'Committee members' as trustees

Hi all,

I am interested in how other charities are run with regard to trustees and their role.

I am involved as a committee member of a charity (which consists of several choirs, learn to read music class, vocal technique classes). The constitution of the charity states that all committee members are trustees. There are about 15 committee members, with roles such as publicity, choir rep (several for various choirs), health and safety rep, as well as the typical chair, vice chair, secretary, treasurer.

All of the roles on the committee are voluntary, the only paid staff we have are the conductors/tutors and I think the administrator is paid a nominal sum.

I expressed concern about being a trustee when I joined last year (my role is choir rep and publicity - i.e. preparing posters for concerts). I was basically brushed off with... don't worry, we have indemnity insurance, everything is run fine... and I reluctantly agreed to become a trustee. While I don't believe that the charity is at risk of insolvency or run badly, I do feel that as a trustee I should have a duty of care to find out about the charity law with which we are required to comply, and understand more about the financial matters for which I share responsibility. And nothing is being put in my way to stop me doing any of this, however I don't have the time or inclination to do it. All I want to do is help with publicity, and fulfil the various activities required of a choir rep, such as keeping an attendance register for my choir, and it does not make sense to me that I should be required to become a trustee so that I can be involved in this way.

I have read 'Good Governance - a code for the Voluntary and Community Sector' (prepared by ACEVO), with which I am told that we comply, however I don't think we actually do. It is clear from reading the code that the trustees should have a role of strategic leadership, which is entirely different from the operational part of the organisation (although not to say that trustees can not also be part of the operational side). It seems to me that it should be likened to a board of a company, which oversees strategic and corporate matters, while the management and employees underneath get on with day-to-day matters.

I am also involved in another charity, which has been recently set up, and it follows the model that seems to make sense to me - i.e. a small group (5) of trustees who have strategic oversight of the charity, and another group (of which I am part, and including 2 of the trustees) who do the 'doing' - i.e. organising, fundraising, setting up Facebook, whatever else needs to be done. The person who set up the charity also runs his own company, so perhaps it is not suprizing that it has been set up in a way that reflects corporate-type governance structure.

These seem to me to be quite different ways to run things, however these two charities are my only experience of charities in the UK, so I am interested to find out other peoples experience and how other charities are run. Is it common for all members of the 'committee' to also be trustees? Or is this very unusual.

Any thoughts would be much appreciated.