CHINESE mythology is not Badger’s forte. In his sett, Badger’s main concern with matters oriental is that his crispy hedgehog in bo’s’n sauce and worm Chow Mein are suitably yummy and come with a side order of prawn crackers. The legend of the money tree does, however, seem pertinent to the Local Health Board’s treatment of charitable funds raised for healthcare charities. You see readers, the coins on the money tree link paradise with a material bounty in this world. Paradise. readers. That’s what it is all about. In order to create an earthly paradise. the Health Board needs material bounty in excess of that provided by that loveable scallywag Mark Drakeford, whose world begins and ends in Cardiff Bay. And when it needs that material bounty it shakes the money tree and out the readies tumble.
twenty pence pieces and pound coins you give to local charities mount up over lime. The charities and appeals involved are above reproach in their conduct with your money. They have constitutions that set out how they are able to spend the money you donate to them. Let’s look at just one example. The Adam’s Bucketful of Hope Appeal. Registered Charity Number 1136641. its purposes, according to the Charity Commission website, are:

• Fundraising for additional facilities in proposed new cancer care day unit.
• Cancer support services to patients referred from local hospital.

• Distraction therapies including tranquillity room and pamper room. • Counselling venue and information centre also used by organisations. such as CRUSE, bereavement counselling, Pembs counselling services plus Pembs breast cancer support group. The Appeal has raised over half a million pounds to fulfil those purposes. Not Badger’s guess – he words of the Local Health Board who in 2010 wrote in a press release: “To date. almost £500,000 has been raised through the Bucketful of Hope Appeal and other donations to Ward 10 and the Chemotherapy Day Care Unit in readiness to fulfil Adam’s dream. “in a recent meeting between the charity members, the C h a irm an of the Board Chris Martin said that the Health Board is currently in discussions with clinical staff about the future of chemotherapy services and the chemotherapy day unit in Pembrokeshire.

“He said: “The Health Board will work closely with Adam’s Bucketful of Hope, and other fundraisers. to ensure that chemotherapy services are delivered in a modern day facility and that the funding which has been donated for this purpose will be used for the benefit of Pembrokeshire patients. Future proposals will be available by the early summer of next year and we look forward to working closely with the Bucketful of Hope appeal during that time.” “Adam’s mother Chris Evans-Thomas commented: “We did not envisage fundraising for this amount The Bucketful and the Board And what a lot of readies they are readers. All the f time and frustration was setting in, but to know that we will have a definite date for a new CDU by May 2011 is wonderful news!

It this means we can move forward with a real message of hope for the New Year!’ Almost four years have passed since that announcement. Where is the hope? More to the point, where is the money? The Health Board has callously claimed that the Bucketful of Hope Appeal has raised only £1 5,500 or so to the costs of a new Cancer Day Unit. Poppycock, readers! The Board are speaking out of an orifice that if spoken from would usually be subject to the sort of significant colorectal examination the Board could ill afford.

And the product of such speech reminds Badger of nothing so much as the fate of flatterers in Dante’s inferno. The Board is. however. not lying. It is, however, being very (very) economical with the truth. Bear with Badger readers and he will explain how and why he has reached that conclusion.
The money-go-round NHS charitable funds are organised into two types, like other charitable funds. Those funds are “Restricted” (which means that the funds can only be used for the specific purposes of the charity) and “Unrestricted” (which means that they can be used more broadly and at the discretion of the charity trustees). Under “Restricted Funds” are two sorts of other fund “Endowment” for example where someone donates the income from an asset for a specific purpose and “material funds, that is funds that can only be used for the purposes either specified by the donors or by the terms of the appeal which led to their donation.

Under “Unrestricted Funds” come “unrestricted funds” are those donated for a wider purpose and “designated funds’, which are set aside by the trustees for designated projects at their discretion. In the latter case the use of the funds to fulfil a purpose, such as building a new cancer day unit at Withybush, is entirely down to the trustees. So far readers. so dry. But what happens do you suppose when you give a Health Board the power to re-designate charitable funds? So that a Board can switch funds from restricted to unrestricted ones to suit itself? Well, readers what happened was this: In 2009/2010 the Health Board had £6.9 million in restricted funds. It had £13m in endowment funds and just under £5.4m in material funds. Remember readers that material funds can only be spent on the projects the donors direct. That is £5.4m that had to be spent on specific projects. And then POOP With a wave of a bean counter’s pencil some of it disappeared. Yes, in 2010/2011 there were only E1.5rn in material funds dedicated to the donors” intentions. £3.9m readers. £3.9 million went walkies out of a restricted material fund and became unrestricted for the trustees of the Board’s tame in-house charity to spend on whatever the Board wanted it spent on.
Why change?
Now the Board claims all this was all above board and all according to the law of the land. But was that accounting jiggery-pokery in the spirit of the law or in the spirit in which donations were made by Pembrokeshire residents to Pembrokeshire health causes for the benefit of Pembrokeshire residents? Or was it simply a cynical money grab to meet the agenda of a centralising Board. jealous of too much money being held in ways that meant the money was beyond its sticky mitts? Draw your own conclusions readers, pray do. Now from the above, certain issues