Tireless Cllr Charles Burke may be happy at last with the announcement this week that the Village Hall Trust will hold its first AGM in as long as anybody can remember (or is prepared to admit!).
Charles Anthony Burke
The announcement came on Tuesday, via the Parish Council website, in a Public Notice to all Residents of the Parish from Trust treasurer Cllr Bill Jeeves. The agenda will include a report of the business and activities of the Hall and the presentation of the Annual Accounts for the year ending 30th April 2012. Under Charities Commission rules, it must also include an election of trustees.
As far back as August 2010 over 28% of respondents to a village-wide survey cited lack of use of the Village Hall an issue, with residents saying they were denied access on frivolous grounds – something always denied by the Village Hall Trust. In 2011 Parish chair Peter Hood seemed to agree, with “reinvigoration of the Village Hall” added to his “parish plan”.
Cllr Burke has been campaigning against mismanagement of the Hall since 2010, insisting that it be opened up to village groups and residents as stipulated in its founding constitution. CVHT refused to enter into dialogue.
Village Hall Trust: “difficulties experienced in the management and administration of the Charity”
The spat escalated in April last year with the submission of a formal petition and complaint to the Charities Commission. Trustees asked for leniency from the Commission in view of difficulties experienced in the “management and administration of the charity”. The Commission offered help through ACRE, Action for Communities in Rural England, which specialises in helping village hall charities who experience management problems.
Nevertheless trustees did admit to having problems, writing to the Charities Commission to explain that their issues were due to “the difficulty in attracting new trustees”, a claim countered as “disingenuous” by complainants who forwarded copies of correspondence to ACRE.
In May last year Cllr Burke took the unusual step of leaving the “Council Chamber” and taking a seat with the residents to demand answers from fellow Councillors Underhill and Jones after a promised AGM in April never materialised.
The current trustees of CVHT, according to the Charities Commission, are: serving parish councillors Bill Jeeves, Barbara Underhill and Howard Jones, ex-councillor Mike Rayner, wives Joan Rayner and Sylvia Jeeves, Keith Ayres and Margaret Putnam.
Rayner: I’ve given up over 7,000 hours for the Village Hall
Cllr Burke accused Village Hall trustees of negligence in not holding an AGM “in as long as any serving trustee can remember”, late filings, breaking Charities Commission rules, and illegal appointments. He went as far as suggesting that trustees were personally liable for running the Hall at a loss given the breaches.
Fellow councillors retaliated, threatening Burke with their legal action. In September last year CVHT trustee Mike Rayner, no stranger to these pages, hit back at claims of intransigence:
I’m happy enough to talk/write about what I’ve done. I’d reckon that at the very least it’s been, on average , at least 5 hours a week for the Village Hall alone, since fund raising and planning started in 1984. That’s over 7000 hours; only thing about that is I often do much more than 5 hours.
In November, Rayner refused to answer specific points from Colnbrook Views in an attempt to get beyond the emotive and put the record straight publicly:
| Have any bookings for the Hall been rejected even though the Hall was available? | What is the current utilisation of the Hall, and how does this compare to previous years? |
| Is CVHT short of volunteers today? | Is there a more up to date constitution for CVHT than the one from 1990? |
| If not, why has the constitution never been updated – despite the name change, setting up of the Parish Council, or the move to Slough? | Are you the current Chairman, and who are the other currently active Trustees? |
| When was the last AGM? | Have Trustees been re-elected annually? |
| Were the accounts repeatedly submitted late to the Charities Commission and, if so, why? | What is the reason for the losses reported in the submissions to the Charities Commission? |
| Is the information held by the Charities Commission accurate and up to date with regard to current trustees? | How many of the 24 possible Trustee positions specified by the governing document currently filled? |
| Have offers of help been received and, if so, have they been taken up? | Is it true that nominations from three organisations included in the governing document in May 2011 were ignored? |
| Have other village groups not listed in the governing document been invited to nominate a Trustee? | Has any village group attempted to nominate a Trustee and had their nomination rejected? |
| Is it true that stringent licensing restrictions have been imposed that have reduced the ability of the Hall to be used for social events? | Is it true that residents have been unable to book the Hall for family functions? |
| Why is the CVH website unreachable, despite being publicised in last year’s parish newsletter? | Has ACRE (Action for Communities in Rural England) been engaged as apparently suggested by the Charities Commission? |
The response was typically colourful and evasive:
The most boring and sad thing that I have found on what has been a very lovely, rewarding, tiring (for old blokes) and productive ‘community’ weekend, is that Andy M., after appearing to have taken one step posititively forward has, today, managed to take a number of things at least two and a half steps backwards. I mustn’t say much, it’s impolite to speak about people behind their backs, but I guess that he’d be around half my age. Now I’m sure that my memory is deteriorating but his seems to be way worse than mine. He doesn’t seem able to remember correctly quite a lot of things he writes about. Life is too short for having to spend time correcting other people’s errors and hazy, lazy recalls so frequently.
May the Farce go with you
Victory in forcing the election of a new committee may be short lived however.
The Trust committee consists of ten elected members and the appointed representatives of approximately fourteen “specified eligible locally involved organisations”. Eligible local organisations are asked to ensure their representatives are appointed in time for approval at the Annual General Meeting.
However, in an almost farcical twist, many of the “eligible” organisations are older than the Village Hall itself, defunct, or were transferred with the County Order in 1994. It is far from clear yet whether newer organisations such as the Colnbrook Community Association, the largest residents group in the parish, will be denied a vote without a change to the constitution.
The fourteen eligible organisations from the 1990 constitution believed still to be the only governing document are: Bucks County Council, South Bucks District Council, Iver Parish Council, The Brookside Players (now CAST), the Colnbrook Baptist Chapel, Colnbrook Church Wives Group, Colnbrook Floral Arts Group, Colnbrook Over Sixties Club, Colnbrook Residents Association, Colnbrook Youth Club Management Committee, First Colnbrook Scout Group, the Methodist Church Ladies Fellowship, the Poyle Residents Association, and St. Thomas’ Church!
And don’t expect too much debate about the problems of the last few years. According to the Notice:
The Chairman may, at his discretion, permit those attending the AGM to put to the meeting positive points or questions which may be considered of benefit to the trust and its objectives.
Nominations may be submitted for elected members in advance to Cllr Howard Jones, 19 Coleridge Crescent, Colnbrook, Berkshire, SL3 0PY, or may be made at the meeting.
Make a date for your diary. The meeting will take place at 7pm on Thursday 28th February 2013, at the Colnbrook Village Hall, Vicarage Way.
Related Articles
“You didn’t do it alone, Mike, don’t forgot those Old Hands who made the Village Hall!” – November 2012
Village Hall Update: Burke explains actions during AGM clash with fellow councillors – May 2012
Village Hall claim “disingenuous” say residents behind Charities Commission complaint - May 2012
Colnbrook Village Hall – AGM at last? – April 2012
Village Hall: Community Association to demand action – November 2011
Village Hall tops Issues list in Community Survey - December 2010
Related Information
Colnbrook Village Hall Constitution
Burke secures victory at last in Village Hall debacle as date for AGM finally announced!,
- Excited
- Fascinated
- Amused
- Bored
- Sad
- Angry
Correction Required !!!
Any comments below are of an individual nature and do not represent any view , comment or decision by the Parish Council
“The current trustees of CVHT, according to the Charities Commission, are: serving parish councillors Bill Jeeves, Barbara Underhill and Howard Jones, ”
Bill Jeeves is not a serving Parish Councillor as far as I am aware, however I did not attend the last Parish Council meeting due to illness and cannot comment further.
Again as a personal note only.
Although two trustees are serving Parish Councillors the list of 14 eligible organistions does not include another important part of the community besides the CCA. If you re-read the list you will not find the the name of COLNBROOK WITH POYLE PARISH COUNCIL either which should be more included than Iver or South Bucks Councils. So to be fair to both the CCA and Parish Council then either both of them are included or not as the case maybe. However since the Constitution is a legal document then it would seem obvious that you cannot just change things there and then but have to follow some due process to debate, vote to remove existing names and subsequent debate and vote to incorporate new names to the list. Personally I think that both the CCA and the Parish Council have good claims to be included in the list and should be encouraged and adopted into the list rather include one and not the other. We all live and hope to enjoy the facilities available in the village so put all the past history and bad-feelings away and look for a better community spirit onwards from 2013. If you do not give it a try you will never know if it works.
Article 9 of the CVHT constitution allows the trustees to appoint Additional Representative Members as it sees fit. It has chosen to give the Parish Council representation.
So in this case, just because the constitution is 23 years out of date doesn’t mean the CVHT can’t do the right thing. Let’s see if it chooses to enter into the AGM with the community spirit we all hope for.
personal view another correction required.
‘Nominations may be submitted for elected members in advance to Cllr Howard Jones, 19 Coleridge Crescent, Colnbrook, Berkshire, SL3 0PY, or may be made at the meeting.’
The notice that was published on the Parish Council website referes to the nominations being sent to
‘CVHT c/o Howard Jones (CVHT Trustee) 19, Coleridge Crescent,’
I believe that Mr Jones is acting only in his capacity as a Trustee on this matter and not acting on behalf of the Parish Council as suggested by the article
This correction would avoid and confusion as to where the CVHT sits in the community. As far as I am aware the CVHT is not owned or run by the Parish Council
The CVHT, CCP, CRA all share committee members, report as Outside Bodies to Parish Council meetings and are publicised at taxpayers expense so it’s hardly surprising these are often seen as the same club? One way to avoid confusion would be to insist on greater openness and less duplicity: ensure minutes are recorded and are publicly accessible; hold open elections; publish accounts to allow scrutiny of how our cash is being spent.
Something wrong with this !!!
The above article states
Nominations may be submitted for elected members in advance to Cllr Howard Jones, 19 Coleridge Crescent, Colnbrook, Berkshire, SL3 0PY, or may be made at the meeting.
the notice on the Parish Council website states
‘CVHT c/o Howard Jones (CVHT Trustee) 19, Coleridge Crescent, Colnbrook, Berkshire, SL3 0PY,’
Thus nominations are made to the CVHT and not to a Parish Councillor and as such the article should be corrected.
Cllr Howard Jones was appointed on 1st May 2012 to be the Parish Council’s representative on CVHT, therefore he is acting in his capacity as Parish Councillor and the public notice should have stated that and ought to be amended.
The meeting next week may well be very interesting especially if the Chairman decides who can say something or even attend. I welcome an open debate , voting and discussion from all interested parties. Surely anybody attending should have the interest of the best use of a community asset rather than a drawn out debate about the right and wrong of the past. Everyone needs to focus on the way forward now and forget who did what why and when last year or the last twenty. Now is the time to look at making the village hall work for as many of the village residents as possible, if that means changes or not or compromise then let everyone have a fair chance to put forward their ideas and if that means becoming a member of CVHT then those who do not what to change should respect this and step down. If you do not let items have a chance then you never know if they would work or not. All I would like to see next week is a responsible , orderly and adult meeting , perhaps thats hoping a lot.
Dear admin,
Sorry but you are wrong. Trustees’ first duty is to the Village Hall Trust – regardless of which group or body they represent. Therefore Howard Jones is acting solely in his capacity as a trustee, not Parish counsellor.
Secondly, Bill Jeeves is not nor has ever been a Parish councellor. If statements are to be made on this website they should be accurate.
Finally, you describe Joan Rayner and myself as being “wives” when listing the Trustees. This I resent as we hold the post in our own right – we are not appendages of our husbands!
Sylvia, what utter nonsense! Suddenly a new rule that if you are an appointed trustee you stop representing your own organisation! What an absurd suggestion. Despite what you say you really ARE an appendage!!
And if I understand correctly there are currently 7 (or less?) out of 10 elected Trustees (who havent been re-relected in recent memory according to this article), 0 out of 14 appointed trustees, plus Howard who is a discretionary appointee favoured over other organisations who could really put the hall to good use. And included in those 7 are two husband and wife teams?!?!?!? Come on! This smells so bad i’m surprised Environmental Health haven’t been over!
Seriously, I hope somebody from the Charities Commission will be present at the AGM, plus SBC to put an end to this outrageous behaviour. Fat chance I suppose!
What should happen, of course, is that those party to the maladministration of recent years (i.e. CVHT’s umpteen breaches of Charities Commission rules and denial of community access to the hall) be barred from standing again?
Or will we invent another rule that all previous trustees be automatically canonised?
Come on Sylvia, step back and think before you make such statements, you’re starting to sound very much like Mike Rayner!
This is a personal view and does not represent any view or comment from the Parish Council in anyway or form.
I feel sorry for the CVHT meeting on Thursday as the emphasis looks like being lost due to the probable nature of the debate.
What I would hope is that the debate and election of persons to whatever category within the CVHT is based on presenting a case for what can be their vision for the future of the Village Hall and the primary objective of the CVHT in providing a community hall that is available to the community it serves.
The meeting should clearly maintain that focus and not descend into a debate on what has gone wrong in the past years and months in the minds of some residents. To other people the service provided by the CVHT has been very good and more than acceptable as shown by that groups continual use of the hall.
What is needed are people who what to ‘offer their services’ to keep this community facility going and also to seek out what is needed to advance what is available for the future as times have changed to some degree since the hall first opened.
I would appeal to everyone who is coming to the AGM on Thursday to bear in mind the objectives of the CVHT when voting or putting their name forward for election to serve the community likewise.
3 times you’ve said everybody should move on but who is arguing with you?
Calling into question the chair’s impartiality as you have done above doesn’t sit well with your “let’s all be nice” speech!
Seems to me the open question is: will CVHT open up its committee on Thursday to those organisations currently not represented (given the constitution doesn’t, after all, prohibit them). Whether CVHT can move on surely depends on that alone?
Moving on does entail of course making the ‘running’ of the Village Hall available to any community group that wishes to assist and participate in the future of the hall.
This is of course also of the the existing trustees and others that are currently running the hall.
Surely in wanting to retain their office etc they need to be open and honest with their intentions for the future and also to encompass the other community groups into the management structure of the hall.
Thus it is not just as some say get rid of all of them but to encourage them to bring into the CVHT group more of the community and work with them.
Maybe just like many organisations some of the trustees and other appointees of the CVHT can actually do a good job for the village hall.
Maybe the style of leadership in the past despite possible good intent has given the wrong impression at times.
The outcome of the Thursday AGM will be the judge of many views and concerns regarding the CVHT.
Whatever happens and is decided then we have to live with for a while and also to give the new structure whatever it is time to establish its plans etc.
I do hope that for the community that this AGM does not turn inwards and the opportunity to branch out to other parts of the community is missed.
The strength of the new community groups involvement into the next stage of the CVHT depends on how they handle themselves at the meeting.
Firing off on what has gone wrong during the past twenty years is reasonable if used in a positive way.
It is ok to say if you feel something is wrong but is it somewhat better if you can offer to either help stop it happening again or have a viable solution to support the need for change.
In order to allow your readers to judge the situation prevailing at the Village Hall under the current trustees, I set out below the allegations made in a residents complaint to the Charity Commission last year which I have been able to obtain.
It is alleged that the trustees have been negligent by;
1.not undertaking their responsibilities in an acceptable manner, and that by refusing numerous offers of help have led to financial loss to this community asset.
2.not maintaining proper financial records, leading to overdue accounts. Section 18
3. not ensuring that the compliment of trustees was maintained.
4. not calling an AGM for some 5 years or more despite requests and reminders to do so.
5. possibly allowing the son of the Treasurer to act as reporting accountant.
6. not acknowledging appointments of Nominated Members.
7. not responding to legitimate correspondence requiring a response.
8.not retiring annually and standing for re election as required by section 8 (2).
I am reliable informed that a copy of the full complaint was forwarded to the trustees by the CC but received no comment from them, nor any perceivable action until now to correct matters.
Does anybody feel that this is an acceptable way for a community asset to be managed?
No, I though so.
We appreciate you your current precious expertise.