Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Member:-

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee, Sub Committee, Panel or Forum;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  That it be noted that

(a)               the following personal interests were declared and that all Members remained in the room during the discussion and decision-making:

Councillor Nana Asante – stated that her involvement with the Voluntary and Community Sector Forum meant that she had a personal interest related to most of the organisations under consideration, particularly the following organisations: Harrow Association of Disabled People, Girlguiding Middlesex North West, Harrow Kuwaiti Community Association, Harrow MENCAP, Harrow Shopmobility, the Ignite Trust, London Kalibari, Somali Cultural and Educational Association, Soul Survivor Harrow

Councillor Chris Mote – St Luke’s Hospice, in that his sister carried out fundraising for them and Harrow Heritage Trust as his wife was a member of its board

Councillor Mrs Vina Mithani – in that she was a governor at Priestmead School and had attended events organised by London Kalibari

Councillor Bill Phillips – in that he was a member of the Harrow Association of Disabled People

Councillor Sasi Suresh – in that her husband was a governor atVaughan Primary School and she had attended events organised by London Kalibari

Marianne Locke – Watford FC Community Sports and Educational Trust in that in that she was a Council nominated member of the Management Board of Cedars Centre

(b)               the following prejudicial interest was declared and the adviser remained in the room during the discussion and decision-making on this item:

DevenPillay, Adviser – declared a prejudicial interest in that he was Chief Executive of Harrow MENCAP and a personal interest in that his involvement with the Voluntary and Community Sector Forum meant that he had a personal interest related to most of the organisations under consideration.

RESOLVED:  To appoint Councillor Mrs Vina Mithani as Vice-Chairman of the Grants Advisory Panel for the 2012/13 Municipal Year.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 March 2012 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 March 2012 be taken as read and signed as a correct record, subject to a minor amendment.Paragraph 7 on page 2 to read: ‘Deven Pillay, Adviser - Age UK, Bentley Priory Nature Reserve, Harrow in Europe, Harrow Indian Association and any organisation that was involved in the Voluntary and Community Sector Forum.’

To receive questions (if any) from local residents or organisations under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 51 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put, or petitions or deputations received.

Report of the Corporate Director Community Health and Well-Being.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director Community Health and Well-Being which provided an update on the process for managing grant appeals and finalising grant awards for the 2012/13 Main Grants Programme.

The Divisional Director of Community and Culture stated that 78 grant applications had been received by the deadline date of 28 November 2011 and the total funds requested amounted to over £1.5 million.  The Panel had made recommendations to Cabinet for funding successful grant applicants and the process for managing these.  These had been approved by Cabinet in March 2012.

Unsuccessful applicants had been invited to appeal their decision within seven working days of receipt of the outcome notification letter.  The appeals were determined by the Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services, the Divisional Director of Community and Culture in consultation with an independent adviser and in the presence of an independent observer nominated from the Harrow Voluntary and Community sector.  Ten appeals were lodged by the deadline date and were heard in camera.

As a result of the appeals process, the following five organisations were successful in meeting the scoring threshold agreed for grant funding:  Afghan Association Paiwand, Asperger’s Syndrome Access to Provision, Harrow Shopmobility, South Harrow Christian Fellowship and Special Connection.

The Divisional Director added that in 2012/13 a total of 42 organisations had been given grant funding, of which 20 were large grants and 22 were small grants.  In 2011/12 the figure had been 37 successful applications, of which 17 were large grants, 14 were medium grants and 6 were small grants.

She added that changes to the grants process in recent years following guidance from the Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services, the Grants Advisory Panel and the Internal Audit Review had resulted in a clearer and more robust process.

The Chairman of the Panel expressed her disappointment that the recommendation of the Panel arising out of its meeting of 1 March 2012 regarding conduct of the appeals had not been agreed and operated.  She added that the Panel was of the view that an open appeals process was preferable to one where meetings were held in camera and that Member involvement provided democratic accountability.

Panel Members queried why, in view of the fact that the grants process had been revised to make it more robust, there were discrepancies in scoring.  80% of those who appealed had their scores adjusted upwards on the basis of the appeals.  This gave rise to the question whether those with low scores in the initial application stage could have been successful in securing a grant had they appealed.

The adviser to the Panel stated that the feedback from the observer had been that the appeals process had been robust and consistent, however, the robustness of initial panel process itself is questionable as borne out by the outcome of the appeals.  He added that some learning points from the appeals process would have proved useful for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Report of the Corporate Director Community Health and Well-Being.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director Community Health and Well-Being which set out information regarding applications that had been made to the Council for Edward Harvist Trust (EHT) funding.

The Divisional Director of Community and Culture stated that EHT funds were administered by Harrow Council behalf of the Trust and that there was £24,237.64 currently available in the fund and the total amount requested by applicants to the fund amounted to £40,678.

An officer advised that the eligibility criteria for EHT stated that the maximum amount of grant funding that could be applied for was £1,500 and that this could only be used for capital costs and that that two quotes must be provided for any proposed purchase.  She added that 30 applications had been received, of which 9 fully met the eligibility criteria, however, a further 6 applications had queries against them as follows:

·                     Harrow MENCAP had only provided one quote stating that the items they wished to purchase were specialist and they had not been able to locate two suppliers;

·                     St Luke’s Hospice had provided two quotes, however, these were from the same supplier;

·                     Harrow Anti Racist Alliance had provided quotes which did not identify the supplier;

·                     Harrow Shopmobility and Soul Survivor Harrow’s applications included an element of funding to purchase software;

·                     a number of applications from local schools to purchase sports equipment had been submitted.  None of the schools had supplied the required background information.  The Children and Families department had confirmed that schools were not-for-profit organisations.

Panel Members made the following points:

·                     HM Treasury defined schools as statutory bodies and these were therefore not eligible to receive EHT funding.  EHT funding was aimed specifically at voluntary and community sector groups;

·                     Sandwell Local Authority’s website defined third sector groups as community and faith groups, tenants and housing associations, co-operatives, social enterprises, sports organisations, private clubs etc and schools did not easily fit into any of these categories;

·                     if groups found themselves unable to provide two quotes because their application related to specialist equipment, then it would be the responsibility of the group to flag this up in their application and provide relevant evidence for the purposes of transparency and auditing;

·                     the EHT application form made it clear that grants could be used for Capital spends only.  Software purchases constituted a revenue spend as defined by Community Accountancy Self Help (CASH).  The Panel had previously agreed to abide by CASH’s definition rather than the HMRC definition of Capital spend as set out in the report;

·                     residential trips overseas did not constitute a Capital spend;

·                     it was clear that St Luke’s Hospice had misunderstood the eligibility criteria, which stated that two quotes from two different suppliers should be provided. They had provided quotes for different types of equipment from the same supplier;

·                     groups should be reminded that the maximum amount of funding available per group was £1500 and that they would be expected to provide receipts as part of the monitoring process;

·                     response letters to each  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

To consider and confirm the Panel’s terms of reference.

The Panel considered its Terms of Reference.  The adviser to the Panel stated that his nomination by the Voluntary and Community Sector Forum, for a period of two years, and due to expire shortly.  However, the Forum had not yet sought nominations as it was awaiting clarification about the future role of the Panel.  He would continue in the position of adviser in the interim.

The Chairman of the Panel stated that the value of a Member led Panel was that it allowed for transparency in the grants process and public engagement in the form of public questions, petitions and deputations to the Panel.

RESOLVED: That the terms of reference be noted.