Chapter 6 of Save Our Glen website entitled Reflection on how the Trust has failed Carnegie and the...

8/14/2019 Chapter 6 of Save Our Glen website entitled Reflection on how the Trust has failed Carnegie and the people

1/7

Chapter 6: Reflection on how theTrust has failed Carnegie and thepeople

RecentCommentsTheMill on Chapter 7:Future campaigns tooppose commercialdevelopment in the

Glen.

ohn.lynne on Welcometo Saveourglen.com

lowry on Chapter 7:Future campaigns tooppose commercialdevelopment in theGlen.

Home

Chapter 1: AndrewCarnegie and TheGlen

Chapter 2: Earlyhistory of the Trust,the Deed and RoyalCharter

Chapter 3: Recent

history of the Trust,and Royal Charters

Chapter 4: Harvardbusiness school andthe SecondSupplementaryCharter

Chapter 5: IsPittencrieff Parksafe with a Trustthat cant spell it?

Chapter 6: Reflectionon how the Trust hasfailed Carnegie and

the people

Chapter 7: Futurecampaigns to opposecommercialdevelopment in theGlen.

Contact Form

Subpages for Chapter 6:

Reflection on how the

Trust has failed Carnegie

and the people:

From r iches to rags .

Most of us start out in life with very little and if we work hard in our lifetimeand

overcome the hard times such as loss of job, bad investments, or other

misfortuneswe will be fortunate enough to earn ourselves the rewards of a house,

a car or in some other way better our lot. The Trust is the opposite of this. Starting

off with great wealth the Trust was able to stave off the effects of the Great

Depression, Stock Market Crash and two World Wars only to plummet into penury in

the boom years of the late 60s early 70s.

Was Ca r neg ie st i ngy w i th h i s tow ns fo l k ?

On 4th September 2006 during the petition campaign opposing commercial development of the

Glen, the Chairman of the Trust, Angus Hogg stated, in a press release widely published, Anyone

who believes that a legacy made more than 100 years ago could sustain the park forever is clearly

mistaken. This remark suggests that Andrew Carnegie was mistaken in thinking that he had left

adequate funds to last 100 years or more, and because of this it was reasonable for the Trust to

take extraordinary measures (such as the commercial development of parts of the Glen) to

replenish the coffers.

I agree with a previous Chairman, William Dick who in 1953 described Carnegies generous gift

as a lavish benefaction and would argue that Andrew Carnegie was a most able judge in

monetary matters and he of all people fully understood the investment markets as being a perfect

vehicle to fund (from the dividends from investments) the charities he set up to do good works and

dispense charity. Mr Hogg appears to be at odds with Carnegie on the adequacy of the legacy left

to finance the Dunfermline & Hero Fund Trusts aims. That the legacy left by Carnegie was

adequate for over 70 years is self-evident, as is the failure of the Trust to honour its obligations

regarding the Glen since 1975. The reason why this is so, is certainly open to debate and is not as

black and white as Mr Hogg would have us believe.

Carneg ie s ghos t in t he Abbey churchyard .

William Hershaw, a local poet was commissioned by a dance group to compose a poem to mark the

900th Anniversary of Saint Margaret. Hershaw composed a piece called Voices 900 which

imagined a conversation with famous ghosts from Dunfermlines past in the Abbey graveyard. The

poem was withdrawn because of objections made by the Carnegie Dunfermline Trust to references

in the poem about Andrew Carnegie and the trustees. To develop Hershaws theme it might be

interesting to imagine Angus Hogg, who is the Session Clerk at Dunfermline Abbey meeting with

the ghost of Andrew Carnegie in the Abbey graveyard one moonlight night. What criticism of the

adequacy of the Dunfermline & Hero Fund Trust endowment would Angus Hogg level at Andrew

Carnegie? And what response would Mr Hogg get from the greatest philanthropist the world has

ever known?

Page 1 of 7 Chapter 6: Reflection on how the Trust has failed Carnegie and the people

23/04/2008http://www.saveourglen.com/?page_id=12


2/7

Perhaps something like this might have been heard:

Hogg: I say Carnegie old chap dont you think you were a bit light on the funds? $4 million in your

days is only worth somewhere in the region of $240 million today, and its difficult to spin this out,

what with the markets being fickle and all. You do know about the markets dont you Andrew?

Carnegie: F#8**#d !!%#***k**##!!, and explodes in a puff of smoke.

What w as Ca r neg ie th i nk ing o f?

Carnegie found that having a certain amount of money in investments on the stock market andbonds brought its own problems. He tried dispensing his money through various gifts, mostly in

the USA, but also here to the Dunfermline, UK, Universities, and Hero Fund Trusts. However, as

hard as he tried his wealth remained the same, as it continued to increase in value from profits at

a greater rate than he dispensed it. To solve the problem of his money growing faster than he

could give it away, Carnegie gave all his remaining wealth to the Carnegie Corporation of New

York in 1911.

Other Carneg ie Trus ts p rosper 100 years on .

I was interested to know if other Carnegie foundations have prospered over the years, so I e-

mailed the Carnegie Corporation of New York to ask how much they were left by Carnegie

(there are conflicting reports on the amount), how much they are now worth, and how much they

dispense in charity annually? The answers are interesting but at odds with Angus Hoggs financial

world view. The New York Corporation stated that they had started with $135 million in 1911 and

this had now grown to $2.2 billion. Their donations or grants to various bodies totalled $80million

during the fiscal year 2005-2006.

Fr om z e r o fo r the Ge r man H e r o to z e r o he r o m eda l s fo r th e D un fe r m l i ne H e r o Fund .

From the above it would appear that the New York Corporation is doing rather nicely, but are they

unique. I e-mailed the German Hero Fund which has recently reformed after being dormant since

the second world-war when Hitlers Nazi regime confiscated their funds and they seemed quite

optimistic despite the fact that we started with zero. The German Hero Fund Trust Chairmans

optimism is surprisingly refreshingwhen one considers his funds were wiped out and his country

recently bombed to ruinsand is in stark contrast to the pessimism of our Trust boss Hogg who

wails that we are all doomed due to the economic time bomb ticking under the Glen.

The German Hero Fund sought help from other Hero Funds including the Dunfermline in their

resurrection from the ashes, but apart from a donation from the Swiss Fund the other Hero Funds

could not help, and the German Hero Fund had to seek help from the Carnegie Corporation of New

York to allow it to reform and continue as before. And continue it has, awarding three medals for

heroism in 2006. The Dunfermline Hero Fund Trust in this period awarded zero medals.

Tr ust has fa i l ed bu t how and w h en?

We will never be able to say with certainty what cause the dramatic fall in the Trusts fortunes but

it is possible to trace when this took place, and illustrate with some examples how the Trust has

fallenif not answer the question why they fell/failed.

Pr oper ty , t he Ga la , and th e T i f f any w indow .

Perhaps the three most graphic examples of how the Trust has failed the people of Dunfermline are

their dealings in property, the annual Childrens Gala, and the Tiffany window. I have set out these

issues in order below:

Example 1, Property

: In 1953 the Trust owned over 500 acres of land including:

The 70-acre Glen.

2 playing fields, Venturefair, 8 acres and Pitreavie, 44 acres.

3 golf courses, Pitreavie, Canmore, and Pitfirrane 120 acres.

6 bowling clubs with greens at Townhill; Baldridgeburn; Kingseat; Nethertown; Rosyth, and

Headwell.

6 Institutes were built at the same locations as the bowling greens, plus another one the

Womens in Pilmuir Street (now Johnsons Night Club).

As well as these prestigious properties the Trust also had a wide variety of properties such as the




3/7

Pitfirrane House; Carnegie Hall; British Legion Club; Lauder Technical College (now Skibo Court),

Balleira (now Dunfermline Museum Viewfield Square); Ling House, Canmore Street; Carnegie

Centre, Pilmuir Street; Carnegie Clinic, Pilmuir Street, and Viewfield Manse (now accountants

offices Viewfield Square); to name but some.

Sec r ec y i s the no r m fo r t he T r us t w hen ques t i ons a r e ask ed .

What does the Trust own now? Good question to ask, but the Trust will not tell anyone who

asks, or at least they will not tell me. I have politely asked in connection with the accounts of2005 which show that the Trust had sold-off half of their heritable assets (buildings). The Trust

simply will not identify the individual buildings that they have sold or the price received. Instead

the accounts at page 14 simply give a sum of 450,000 representing the money received for the

sale of Investment heritable property.

The refusal of the Trust to clearly identify the nature of their transactions on their accounts is not

only breathtakingly arrogant but it appears that their actions are possibly in ignorance of, and

certainly at odds with, the terms of the original trust deed, which is part of the Royal Charter.

Tr ust s hou ld be open and t r ans pa r en t bu t a r e t he oppos ite .

Andrew Carnegie demanded absolute openness and transparency in accountancy. The terms of the

Royal Charter state that an abstract of the accounts: as audited shall be published for the

information of the public in one or more newspapers of Dunfermline and also that a full Report of

their proceedings be made and so published.This provision taken with the instruction to the

trustees by Carnegie that as it is the masses that you are to benefit, it follows you have to keep in

touch with them and must carry them with you is the very antithesis of the secretive practices of

the Trust.

The Trust may be satisfying the very minimum requirements of the law by publishing their

accounts in the terse format in which they do, but their paucity of detail is at odds with the wishes

of the founderwishes that were followed to the letter by previous trustees.

Tr ust had mor e opennes s 100 y ea r s ago than now .

Most commentators would have us believe that democracy is an ever improving process and the

rights of the citizens of Dunfermline wouldit could reasonably be expectedimprove accordingly.Wrong! When in 2006 I asked for and was refusedby Angus Hogg, Chairman of the Trustees

specific details of the sale of the properties which are only obliquely alluded to in the 2005

accounts, I asked him to reconsider his refusal and sent him copies of the accounts as published in

1918, and 1928. I did this for a good reason as these accounts contained very detailed

descriptions and values of all properties owned, leased-out, bought and sold. But what was good

enough for the citizen of Dunfermline in 1918 is a step too far for secretive trustees of the present

day. Mr Hogg refused to provide details of the 2005 property sales.

She r loc k H o lmes t y pe i nv est i ga t i on t o s ee w ha t happened to ou r p r ope r t y .

Faced with the absolute intransigence of the Trust I have resorted to searching the Registers of

Scotland to ascertain what was sold in 2005 and in other years and my findings are troubling. It is

possible, though time consuming, to establish that X was sold to Y for #000 on a certain date.

What is of more concern is the, sometimes low, price the properties were sold for. Of course there

might be a perfectly logical explanation for these knock down sales if the seller were flush with

funds, but this would appear not to be the case in this instance. I will have more to say about this

topic in later updates but would pose the question: why was it necessary for me to have to resort

to detective work to find out what was sold, to whom, and for how much?

The p r ope r ty po r t f o l i o has v an i s hed and w e a r e l e f t w i th th e r ump .

So of the 500 acres of land and numerous buildings owned by the Trust in 1953 there remain only

a few small houses and the 70-acre Glen. Andrew Carnegie did of course say that when

municipalities etc and the Trust will no doubt argue that this is what they have donehanded

over assets such as Pitreavie Playing Fields to the Council, which in the years after Carnegies

death did indeed assume responsibility for leisure and recreation of the people.

The tang led ta le o f P i t reav ie .

However if we take Pitreavie Playing Fields as an example of what has been handed on to the local




4/7

authority it does not bode well for the people of Dunfermline in future years.

The 42-acre site of Pitreavie Playing Fields complete with stadium, pavilion etc was gifted to Fife

County Council on very specific terms designed to ensure that the Trusts charter obligation that

the facility be to the benefit of the people of Dunfermline be protected. The Trust had a right of

reversion if these terms of the gift were not met.

In September 2001 Fife Council leased the Pitreavie Playing Fields for 60-years to Vida Sports, a

company belonging to Carnegie Sport & Hospitality Ltd, part of the Murray International Group.

The site was leased for a peppercorn rent of 10,000 a year or 238 per acre per annum. In

August 2002 the Trust granted a Minute of Waiver which apparently transferred the right of

reversion to Fife Council.

Despite its long-term legal commitment, two years later Vida Sportswhich had another dozen

long term leases with similar playing fields owned by other councilssold out for 30 million to a

management buy-out financed by a subsidiary of Guernsey based venture capitalists Alchemy

Partners in 2003. The management buy-out was not successful and in 2005 Vida was put into

administration and the playing fields lease has since been assigned to Powerleague Fives Ltd in

May 2005, who in turn assigned the lease to Dunfermline Athletic FC Ltd. in September 2006,

since when the lease has been sub let to The Pars Trust.

I was concerned that what started out, and for 40-years under the Trust was a facility for the

benefit of the people of Dunfermline, is being used as a cash-cow and being sold on with alarming

regularity. It must be the case that at some stage in the future there is a possibility that the

ownership of what was once a public asset and arguably a common good asset will be lost in the

mist of time and the fog of changing stewardship. I can also envisage a company running the

playing fields pleading poverty and trying to develop a part of the facility, in much the same way

that the Trust have tried to do with the Glen.

Cal ls fo r reassurances on Pi t reav ie fa l l o n deaf ears .

I raised my concerns regarding the status of Pitreavie with the Fife Council and I also raised my

concerns with the Trust that Fife Council might be in breach of the terms of the Trusts gift which

could trigger reversion of ownership to the Trust. I was given a convoluted answer as might beexpected from Fife Councils lawyers but was also given a less than reassuring answer from

the Trusts CEO who in answer to my concerns about Pitreavie being taken out of public

ownership simply stated that she was concerned about this too, as she is not sure of where the

Trust stand in what is a very complex matter! Hardly reassuring and surely not what Carnegie had

in mind.

Get t i ng i n fo r m a t i on f r om the T r us t i s li k e w r est l i ng s mok e .

At an early stage in my involvement with the Trust I asked to sit in as an observer at their

meetings and/or have sight of the minutes of these meetings. These requests were refused by the

Trust. Angus Hogg does not hide the fact that he considers consultation with the public a nuisance.

Mr Hogg has stated on more than one occasion that the Trust have conducted their business

successfully, and in private for more than 100-years, and will continue to do so. If the former

were true then the latter might be acceptable, but when it is self-evident that the trust has failed

Carnegie and the people, they cannot expect privacy in their dealing especially since the ratepayer

is keeping them afloat.

Hard questions must be asked about the Trusts dealings (especially with regard to disposals of

property) even if the answers to the questions are the non-answers that are the stock in trade of

the Trust. The obfuscation and delay by the Trust in dealing with genuine enquiries from members

of the public must be recorder for future reference.

T ime fo r th e T r ust t o c ome c lean on p r ope r t i es .

The Trust has certainly not safeguarded the publics access to those amenities that were handed

over to the municipality (Dunfermline, Burgh, Fife District then Fife Council) in accordance with the

founders wishes. Many of the jewels in the Trusts crown appear to be remote from the ordinary

citizen of Dunfermline. Golf Courses such as Pitfirrane, which the Trust had on feu-lease, but which

now apparently belongs to the Trustees of the Golf Club; playing fields like Pitreavie and




5/7

Venturefair and sites of bowling clubs and institutes have ownership that is less than clear. Is this

how Carnegie saw the peoples assets being stewarded? I think not and I think that it is time for

the Trust to explain their actions instead of hiding behind a set of meaningless figures in an Annual

Report which is little less than a blanket of secrecy.

Example 2 the annual childrens Gala:

The Ch i ld ren s Ga la was o f p r im e imp or t ance to Carneg ie .

The first childrens Gala was held in the Glen in 1904. It was the idea of Mrs Louise Carnegie who

paid for it. The first Chairman of the Trust, Dr John Ross spoke to the first meeting of the trustees

the following week in glowing praise of the Gala. Dr Ross said:The experience of Friday last

when all the children of the town through the kindness of Mrs Carnegie, enjoyed a holiday fraught

with unalloyed pleasure, suggests the propriety of making such a holiday an annual occurrence. It

seemed an excellent institution for creating local patriotism and generating fond associations for

the youths referred to by the Truster, who may subsequently roam in other lands.Andrew

Carnegie in 1915 writing his autobiography stated how this yearly gala day was evidence that

no public park was ever dearer to the people.

This annual event was organised, funded and celebrated by the Trust for many years after

Carnegie wrote those words. In 1952 the Trust considered the childrens Gala Day so important

that it spent almost 1300 on it (29,614 in todays terms). This was quite a sum considering that

the total annual charitable grants made for that year amounted to 1,395. So the childrens Gala

was considered to be as important as all of the other grants put together for that year, and

represented a sum that was more than 10% of the total cost of the upkeep of the Glen (12,592).

Trus t s igna ls a change in p r io r i t ies w i th t he Ga la .

In 1965, 50-years after Carnegie wrote the above words in his biography the Trust stated via the

Dunfermline Press that times were hard and they would not continue to fund the Gala over the

amount that it cost in that year (1,000). In a classical piece of revisionism to meet their own

agenda the Trust decided that the Gala was no longer the out-standing attraction to primary

school children that it used to be, and consequently the Trust would be taking a very much

diminished responsibility for its future organisation.

Forty-two years on the Gala is as popular as ever with the children, and one marvels at how out-

of-touch the trustees were in 1965. The Trust in their wisdom had decided that primary-school

children no longer enjoy the simple pleasures of marching with their flags to the Glen to enjoy a

day of play with their friends. In determining what the children of the 60s liked or otherwise, the

trustees of the day displayed breathtaking arrogance, and their judgement was patently flawed,

but are the present-day members of the Trust any more attuned to the needs of the people? When

one considers the Gala it would appear not. The Trust now has no organisational responsibility for

the ever-popular event and contributes various amounts annually but normally in the region of

2,000. The bulk of the funds now come from sponsors, how long before a McDonalds Gala.

Time to ge t back to bas ics ?

The contribution that the Trust makes to the Gala is a small one when considering what it can

afford to give to other more exclusive organisations and events. 10,000 for the Dunfermline Lawn

Tennis and Bridge Club, 27,000 towards the Carnegie Medal for Philanthropy reception at the

Scottish Parliament, etc. etc. This to my mind is contrary to the charter that governs the Trusts

activities. It was made clear in the 1903 letter, the minute of the Inaugural meeting of the Trust,

and other documentation that the first priorities for the trustees were the Glen and the Gala for the

ordinary citizen. Now the Trust have abandoned the childrens Gala and the trustees are more

likely to be found wooing the movers and shakers of the charity world than be seen in the

company of Jock Tamsons bairns in the Glen on Gala day.

Pandering to the elite was not on Carnegies radar and nor should it be on the Trusts. It is time

the Trust dispensed with their support of elite causes and got back to basics. Of course any move

by members of the public to force the Trust to stick to the original terms of the charter, which

stipulate that the Glen is the first priority, will now be faced with supplemental Royal Charter terms

of 2006, which in effect have ditched all of Andrew Carnegies clearly expressed wishes!

Example 3 the Tiffany window:




6/7

The Tiffany window was left to the Trust by Andrew Carnegie, with instructions that it be placed in

the Dunfermline Abbey as a memorial to his parents. H.M. Commission for Ancient Monuments

however found the windowwhich was not overtly religious as was the fashionunsuitable for

placement in the Abbey and the window lay unused for some time before being installed in the

Carnegie Hall which the Trust built and opened in 1937.

The Tiffany window was in the Carnegie Hall for many years and was in the hall when in 1963 it

was gifted to the Burgh Council. In 1992 it was re-sited to form the centrepiece of the TiffanyLounge in the Carnegie Hall, and as such was widely admired.

The Tiffany Lounge is currently undergoing restoration, and the window was removed for safety

reasons. I recently made enquiries of the Fife council as to the omission of the Tiffany window from

their list of common good assets. For once the response from the council was prompt and

unambiguous and I was advised by a council lawyer, Andrew Ferguson that the window was indeed

owned by the council and was part of a heritable asset. Mr Ferguson stated with regard to the

window: The Tiffany Window will form part of the heritable asset known as Carnegie Hall as it is

part of the fabric of that asset.

I enquired where I might view the window and on 18th September 2007, Fife Councils Business

Manager, in answer to my enquiry advised me that the window was undergoing restoration and

she would check and get back to me. Then on 25th October 2007 Fife Council advised me that the

window is no t ow ned by th e Counc i l , and appears to be owned by the Trust. [emphasis added]

W e w a n t o u r w i n d o w b a ck f o r o u r n e w H Q.

The Trust in what can only be described as a piece of breathtaking arrogance and elitism are

claiming legal ownership of a part of a gift that was made over 40 years ago. The window is indeed

a unique piece of artwork, but how can it be right that for 70-years the window was placed in the

public Carnegie Hall, but now that the Trust are having a private new HQ built in the Glen they

want this exclusive artwork to adorn their building? In doing so the Trust will deprive the general

publicwho have enjoyed this artwork for 70 yearsof sight of their much loved heirloom. Would

Carnegie have approved of his elitist trustees?

To summarise I have given some examples of how the Trust has failed Carnegie and failed thepeople, the question now is what can be done about it?

Home Chapter 5 Chapter 7Share This

Edit this page

Write a comment

Name:

E-mail:

Website:

Your comment:

Submit




7/7

2008 | Powered by WordPress | Contact Form | Logout

Theme design by Andreas Viklund and web hosting sources


Chapter 6 of Save Our Glen website entitled Reflection on how the Trust has failed Carnegie and the...

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 6 of Save Our Glen website entitled Reflection on how the Trust has failed Carnegie and the...