Steinmeyer Legacy Committee 4-12-2017

Steinmeyer Legacy Committee

7 pm Monday 4^th December 2017

Comrie Medical Centre

1. Attending Gillian Brock, Joyce Carnegie, Joan Carmichael, Lynne Douglas, Mary Gavin, Ken Heiser, Gordon McCartney, Andrew Reid, Barbara Stewart, Dr Phil Tipping.
2. Welcome: Andrew welcomed all the Committee and Barbara to her first meeting.
3. Apologies: None
4. Minutes 20/11/17: Approved Mary, seconded LynneM/A amendments: The minutes should read Ben Halton in Item 4 and Leigh Doy in Item 5.
   1. Comrie Parish Church – 8 x meetings: The Committee agreed to give a donation of £100 to the Church for the use of the hall for Interim Committee meetings.
5. Finance: CDT – Accounts and arrangements:Lynne reported that there was no vetting required for her or Phil to be signatories.
   1. Lynne is meeting with Bob Hughes, CDT Treasurer, on Monday 11^th December and will learn the financial position of the Legacy fund then. She will also enquire regarding the White Church Invoice for the public meeting.
   2. CDT- Annual Report and Accounts- Legacy SectionThe Interim Committee submitted a report in September. Andrew reviewed the report and changed the final paragraph to update the position concerning the community vote on the proposals and the Legacy Committee elections to say consideration is been given to establishing a separate charity with legal responsibility for financial management of the legacy funds.
6. Legal Status of Committee:Heinrich Steinmeyer’s will left money to CDT as a Registered Charity. CDT is effectively the “Executor” and has placed the money in a restricted account to be used for the elderly of Comrie.

   The current position formally is that the Legacy Committee is a Sub Committee of CDT.

   The Interim Committee had discussed forming a separate Charity or Trust. Ian Pinkerton had made the helpful point that an independent charity might attract other legacies for use in the village. It had been decided in October by the Interim Committee and CDT to leave the final decision and any setting up of an independent organisation to the elected Committee.

   The Committee considered whether to establish a separate organisation. The Committee voted unanimously to seek independent Charitable Status for the Legacy Committee.

   1. Future Options: Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (SCIO) – Company Limited by Guarantee – Charitable Trust
      Andrew had circulated a comparison list produced by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) to all Committee members. He explained each item in detail including what the Committee’s responsibilities and liabilities would be. The Committee unanimously agreed that the SCIO option would be the most suitable. CDT should be updated about this. There was a discussion whether the Committee should be voted on each year. Phil felt this would make for an unstable Committee.It was noted that there would now be an application to register with OSCR, involving the submission of governance documents. Arrangements would then need to be made with CDT for the transfer of the restricted funds held by CDT to an account set up by the Legacy Committee, possibly in a different bank, depending on interest rate comparisons carried out.
   2. Current Rules as a Sub Committee of CDT
      It had been agreed at the first meeting of the Committee that it was important to structure the work of the Committee with rules for operation. Andrew had used the CDT Memorandum and Articles of Association for this and produced draft rules for the Legacy Committee, initially as a CDT Subcommittee, but with the potential of further amendment to become the governance document of an independently registered body. Barbara asked if it is an aim that Committee members should be neutral. It was suggested by others that everyone on the Committee has views and opinions but that the committee should follow the wishes of the community expressed in the survey and proposals vote. Andrew asked all Committee members to consider the draft rules, including the aims and funding policies, and come back to him with comments and proposed changes. Issues for committee discussion would then be identified for the agenda of the next meeting.
   3. Funding Policy
      Draft Rules – Aims and Policies – Rules for decisions on funding to be discussed next meeting.
7. Legacy Proposals – Work Programme
   1. Application Form
      Concern was expressed that the draft form was too complicated, with questions which people would find difficult to answer. It was agreed that the form should state that answers are only required if applicable, and that committee members will be able to assist with form completion. It was noted that it will be important to ensure future arrangements are in place for maintenance and repair of funded properties and items, and applications comments on this would therefore be needed. The form should include a space to be signed and dated by applicants. Lynn also requested that, for audit purposes, there should be a box at the bottom of the form for Legacy Committee use, and this should include information on the Committee Decision, the date of the decision, and details of any amount awarded. It was also noted that all applicants will be required to complete an application form.
   2. Tasks:
      Andrew had drawn up a table with suggested actions on all the development proposals and requiring the identification of a Committee member to take responsibility for each item. Community organisations would need to complete the funding applications, including detailed costings. The Committee decided to concentrate and work on the top ten proposals coming from the results of the community vote, which will mean working on developments supported by more than 30% of the 517 people, who had voted. Andrew will circulate a revised table showing these 10 issues, and committee members should comment to him about the proposed action on each item.
   3. Responsibilities:
      Someone from the committee needs to be identified for each of the 10 areas for development to be set out in the revised work programme. Committee members were asked to indicate to Andrew which of the developments they could lead or work on.
   4. White Church Loop System:
      Ken reported on a meeting all with Ian Wilcox WC Chairman, Fiona Stewart White Church Centre Manager and Ralph Haggerty, sound systems expert. The White Church Committee may also consider renewing microphones and amplifiers to be compatible with a new loop system. Ken will continue pursuing quotes from a number of different companies and was asked to arrange that the Application Form, with final detailed costings, should be submitted from the White Church Committee.
   5. Rural Hall Improvements:
      An application was considered from the SWI Rural Hall Committee for Thermal Energy and Access Improvement works. Issues were raised about the level of funding requested (£60k) and there were differences of view about this. Information was requested on the tenders, Hall accounts and drawings. It was agreed that, as required by P&K LEADER for match funding purposes, a letter of support should be provided to P&K LEADER, making a commitment to legacy funding, without defining the amount to be provided. The Treasurer will review the documents, recognising commercial confidentiality.
   6. Organisations for older people:
      Fifty village groups had been identified as involving older people, but with only two community and two commercial organisations exclusively for older people. Applications would be needed in due course from any eligible for funding. Lynne noted that individual grants are not included. It was agreed to return to this area of work, when the financial requirements of other developments have been established.
8. AOCB.
   1. Communications – Committee members are all receiving email communications properly, with PDF format documents required by Joan, Gordon and Gillian.
9. Next meeting: 7.00 p.m. Wednesday 3^rd January 2018 at Comrie Medical Centre.