Agenda item
Mayoral Executive Decision Call-in: Decision Log No: 034 - "Community Chest and Community Events Fund 2012-14"
Minutes:
The Committee considered the report entitled “Community Chest and Community Events Fund 2012-14” as considered by the Mayor on Wednesday 19 June 2013 (Mayoral Executive Decision published on Thursday 20 June 2013) and which had been “Called In” by Councillors Peter Golds, Gloria Thienel, Dr Emma Jones, Tim Archer and Craig Aston.This was in accordance with the provisions of Part Four Sections 16 and 17 of the Council’s Constitution.
The Chair commented that the protocol for receipt of a “Call-In” specified a time-limited slot of up to one hour. Councillor Alibor Choudhury, as Cabinet Member with portfolio for this area of Council business, had to respond to the “Call-In” but would have to leave by 6 p.m. to attend another meeting.
The Chair explained the procedure for hearing a “Call-In” and invited Councillor Peter Golds, representing the Councillors “Calling-In” the Mayor’s decision to present the reasons for the “Call-In”.
Councillor Golds summarised the reasons for “calling in” the Mayoral Decision, outlining the key concerns of the “Call-in” Members, and setting out the action sought from the OSC to address these as follows:
· The latest round of Community Chest grants had been decided in secret and had not been made properly public.
· With reference to grant CE-52, Channel S Television Ltd., much was made about its founder and who was alleged to be still attached to the Channel. Councillor Golds reported that OfCom had made a judgment against Channel S and had stated that its operating licence would have been withdrawn had it not briefly been off the air while ownership had been handed over to another party.
· He reported that Channel S were alleged to have taken ownership of Poplar Town Hall at a value much below that which could be achieved if put on the open market with planning permission.
· The Mayor had authorised a grant of £5,000 to Channel S for an awards ceremony and dinner. He and the “Call-In” Members queried the grounds on which this money had been awarded to this organisation. They felt that the Mayor should take back the report for further consideration and that the grant to Channel S should be deleted.
Councillor Golds subsequently responded to questions from the OSC as follows:
· Funding of the grants process as a whole deserved scrutiny and many organisations looked as though they were connected to the present Administration. However, the Channel S grant should be examined specifically.
· The case for agreeing a grant for Channel S had not been well argued and other cases for similar amounts or less had been turned down.
Councillor Alibor Choudhury, Cabinet Member for Resources indicated that he would do his best to deal with any matters raised by the Committee. He responded to the concerns raised by the “Call-in” Members and subsequently responded to questions from the OSC summarised as follows:
· Responded to the points in the Call In requisition:
o Inadequate level of consultation and assessment with regard to certain applications. Councillor Choudhury recalled that the actual application and supporting information had been on the Council’s website for several months. Officers had always been on hand to provide advice and the assessment process for this small grant had been quite rigorous. Due diligence had been applied and the application was checked for eligibility. Officers had always been present during the process and the decisions of the Corporate Grants Programme Board had been recorded.
o The decision states that the project “represents benefits to a good cross section of the Tower Hamlets Community”. Responded that the grants process showed that events were being arranged by people representing various parts of the community and these should be brought together so that the Borough was seen as one community as a whole.
o There is a focus on providing money to media groups and organisations which should be independent and self-sufficient. Responded that this was just match-funding and was a small contribution for putting on such a beneficial show for the Borough.
o In view of the Ofcom judgement of January 21st regarding Channel S and Tower Hamlets, the awarding of a grant to Channel S for an awards ceremony is hardly of benefit to the wider Tower Hamlets community. Responded that the Ofcom judgement was not a factor in the grants assessment process.
· In a period when the Borough was having to reduce expenditure, why were Council Tax payers having to fund an awards dinner for the benefit of prominent members of the community and what benefits would this bring to ordinary people? Responded that, in the current economic times, people needed the chance to network and get together to build up the community.
· Concerning the decision process for awarding the following grants: Application CC116 was described as “muddled and confusing with no clear description of the benefits to the community”. However, a grant of £2,000 had been awarded. Application CC118 was a private venture and had not been awarded funding. Channel S was a private venture, so why had they been allocated funding – what process had been involved in this decision? Application CC135 related to an organisation that already received mainstream grants and S106 funding, so did not receive money. Were all organisations checked out about receiving other funds? Martin Ebbs, Interim Manager, Third Sector Team, responded that Officers’ recommendations had been as they stood and the Mayor in signing off grant funding had made statements regarding his own judgements about organisations. Limited companies would not be eligible for capacity building funding but the application from Channel S was for an award ceremony match-funded by other organisations such as the Canary Wharf Group, who were making awards to significant business people. He advised that all applications were checked for receipt of mainstream grants and other funding.
· The Chair asked if there was a written policy on allocations to the private and voluntary sectors and how this related if events were delivered by run-for-profit organisations. Councillor Choudhury responded that documentation could be circulated later and the Chair asked that this be made available to Members prior to the next Cabinet meeting.
· The Chair further asked about which specific organisations had been awarded grants based on the Mayor’s perceptions of community benefit that Officers had not perceived. Dave Clark, Acting Service Head, Resources, responded that he would provide Members with a reply and the Chair added that this should also be made available before the next Cabinet meeting.
· Councillor Choudhury asked whether, if an actual process were under discussion, it was normal to relate this mainly to one organisation. David Galpin, Head of Legal Services (Community), confirmed that this was within the Committee’s powers and it was appropriate for the Committee to question one element. The Chair added that earlier questions had led to the Committee looking into wider aspects of the process.
NOTE: At this point, Councillor Abdal Ullah, who had arrived late at the meeting, stated that he wished to declare personal interests with regard to grant CC-110, in that he was a resident of part of the Wapping Ward that had received benefits, and grant CE-52, as he had attended the event in his role of working in the media.
A discussion then followed which focused on the following points:-
· It was accepted that the Mayor could make decisions against Officer recommendations but there needed to be clear indications of where such decisions were taken and an explanation provided as to why such decisions were made. Members did not understand whether private sector organisations were eligible or not eligible and clarification was needed.
· Members expressed the view that the whole assessment process needed scrutiny from the aspect of ensuring due diligence was applied and that the Mayor’s decision-making was more transparent.
· A factor as to whether or not grant allocation was appropriate related to historical funding. Members felt that newer organisations were benefiting from funding whereas some more established organisations with positive track records were not.
· Other projects offering employment, etc., had been awarded less money while Channel S, a self-sufficient organisation, had been given £5,000. This called into question whether such allocations were proportionate and transparent.
In summarising, the Chair referred to the following paragraph in the Mayor’s decision statement:
“Although officers may come to the view that an application is poor and/or that it should not receive funding, there are from time to time cases where, when taking account of wider circumstances, projects are worth supporting in view of the perceived potential community benefits.”
The Chair added that Officers had agreed to provide details of which organisations had been included under that paragraph and concerns had been raised on the questions of:
· The eligibility of private and not-for-profit bodies, as in the case of Channel S, an event might have been not for profit but the organisation holding the event was private sector.
· What constituted local community organisations?
· The matter of transparency and due diligence in assessing grant applications and the perception that this had not been undertaken in a sufficiently open manner.
· The matter of organisations whose applications included information deemed poor by Officers but grant had still been awarded – details should be provided of where the Mayor had made a decision to go against officer advice and fund an organisation and what the rationale of the Mayor was in making this decision.
The Chair then Moved and it was:-
Resolved
To refer the decision of the Mayor outside Cabinet back to the Mayor for further consideration for the reasons detailed above;
Action by:
Alan Ingram (Senior Committee Officer, Democratic Services, CE’s)
Supporting documents:
-
Callin cover rept Mayor Decision Log No34 Ctty Chest v3 KB1107131557pm, item 6.1
PDF 75 KB
-
Call in Community Chest June 2013 JW2706131742pm, item 6.1
PDF 77 KB
-
Mayor's Exec Dec No0034 Comm Events&Chest, item 6.1
PDF 3 MB