No:

Item:

Initials:

Present:

Committee:

Liz Le Poidevin - Chairperson

Simon Larbalestier - Honorary Secretary

Marie du Feu - Treasurer

Ivo Le Maistre-Smith – Deputy Chair

In Attendance:

Lyn Wilton - Administrative Officer

Charlotte Brambilla – Grants Officer

Kate Griffiths – Development Officer

Harry McRandle – Officer elect Committee nominated

Tim Rogers – Officer elect member nominated

Richard Joualt – Director, States of Jersey Dept for Community and Constitutional Affairs

The membership

Apologies

Andrew Pinel - Committee Officer

Lynsey Mallinson – Publicity Officer

ELP

SL

MdF

IMS

LW

CB

KG

HMR

TR

RJ

1.

Welcome and apologies

The Chairman welcomed the members to the meeting.

2.

To approve the minutes of the 46^th Annual General Meeting held on 13^th July 2017.

Approved and seconded

3.

To receive the annual report from the Chairman

The Chairperson read the report to Members (see attached copy)

4.

To receive the annual report from the Treasurer and presentation of the audited accounts for the year ended 31^st March 2018

A copy of the audited financial statements had been made available to members via the website prior to the meeting.  The Treasurer presented the financial highlights report, a copy of which is attached to and forms part of these minutes

The Treasurer then explained the background to the proposal on the utilisation of accumulated reserves and the adoption of two new amendments to the policy on grants:

1. To allow members to make a single application for a grant of up to £30,000 p.a. for three consecutive years; and
2. To create a small grants fund financed from reserves and only accessible to small charities with a simplified application process. 

She then outlined some of the controls which the Committee envisaged applying if the proposals were approved.  The full text of her presentation is attached and forms part of the minutes.

Following a question from a Member [Richard?], the Treasurer confirmed that no applicants had been received to-date by the Committee for a grant from the non-member fund.

Adoption of the financial statements was proposed by Ray Cooper and seconded by Chris Renouf and approved unanimously.

5.

To reappoint the auditors, Bracken Rothwell

The re-appointment of the present auditors was proposed and seconded.

6.

Election of Officers:

The Committee nominated the following persons for the posts below:

a) Liz Le Poidevin, for the position of Chairman

b) Ivo Le Maistre Smith for the position of Deputy Chairman

c) Marie du Feu for the position of Treasurer

d) Simon Larbalestier for the position of Honorary Secretary

e) Lynsey Mallinson for the position of Publicity Officer

f) Harry McRandle as an additional officer

g) Allana Binnie as an additional officer

In addition, Tim Rogers was nominated by the Members to be a Committee Officer.

Before a vote was taken on the above nominations, Harry McRandle and Tim Rogers were asked to leave the room for the period of the vote.

A vote was taken on the above nominations and each was approved by the members present.

7.

To consider the attached paper setting out the Committee’s proposals on utilisation of accumulated reserves and vote on the following proposals:

“To amend the policy on grants to allow members to make a single application for a grant of up to £30,000 p.a. for three consecutive years.”

MDF advised that it was anticipated there would be two conditions to such a grant:

1. The Member applicant should attend an impact report training course to be provided by AJC; and
2. The form of application should be similar to the large grant form where a grant proposal form and business plan would need to be completed.

MDF opened discussion of the proposal to the members present.  A number of points were raised including:

This new type of grant was not intended to replace the large grant of up to £50,000 but was to be in addition to that type of grant.

Whether there should be any restriction on a member re-applying for this type of grant having just completed one three-year grant period.

What sort of reporting requirements would be put in place and would members be given an opportunity to approve these reporting requirements before they became effective.

Various members gave their opinion that a three-year grant was important to the success of a project run by a charity and that members should be able to re-apply for an additional three years but perhaps for a different project.

Applications for an additional three years should not be restricted provided financial viability could be evidenced.

A number of members spoke in favour of the proposal of a single application for a three-year grant of up to £30,000 p.a.

MDF noted that due to difference of opinion aired by members concerning the ability of a member to re-apply for a second three-year grant at the expiry of the first term, a separate vote should be taken on this possible restriction.

MDF asked for a vote for the resolution that:

1. Members should be allowed to make a single application for up to £30,000 p.a. for three consecutive years.

Members unanimously voted in favour of the proposal.

MDF asked for a vote for the resolution that:

2. Members should be allowed to re-apply for a single application for up to £30,000 p.a. for three consecutive years for the same proposal without any gap in time between one ending and the other commencing.

There was a clear majority in favour of the above proposal and therefore it was approved.

“To create a small grants fund financed from reserves which is only accessible to small charities through a simplified application process.”

MDF opened discussion of the proposal to the members present reminding members that the criteria the Committee had felt appropriate to determining what would be a small charity for the purposes of this small grant fund was that the charity should have no paid employees and only low reserves, and that the maximum grant capable of being awarded from this fund to be £3,000 p.a.

MDF explained that the Committee’s rationale for imposing the condition that the charity should not have any employees was based on the fact, that if a charity does have employees it has the resource to enable it to complete the more complicated AJC application grant form. Whereas charities without employees tended to be ‘kitchen table’ affairs run solely by volunteers with low reserves and limited but very beneficial community activity, who would benefit from these smaller grants and a much more simplified application process.

MDF explained that the threshold maximum figure of £3,000 had been picked by the Committee as it represented a not insubstantial sum, but this was below the current £5,000 threshold at which additional financial information, such as quotes and budgets, is required under the current grant application process. It was intended these grants should go to fund specific purchases or specific activities of the small charities and not running costs as such. The monies set aside for this fund would be taken from the annual sum of £97,500 which is released each year from the anonymous donation.

 A number of points were raised including:

Whether charities with no reserves but with staff not fall into this category.

Whether £3,000 the right amount for the maximum small grant or should it not be higher, say £5,000?

Whether where there was a charity with staff but who were only paid a nominal sum or were part time should be included in the category as a small charity.

One member calculated that if all the fund (i.e. £97,500) was awarded to small charity applicants, it would be equivalent to at least 32 charities benefitting from the same, which would be a very popular result.

Whether it should be a requirement that a small charity qualifies only if it has very limited reserves as that could be quite a harsh restriction, and might result in members, who were likely to fall into this category being denied the same purely by reason of having too much in their reserves in a single given year.

Whether the Committee should consider instead of applying a condition of no employees, apply a requirement determined by the charity’s turnover, adopting say a turnover limit of say £20,000. Or would the same result in charities restricting their activities simply to meet this threshold?

Whether larger charities such as Hospice should be able to use this simplified process if only seeking a grant of £3,000.

The question of how many charities would fall into this category was raised and MDF replied that she was unsure but that the new register of charities would help clarify this issue when completed.

There was discussion as to whether Social Security Back to Work scheme employees would qualify as employees for the definition of small charity and it was concluded, no, as they are not permanent employees.

A small charity member made up only of 5 volunteers said up until now it had not applied for a grant as it was too much of a hassle, but now it would, if this small grants fund was approved.

Various members said it was an absolutely brilliant idea and that anything to help small charities operated only by volunteers should be supported by members.

Various members acknowledged AJC Grants Committee had given great thought to the criteria for this new category of grant and were happy to let it use its discretion, where appropriate, and to see how it went for the first year before changing its proposed criteria.

MDF acknowledged all the above points but explained, the aim of the small grant fund is to level the playing field for those charities, who do have the resources or funds to compete with larger charities, some of whom will submit multiple grant applications to the AJC in a single year. MDF said that the AJC historically has been criticised for not giving enough money out to small charities. Therefore the Grants Committee of the AJC are keen to keep the application process and requirements simple and see how it goes first before introducing more complex rules.

MDF asked for a vote for the resolution:

1. To create a small grants fund limited to making grants up to a maximum of £3,000, financed from reserves, which is only accessible to small charities (defined by way of having no permanent employees and low reserves) through a simplified application process.

Members unanimously voted in favour of the proposal.

8.

Members to consider the proposal:

“To consider the benefit of advertising member events in the JEP and vote whether to retain the weekly JEP advertising slot or cancel it as at 31 December 2018”

The Treasurer explained this that proposal had been put to members as there had been very mixed views given by members as to the benefits of the JEP advertising in the member consultation. The Committee wished to get a clear view as to whether members wished to continue with it as it represented a significant expense, £20,000 per annum, which could be used for other forms of media coverage.

Members discussed the merits of maintaining print advertising, in particular: its ability to reach older members of the community, who are not yet comfortable with other online forms of media; and its ability to give people a chance to remind themselves of the details of the advertised events.

Various members recognised that radio while a popular form of advertising was not as good as print since people were unable to write down or catch all the details of an event. Whereas with the JEP people can cut out the details and keep as a reminder.

Some members suggested the frequency of the advertising should be limited to once a month.

It was confirmed that presently, no charitable discount applied to the JEP rate for AJC advertising of member’s charitable activities/events. HMR suggested he might be able to assist in this matter.

HMR confirmed from his knowledge of the JEP that there is still very much an audience for the JEP and it continues to make a profit. He suggested members should ask the AJC Committee to develop a media plan with a new proposed budget which included advertising with other forms of media, more popular with a younger generation.

MDF asked for a vote for the resolution:

1. To retain the weekly advertising JEP slot; or
2. To cancel effective 31 December 2018

Members unanimously voted in favour of keeping the weekly advertising JEP slot.

It was agreed the AJC Committee would look to formulate a media plan in the near future.

9.

To Expel three members for non-payment of subscription

1. Jersey Greyhound Supporters was expelled for non-payment for two years. There were no comments from the floor.
2. Le Tournoi Sports was expelled for non-payment for two years. There were no comments from the floor.
3. Jersey Aquatic Discovery was expelled for non-payment for two years. There were no comments from the floor.

10.

AOB

None.

10.

Date of next AGM

The next AGM to be confirmed.

The AGM itself closed by 7:30pm and was followed by a talk by Richard Joualt, Director, States of Jersey Department for Community and Constitutional Affairs with an update on the Charity Registration Process and afterwards by a presentation from Katie Griffiths, AJC Development Officer on the results of the recent member consultation (attached).

These presentations were followed by networking and a buffet from about 8:15pm.

Signed Elizabeth Le Poidevin…………………………………………

Dated………………………………………………………………..