+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ $Id$ $Change$ $DateTime$ $Author$ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CHAHP Legacy Group discussion meeting Wheal Tor, Pensilva Monday 29-Jul-2013 18:34 UTC Present: Andy Robinson CHAHP Mike Todd Linkinhorne History and Community Archive Iain Rowe Caradon Archaeology Peter Woodward Sterts Theatre and Upton Cross Primary School Anne Hughes Stara Woods Sue Robbins Schools Tina Hitchens Caradon Archaeology Zena Jones Linkinhorne History and Community Archive Jane Uglow CHAHP Jen Bousfield Dormouse training, North Hill History Hilary Taylor Pensilva Wildlife, Pensilva History Carol Horsington Caradon Orchard Group Steve Angove Invited speaker Martin Shead Darite Heritage Peter Jackson Darite Heritage Apologies: Steve Hopkin Caradon Archaeology Brigitte Mann Caradon Monthly Walkers (post-meeting apology) Chair: Andy Robinson. Andy stated that he is chairing the group pending the setup of a formal group with constitution and its own officers. The agenda is: 1. Form of company. An invited speaker, Steve Angove, outlines the options. 2. A brief report about the web site. Web working group ----------------- Mike Todd summarised the web meeting of 2013-07-22: Himself, Angus Holland, Peter Jackson, Iain Rowe, Alan Groves, Andy Robinson met with Keith Mountfield at Stuart House. The caradonhill.org site can be made to persist after the end of the CHAHP term. It was set up by Keith Mountfield and is managed by him. Individual groups will be able to appoint an administrator to manage their own sections of the site. Keith can be retained for a fixed term contract to act as background advisor. We will try to hire hosting for the site in a 3-year package, after which time further hosting must be funded by the successor organisation. We plan to become fully active by October of this year. Andy suggested that groups should, before the next meeting, consider their requirements for and comments about the site. Peter Jackson described the aim of creating a federation of sites to meet the diverse requirements of the different groups. We intend it to be possible for groups to use a common hosting service to save on initial costs. Andy currently acts as a point of contact for communications. Steve Angove ------------ Used to be part of the Cornwall Rural Community Council as its assistant chief executive officer and is experienced in setting up various groups across the Southwest. There is a lot of flexibility within the existing legal structures about the rules that can govern a group. Steve helped to set up the Penwith Community Development Trust about 15 years ago. This is now quite large, with 30 or 40 staff and a turnover of several million UKP. The idea was of an umbrella group supporting little projects by doing things the projects couldn't do, such as getting funding. They decided that they should establish a track record and also used EU, lottery and other funding to buy an old building and converted it to a group HQ. Steve is currently involved in a new project called Cornwall Landscape Observatory in conjunction with Truro College. [See CLO.ORG.UK] The idea is to develop a touch map to provide local information. 2nd or 3rd group in Europe to do something like this, following on from Catalonia. How landscape and heritage affects our identity. Parallels what we are doing. Partnership working can be a good framework. Requirements that we have are: . Retain local group autonomy . Foster ways for groups to support one another So could have a 'forum of groups'. Does not need a constitution. But should have rules to help people understand how things work and what the relationships are. There are template constitutions, but it is important to get it right. From a forum to joint activities: Easier for an umbrella to raise funds. It will have a track record for funders to look at. So individual groups may work through the umbrella group if they want to raise funds. There is a choice of whether to become charitable or not. Advantage: some sources of funding not available to non-charities. Also if registered charity, more likely to be perceived as a cromulent organisation. Various charity forms include education, arts and heritage, environmental improvement. Aims or objects can be quite wide. But can't do something that you haven't said in the objects. Or Set up a Trust. Funds come into a trust body. Money comes in to the trust (with trustees) and gets used for the purposes of the trust. The trust cannot own assets. Neither can a forum. It has no "legal personality", eg it cannot buy land in its own name. Or Development Trust. Develops as a legal entity in a corporate way. Members of previous forms of organisation are personally liable for debts. They have joint and several liability. Any individual in the group could be sued for the debt. Not normally something to worry about it unless there are risks that emerge. Or So some groups incorporate and form limited liability companies. Eg if employing people, that would incur risks. "Company Limited by guarantee". If necessary. Some risks could be covered by insurance instead. But if groups get involved in contracts it probably should be a company. There could be income by trade. Eg festivals etc. Then you'd have a "Community Interest Company". It has a statement about how it will benefit the public. Also it cannot be closed down and assets taken away. So company officers cannot benefit personally, if wound up the assets would go to nominated charities. Fewer sources of funds nowadays, so more pressure, so need to look into new ways of raising money. A CIC cannot be a charity. Last year, a new thing called a Charitable Incorporated Organisation became possible. Only with the Charity Commissioners. Can set up with no liability. Charity Commissioners encourage more risk taking and innovation by groups and won't pursue debt if things go wrong for non-negligent reasons. Can evolve the structure as we progress. Discussion ---------- The following points emerged: A Trust can actually have assets, where their disposition is specified. Can also get block community insurance. An umbrella group works best with just a small number of people running it - no more than 12. IR: Some schools for co-operatives with other schools. Co-operative model is not very different from what we've just discussed. At the high end of complexity, could have an aggregate organisation with charity + CIC doing trade. + possible co-operative if you want to raise money. We need to ensure that the umbrella group's aims serve the needs of the member groups. It can function as a communications entity (running a web site may be one of its functions). The costs of each option for the organisation are all fairly low. There may be overhead costs in each case for getting accounts done. Charity setup costs are low. CIC - can be done ourselves for 30UKP. Using a solicitor would add extra costs. But it may be possible to find a friendly solicitor to look over what we set up. Charitable companies are new and it is unclear what support for them exists. Can't register Charitable Company with Companies House. They may not be as simple as people first thought. Directors are also trustees. The organisation depends on the people running it. A CIC can pay people to be directors. If the work demands it you may need to do that. It would be better to get motivated people to learn or employ skills than to populate a board with skilled people who aren't motivated. co-operatives uk produce a downloadable book on this subject. [UK.COOP] [http://uk.coop/sites/storage/public/downloads/simplystartup_0_0.pdf] It seems likely that we should start at the least complex end of the scale to create a forum, which could lead to more complex organisations if the need arises. Next meeting will be a workshop about objectives of the proposed group and also identify anything we want to rule out of its constitution. Proposed that the meeting should be on 2013-09-02 at Sterts. There was lengthy discussion about communication with other entities about the next meeting and whether anyone else should be invited. The conclusion was that key organisations should be kept informed of our progress but it would be best to limit the complexity of the workshop to one representative from those local groups actually enabled by CHAHP. So we will advise the PPG of what we are doing and later communicate what has been agreed. Our aims will then evolve to meet the needs of other people that show an interest after the nucleus has been established. Other entities that would have an interest are Commoners, Best of Bodmin Moor, some Landowners, Museums. The CHAHP PPG at times has also included English Heritage, Natural England, Town Councils and Stuart House. Some of these organisations may have conflicting aims. A common aim for us to emphasise is the education of people who will visit Bodmin Moor. As an aside before the end of the meeting Peter Woodward said that Sterts have a bid with HLF in progres for funding an event in commemoration of WW1. It will be a community play, similar to Gonamena and Cornish Phoenix, tied into historical dates. HLF have said that they'd like to see local history groups involved. Contact office2@stertsarts.org IR said it is also the 100th anniversary of the Phoenix Mine closing. which might tie in as well. The meeting closed at 20:13 UTC. Updates: 1. 2013-07-29 Taken at the meeting. 2. 2013-08-01 Updated for circulation. 3. 2013-08-02 Incorporated amendments by AR. -- End of note