, the Director of Gerrard International Ltd, the UK’s leading Beauty Sales and Marketing company and Dean Nathanson (Deputy Chairman), Managing Director of CACI International, the largest U.K manufacturer and supplier of specialist electro therapy beauty equipment, have initiated the formation.
Ian Gerrard said, “For many years the companies running our trade magazines and trade events have been solely focused on maximising their own profits rather than listening to the wishes of the companies supplying the professional beauty industry. They have not stopped to consider how their actions and pricing policies might adversely affect the long term future of our industry.
It has become clear in the last few years that the quality of service these companies are providing does not come close to the levels that they should be delivering.
The increasing number of trade magazines and trade events has lead to a market dilution and decreasing returns on investment. Collective agreement as to the key publications and events to support will thereby enable us to maximise our return on investment”.
Amusingly, a short article in a recent edition of Professional Beauty picked the bones from the press release but failed to mention the Steering Committee Chair’s tirade against the media, making the piece something of a non-event!
For more details of the association click here
An agenda for Gift Aid reform will be in place by September and will be followed by an announcement in the 2011 Budget, charity representatives were told at a meeting on 9th June.
The timetable was laid out at a meeting of the Gift Aid Forum, a discussion group involving charity umbrella bodies and the Treasury.
The forum, meeting for the first time since the election, confirmed that the coalition government would stick to the timetable originally laid out by the Labour administration.
The meeting was attended by Justine Greening, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and Nick Hurd, the Minister for Civil Society, as well as about 30 civil servants and charity representatives.
Greening promised an open-minded hearing for all charity views on Gift Aid.
“I am keen to hear your views about both fundamental policy change and more practical process change. I hope that by working together we will find practical and sector-led solutions that work for charities and for government in these challenging times” she said at the meeting.
What was wrong with the old legislation? Following agreement by both Houses on the text of the Bill it received Royal Assent on 8 April. The Bill is now an Act of Parliament (i.e law), although not expected to be in operation until Autumn 2010.
The new Act replaces old and fragmented legislation with a modern and consolidated bribery law, based on the recommendations of the Law Commission. Individuals convicted under the new legislation may face an unlimited fine and/or imprisonment whilst businesses face unlimited fines.
There are four basic offences identified by the new Act.
* active bribery (an individual or company bribing someone)
* passive bribery (being bribed)
* bribery of a foreign public official
* corporate failure to prevent bribery
The final option is possibly the most controversial as an individual, “associated” with a company, could offer a bribe to secure or retain business without the knowledge of the company. The definition of “associated” is wide enough to guarantee insomnia for your Chairman! Indeed the organisation does not need to be aware of the activities to be found guilty because failure to prove adequate procedures are in place would be sufficient to secure a conviction.
“Commercial organisations” covered by the legislation include any body incorporated (or partnership formed) under UK law which carries on as a business together with any other corporate body or partnership (wherever incorporated) which carries on business in the UK – like a trade association, for instance.
There are perceived to be three principal defence strategies:
* necessary to the efficacy of the intelligence services (can’t see that one applying to too many defendants!)
* where the potentially corrupt act is authorised in writing by some other legislation, possibly abroad
* the ‘adequate procedures’ defence – if you show you had adequate anti-corruption procedures in place to prevent bribery at the time an offence was committed, that is sufficient defence to an allegation of failure to prevent an act of bribery.
Looking at the alternative defences, it would seem prudent for any organisation to develop its anti-bribery policy document straight away – and before it is needed!
It has been reported by the Norweigan International law Office that the Oslo District Court passed a judgment last month upholding a Competition Authority administrative fine of NKr400,000 (approximately €50,000) against a trade association for bus charter operators. The district court also decided to apply the penal burden of proof for administrative fines.
The trade association for bus charter operators was accused of encouraging members to increase their prices through a membership newsletter and at a trade association meeting. The trade association had also prepared and distributed a model for calculating prices for bus chartering services. Certain elements of the model were filled out in advance, such as the price per kilometre and the prices for waiting periods, overnight services and daily driver allowances.
The fine equates to double the annual turnover of the trade association, which was partly run in some members’ spare time.
The trade association tried, without success, to argue that the statements and actions in question represented private opinions and actions of its chairman and the editor of its newsletter, and were not put forward on behalf of the trade association. It further argued that any restriction on competition had no appreciable effect, as the members of the trade association had a market share on a national basis of as little as 4% (although in some regions of Norway their market share was as high as 20%). This line of argument was rejected by the court, which described the matter as a serious infringement of competition law and refused to apply the notice on agreements of major importance to the case, referring to the fact that the measures in question had as their object the reduction of price competition in the market.
Having been forced to see sense, the BBA has dropped its attempts to defend the indefensible, the mass mis-selling of payment protection insurance. But it has been forced into that decision after one of its biggest members, Lloyds Banking Group, unilaterally decided to declare a fair cop and pay compensation.
That was last week and Lloyds has now been followed by Barclays, HSBC and RBS. When your own members pull the rug from under you that’s a pretty clear sign all is not well between a trade association and its members.
The machinations of an industry’s trade body would not normally deserve much attention. But as the country’s leading industry, it’s odd that banking doesn’t have a more effective trade body. And as the country’s richest and most powerful industry it ought to have a trade body of equivalent influence.
Ultimately it’s a matter of shareholder value because the industry’s mishandling of its own political and regulatory relationships has contributed to a regime that has become materially less friendly towards banks than our main competitors, the US and Europe.
The BBA’s credibility is also called into question over its involvement with the setting of Libor, a key market interest rate which is currently under regulatory scrutiny.
We currently have 2 vacancies at this time.
The role: Events organiser
Part-Time (c20-25 hours)
Holidays: 28 days pro rata
The role is suitable for a person with initiative, a methodical approach, good organisational skills and event organising experience.
1. Identify speakers for CPD events
2. Liaise with speakers for CPD events, conferences and seminars
4. Produce marketing material and send out to members to maximise attendance at events
5. Monitor bookings and provide attendees with appropriate information
6. Create delegate folders/packs for each event
7. Update event information on clients websites
Click here for the full specification.
The role: Finance Administrator/Bookkeeper
Part-Time (c20-25 hours)
Based in Ware, Hertfordshire
£15,600 pro-rata (£8 per hour)
Holidays: 28 days pro rata
The role is suitable for a person with initiative, a methodical approach, good organisational skills and accounts experience.
1. Supporting other members of the team.
2. Administrative duties including data input, data collation, filing, and photo copying.
3. Data input to include the registration of purchase invoices on Sage Line 50 accounting system and the posting of all cash receipts.
4. Any other work required and as directed within the confines of the grading of the post.
Click here for the full specification.
If neither of these positions are suitable for you, please feel free to email us your CV for other vacancies with us in the future or for our clients in the not for profit sector.
York Trading Standards claimed that Pearce’s firm used quotation forms bearing the logo of the National Association Of Professional Inspectors and Testers (NAPIT) and used a trust mark linked to the same organisation. Pearce also displayed the logo inappropriately on his firm’s website.
In his defence, Pearce claimed he had not run a business previously and obtained help from someone else in the same occupation. This third party had given him quotation and invoice forms he had copied. He had not realised that his website could be accessed by the public!
This is clearly a serious matter for all trade associations where its members are offering services to the wider public where non-members can piggy-back on the Associations good quality guides and codes of conduct without actually signing up to them themselves. It is important for trade associations to be aware of situations of this nature but not just with organisations purporting to be members but with lapsed members continuing to use the trade association logo, trust marks etc once they have withdrawn from membership.