Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from A Wray.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Central CEF Funding Sub-Committee held on 2 October 2019.

The Funding Sub-Committee considered the minutes of the meeting held on 2 October 2019.

RESOLVED:

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Funding Sub-Committee meeting held on 2 October 2019.

To consider funding applications received.

The Funding Sub-Committee considered the applications. The Chair advised the Board that the application from Age UK Selby would be considered first as the applicant had other commitments that evening and needed to leave by a certain time.

The application as set out in the agenda was for £4,494 for Age UK Selby for a Selby Bingo Group.

The Sub-Committee heard a short presentation from the applicant about the aims of the project. Circulated at the meeting by the applicant were revised figures for the project which had been recalculated since the original application was submitted; the amount being requested had increased from £4,494 to £4,904.

Members of the Funding Sub-Committee asked a number of questions in relation to the application relating to transport, accessibility, advertising, costs, other funding streams and costs per person. The applicant explained that the nominal amount to be charged per person would contribute to the sustainability for the group; if user numbers were high, the need for funding from other sources would be minimal. 

The applicants explained that organised transport by volunteer drivers to the sessions was being looked at, as there may be individuals outside of the immediate area, for example in surrounding villages, that wanted to attend and would otherwise find it difficult to get there. In terms of the venue, the Working Men’s Club in Selby, the Funding Sub-committee noted that the building was accessible and that no gaming licence was required.

The applicants explained that advertising for the events would take place on social media, on posters, through contacts and clients of Age UK, through word of mouth, the Age UK Selby website and newsletters. It was acknowledged that the travel expenses for volunteer drivers could vary, but it was anticipated that these could be accommodated.

The Funding Sub-Committee noted that once the sessions had started the applicants would further investigate other sources of funding, and that the exact amount to be charged per person for the sessions was still being worked out.

The Sub-Committee thanked the applicant for attending. The applicant left at this point.

The Sub-Committee discussed the application further and agreed that they were happy to support the application as it was an activity that people enjoyed and wanted, it addressed a need in terms of tackling loneliness and isolation, it showed working in partnership with other organisations (i.e. using the Working Men’s Club as a venue), and was a sustainable project due to the small fee charged to each attendee per session.

RESOLVED:

To recommend to the Partnership Board that the grant of £4,904 to Age UK Selby for the Selby Bingo Group be approved.

The application as set out in the agenda was for £4,430 for Selby District Disability Forum (SDDF) for the Central CEF Disability Positivity project.

The Sub-Committee heard a presentation from the applicants about the aims of the project.

Members of the Funding Sub-Committee asked a number of questions in relation to the application, particularly around the non-disclosure of some financial information relating to the finances of related projects and the SDDF. The applicants explained that some of the information pertained to the salaries of individuals working on other projects and as such they did not feel comfortable releasing this publicly.

The applicants explained that they were not a charity but a Community Interest Company (CIC) that employed self-employed contractors on different projects.

The Sub-Committee noted that in relation to funding received for the Disability Action Group projects from the Southern and Tadcaster and Villages CEFs, this money had lasted longer than expected, and had been stretched to last over the initial 12 month period, due to the meetings arranged as part of the projects moving to bi-monthly instead of monthly.

In relation to the proposed visits to schools detailed in the Disability Positivity project, the Sub-Committee explained that they would have expected such events to have all been of a similar cost, and that the time set aside for preparation as detailed in the application was excessive.

The applicants explained that the projects funded by the Southern and Tadcaster and Villages CEFS were different to the current application to Central CEF being discussed. They went on to say that as a result, the visits to schools and workshops proposed under the Disability Positivity project would be for different school groups and ages, and as such, the planning and content had to be different as it was tailored to each school year age and audience. The Sub-Committee were also asked to note by the applicants that the main SDDF committee was already based in Selby, and as such, a different approach was needed for the Central CEF area.

The Funding Sub-Committee were of the opinion that the mystery shopping element of the project that formed part of the application was already ‘up and running’ in the Central CEF area and would not require much more work. The applicants explained that there had been a pilot scheme but that there was more work to do with the shops and trades in the town around training to make them accessible.

The Sub-Committee also raised a query regarding a £330.00 deficit in the Southern CEF income and expenditure information, which the applicants could not explain without looking into this further.

The Funding Sub-Committee thanked the representatives from SDDF for attending. The applicants left at this point.

The Sub-Committee discussed the application further and agreed that they had some concerns about the applicants asking that some of the financial information was not disclosed publicly, and that the reasons given were not explained well enough; details about employees and salaries and general expenditure and income should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.2