Some amount of increased risk-aversion is probably unavoidable here. One of the downsides of being an EVF project, vs. an independent organization, is that any Bad Stuff spills over into the rest of EVF and affects other projects. It’s easier to justify gambling, and allow project leads to gamble with less oversight, when only the gambling project is exposed to the risk.
I suspect that one of the things the Charity Commission may be concerned about is the difficulty of the Board maintaining effective oversight of a corporation with what sounds close to having a dozen direct-to-board reports prior to this change. The level of oversight over project leads was probably seen as insufficient in light of each lead’s ability to do things that significantly affected EVF UK as a whole.
I suspect that one of the things the Charity Commission may be concerned about is the difficulty of the Board maintaining effective oversight of a corporation with what sounds close to having a dozen direct-to-board reports prior to this change. The level of oversight over project leads was probably seen as insufficient in light of each lead’s ability to do things that significantly affected EVF UK as a whole.
This was also my guess, but it sounds so much more polite when worded as a hypothesis that the Charity Commission had rather than as a direct question.
Some amount of increased risk-aversion is probably unavoidable here. One of the downsides of being an EVF project, vs. an independent organization, is that any Bad Stuff spills over into the rest of EVF and affects other projects. It’s easier to justify gambling, and allow project leads to gamble with less oversight, when only the gambling project is exposed to the risk.
I suspect that one of the things the Charity Commission may be concerned about is the difficulty of the Board maintaining effective oversight of a corporation with what sounds close to having a dozen direct-to-board reports prior to this change. The level of oversight over project leads was probably seen as insufficient in light of each lead’s ability to do things that significantly affected EVF UK as a whole.
Edit: increased risk-aversion
This was also my guess, but it sounds so much more polite when worded as a hypothesis that the Charity Commission had rather than as a direct question.