Howard Lake | 10 January 2012 | News FRSB invites charities and agencies to send in annual complaint return form Tagged with: Fundraising Standards Board Law / policy AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis 26 total views, 2 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. The Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB) is asking its member charities and fundraising agencies to complete and send in their annual complaint return form. This document summarises all their fundraising activity and any complaints received during 2011, and its submission is a core obligation of membership.Alistair McLean, Chief Executive of the FRSB, said: “Although we currently have a very high submission rate for complaint returns at 80%, we are determined to see that return level rise still further, enabling us to monitor both fundraising volumes and complaint levels as accurately as possible.”As part of this process, for the first time, from June 2012 the FRSB’s website www.givewithconfidence.org.uk will clearly show whether each member has filed its return.Photo: Alistair McLean, CEO of the FRSB by FRSB on flickr.comMcLean explained the move, saying:“By publicly acknowledging those members that have completed their returns we believe that we are giving others an extra spur to action ensuring greater transparency to the public.”He added that the form has been redesigned to be even easier to complete and that FRSB staff were on hand to help members complete their returns.The FRSB now has over 1,370 members signed up to self-regulation, so it is expecting to report both greater fundraising volumes and complaints than in previous years.Three core fundraising areas will be explored in detail by the FRSB; telephone fundraising, direct mail and data protection.As in 2011, fundraising academic Professor Adrian Sargeant will provide an analysis of complaint trends which will be published within the FRSB’s Annual Report in June 2012.The deadline for members to submit the annual return is 16 March 2012.The 2011 FRSB Annual report revealed that 18,442 complaints had been received by charities during 2010, with direct mail (addressed and unaddressed) accounting for 53% of all complaints, and with street fundraising attracting the highest proportion of complaints against volume of activity at 0.17%.www.frsb.org.uk
The German pensions industry has again voiced fears regarding the impact that IORP II, the revised directive on occupational pension schemes, will have on their business.Speaking at the Handelsblatt conference on occupational pensions, Georg Thurnes, a board member at Aon Hewitt Germany, asked Klaus Wiedner, head of the pensions and insurance department at the European Commission’s Internal Market and Services Directorate General, about one of the regulations appearing in a recently leaked draft of the new IORP directive.The regulation in question would prevent companies from running parts of the administration of their pension plans themselves.“This would be a major blow to company pension schemes, as, currently, the employer is often taking on administration and with it the costs of running the pension plan,” Thurnes said. Bernhard Wiesner, senior vice-president of pensions and related benefits at Bosch Group, agreed the regulation would “deal a blow to the heart of company pension plans”.Wiedner replied that there might actually be a conflict of interest if the risk management of a pension plan was run by the company’s treasury department, as employers want to keep contributions to the scheme low.“That is why we had the discussion whether or not this should be allowed,” he said.“Over the past few days, there have been a lot of debates regarding this, to assess whether it should be allowed in certain cases – but you will have to wait and see what Thursday brings [referring to the date scheduled for the release of the final version of the revised IORP II Directive].”Yet German industry representatives remain highly sceptical, with Wiesner even fearing “massive disadvantages” for German IORPs due to the new directive.Similarly, Gabriele Lösenkrug-Möller from the German Social Ministry promised that the government – “together with our European partners” – would do “everything possible” to prevent the directive from weakening occupational pensions.Another German fear is the perceived lack of understanding in Brussels regarding the socio-political status of German occupational pensions, as opposed to pure financial service providers.However, Wiedner stressed that, even if occupational pensions were rooted in a country’s social framework, they would require “a minimum of governance regulation”.He said EIOPA had “learned from the quantitative impact study” that, in some member states, “occupational pensions have governance problems”, without naming the member states.“Some member states withdrew their results to prevent them from being published because they were so bad,” he added.Therefore, EIOPA “will conduct further studies to better highlight problems”.Wiedner also noted that, while it had been a political decision to leave out capital requirements from IORP II for the time being, “EIOPA always was of the opinion that solvency regulations for occupational pensions is necessary”.
PECO lawyers,however, said this is not final since they have not received any such directive yet.“The order of the ERC regarding the alleged revocation of the PECO CPCN is notyet final and, in fact, has not been officially received by PECO,” Elamparorevealed. “Moreover, the order was premised on misrepresentations made byMORE,” she added.“We are hopeful that once we are able to apprise the ERC of the true situationthat’s happening on ground, ERC will not only reverse this order but would alsodeny the outright the application of MORE Power for a CPCN,” said Elamparo.Last week, MORE Power forcibly took over the substations of PECO on thestrength of a writ of possession issued by RTC Branch 23 and announced it hadfull control of the facilities. The presidingjudge also said she is still not sure about the capability of MORE Power tooperate the facilities and by returning the operations to PECO, the court isprotecting consumers from the possibility of power outages. “The decision ofthe Iloilo RTC to direct MORE Power to give back power distribution operationsto PECO is a crucial development because it proves that everything we have beensaying in the past few weeks is true,” said Atty. Estrella Elamparo, PECO legalcounsel.It was reported that MORE Power still has no standing Power Service Agreement(PSA) and the company is still using PECO’s contracts in doing powerdistribution, contrary to the claims of the untested power firm. During yesterday’shearing, a huge swarm of PECO supporters overwhelmed the Hall of Justice andwere allowed to pray while the proceedings were ongoing.In a related development, the ERC said it had revoked the CPCN of PECO. Pending therelease of MORE Power’s own Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity(CPCN) from the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), Presiding Judge EmeraldRequinto-Contreras ordered during a hearing yesterday to give back powerdistribution operations to PECO. PECO also claimedthat MORE Power has no CPCN, thus has no right to provide power distributionservices in Iloilo City despite holding a legislative franchise.Also, MORE Power does not have any power distribution facility in Iloilo Cityand does not have enough employees of its own to man the substations it tookover, according to PECO./PN ILOILO City – In alandmark decision, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23 directed MORE Electricand Power Corp. (MORE Power) to return the operations of substations and other powerdistribution utilities that it took over last week back to Panay Electric Co. (PECO). PECO contested thewrit, stating it is illegal as there is a pending petition in the Supreme Courtin relation to the constitutionality of MORE Power’s franchise and alluding toContreras’ bias in the expropriation case. MORE Power shouldfollow the RTC Branch 23-issued Addendum that states PECO personnel should bethe ones to operate the power distribution facilities and MORE Power employeesshould only observe as part of their immersion into the service, stressedContreras.