I’m glad someone else is going to take some flak for a post! In a previous post I did I mentioned that ethics (and morals, as they are inseperable from ethics) are behind charities – at least when they are first set up. Charities are set up to “help” people. The very word, “charity”, denotes giving to others to help them – morals and ethics underpin charities and give them their focus and drive. Very often, some charities become very big and they can lose touch with their initial ethics and morals that underpin them, they can become very business oriented because of the large sums of money involved and the wage bill becomes astronimical and they start to lose touch with the “grass roots” – and very often you will see other smaller charities grow as people turn to the more localised, personal, smaller charities. It’s difficult when you become a succesful charity and somehow you need to keep in touch with the people that you help and stay humble.
Having said all that, having one large organisation should have more clout, power and persuasion and so I would be concerned with Motability being broken up and of having more smaller “motabilities”. I am more for Motability being more representative. If you have a car on Motability then you are a member and as a member of a charity you should have some voting rights. I do not know the structure of Motability but they should have members participation in decisions and the direction and some form of annual voting for those members on key issues – maybe issues raised by members. So I would look for encouraging more member participation.
As a charity, Motability should always be looking at its spending and of justifying what it spends and why and this is why their should be some member input as its difficult to critique yourself.