Local Groups IN the YHA????
The debate about the relationship between Groups and YHA rages on with the groups (us) falling into two or three camps as usual!! Many seem to want to continue a relationship with YHA in which they can have, as regular and experienced hostellers, a say in the governance of YHA and would like to keep formal links with the “parent” body as they see it, with or without the name “YHA Local Group” involved. Others, maybe fewer, still see themselves a PART of YHA so agree with the above but even more strongly. some see themselves as independent, with some of the same aims as YHA (used to have?) but no interest in governance - although they do usually have an interest in countryside hostels and often, a specific hostel.
I firmly believe that the issue of groups’ names is a red herring and one which YHA’s Board are happy to let us faff about with. It doesn’t actually matter. What does matter is whether or not we, or some of us, want to, or are able to, come up to the standard required by charities legislation to remain PART of the YHA. The problem with the line taken at the AGM, which was successful in getting the board’s proposals defeated in the short term, is that in the long term it risks giving YHA what they want; i.e. proof from US that we’re NOT PART of YHA. IF we aren’t then they have what they want; they don’t have to do ANYTHING for us at all, much less help to support a liaison group, send mailings out or involve us directly (other than as any YHA member) in the “democratic process”.
It is therefore I believe vital that at least SOME groups can convince YHA that they have branch status so that they, i.e. the ones in my first two “types” above, remain PART of the association. It isn’t rocket science to consolidate one’s accounts, have a fixed year-end, etc., and some groups already do most of the things stated in the various papers to the AGM that Branch status requires. I would like us to refer back to the work done by Gail Turner and others on this issue as I believe she was following the best route for us and the YHA in pursuing Branch status for most groups.
This would give a status to our requests for a working group to oversee groups and help them, and hopefully to start up some replacements for the 40 or so that have demised since the end of the old H&LGC four years ago. It would also legitimise our requests for the conference and the directly elected representatives to the AGM to continue. If we’re NOT branches, then the alternative they have offered is that of simple customer, but with an annual event. YHA MAY choose to continue the limited support we currently get, but we can’t guarantee it.
If we’re branches then changes have to go to the AGM, or if approved by the board then they can be challenged at the AGM. The obvious solution is a two-tier system. Those groups that can, and want to, become branches and those that can’t and don’t become customers like my school or the local CTC D.A. The presumptive steering group that might be set up at the Coalport meeting by some combination of John Annett and Alan Summers, could choose to serve both sorts but democratic involvement AS A Group would vest in the Branches.
There will be a price to pay in terms of support from us to YHA, but shouldn’t we be doing that- many of us do already, by supporting hostel projects, and other forms of volunteering. A bit of local directed fundraising is NOT a lot to ask, in my view!! There may also be a more tangible and immediate price also in terms of a registration fee (maybe only for the “NON branches”, or those that want to continue to use “YHA” in their name?) … BUT this is a DETAIL. Hopefully any fees so collected will be used to support the groups through the new steering group, which after all will benefit YHA by helping Katy/Crewenna, recruiting more groups and therefore members, as it did in mine and Paul Madges’ day, and publicity.
Over to you……..
…. with apologies for not being at the meeting.
Robin Richardson
Ex chair H&LGC, ex “Group News” editor, vol. warden since 1984, hosteller with a group, school, family and individually, ex NEC member, ex Area Panel chair and conservation work organiser, Memb. Sec. Ipswich Outdoor Group (a YHA Local Group).
Related Pages
Powered by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
First things first, there’s no way any local YHA group can become a “branch” in the technical Charities Commission meaning of the term. The Statement of Recommened Accounting Practice (SORP) is perfectly clear:
Groups are not (b), and the only way they could become (a) is if they gave up going hostelling, doing social events, etc. and started running Youth Hostels. So there’s no way they can “come up to the standard required by charities legislation” to become branches.
Now, that doesn’t mean that groups could not (in theory) become re-absorbed into the body of the YHA. That’s how they operated for many years, and no doubt they could again, but what purpose would it serve?
The governance review document points out that the YHA’s governors (whatever form they take) are there to serve the interests of the charity’s beneficiaries, not the members still less parts of the YHA. We can represent them just as well, if not better, from our independent status.
The status quo represents the true situation: local groups are independent entities affiliated to the YHA. We’re not part of the association, subject to all sorts of rules and regulations from Matlock. I think our formal status should reflect that reality.
Comment by Chris Hunt — 21 Oct 2006 @ 11:49 pm