Notes London regional arts council meeting Date Thursday 24…

Notes
London regional arts council meeting
Date           Thursday 24 January 2008
Time           3.00-7.15pm
Location       Arts Council England, London 2 Pear Tree Court London EC1R 0DS

Present        Lady Hollick, Anupam Ganguli, Louisa Bolch, Graham Sheffield,
               Emmanuel Cooper, John Coombs, Sally Hamwee, Joanne
               McCartney Judith Woodward, Anjana Patel, Barbara Campbell,
               Jenny Harris, Indra Khanna, Guy Nicholson, Moira Sinclair, Lucinda
               Derry, Anu Giri, Catriona Macrae-Gibson, Claire Gevaux
Guests         Scott Pugh, Head of Legal Services, National Office




1     Declarations and apologies

The Chair asked for any declarations of interest to be noted:
Chair ­ South Bank Centre, Nitro
Guy Nicholson - Hackney Empire, CIDA, Ocean
Anupam Ganguli ­ Almeida, Chisenhale, Legacy Trust
Louisa Bolch ­ Arvon, Total theatre
Graham Sheffield - LSO other corporation of London connected organisations
Indra Khanna ­ Autograph

The Chair introduced Scott Pugh, Head of Legal Services, NAT to advise on any
legal matters regarding the process or any decision.

1.1 Apologies
There were no apologies for the meeting.


2     Notes of the meeting 10 December 2007

2.1   It was noted that Guy Nicholson was present at the meeting. The notes to be
      changed to reflect the omission.
2.2   The notes of the meeting were agreed.

.
3     Matters arising
There were no other matters arising.


4     RFO Disinvestments

4.1   Music: Ocean reallocation of funds
The Executive Director presented a paper proposing the reallocation of £39,459 of
the unallocated Ocean funds in 2007/08 to Music Matrix and transfer the remaining
£100,522 to Managed Funds. The Executive Director noted that the funds related to
the current financial year rather 2008/09 to 2010/11.

Action: The London regional council agreed the recommendations.


5     Regularly Funded Organisation investment 2008/09 to
      2010/11

5.1   Introduction and context
The Executive Director thanked the London regional council for their work and
contribution to the process over the last few months.

It was noted that the London regional council members were only considering the
regularly funded organisations recommended for non-renewal or below standard
funding. This related to 75 organisations.

The Executive Director reminded regional council of the rigorous process where
officers had used their judgement, expertise and business skills to make the original
proposals to regional council. It was noted that London regional council members
were being asked to consider whether the response from an organisation clearly
demonstrated that the rationale was unsound. After regional councils had made
their decisions, National council would then ratify all decisions at the meeting the
following week. The Executive Director noted that it was the intention that letters to
all regularly funded organisations would be sent by registered post on Thursday 31
January and emailed on Friday 1 February 2008.

The Chair reminded regional council that all decisions made in the meeting were
confidential until the announcement on Friday 1 February 2008.
The Executive Director noted generally that a number of responses had referred to
the Arts Council being in breach of its own guidelines. It was made clear that there
was a distinction between the policy for disinvestments and non-renewals as a result
                                                                                     2
of a spending review. This was also clearly reflected on the website, although it was
noted that it had caused some confusion.

The Executive Director also noted that the recent McMaster review had been
published after proposals were made to regional council. She confirmed that a
number of considerations in review had also been considered in making the
proposals; in particular excellence in quality and participation had been addressed.

The Executive Director informed the regional council that the finance sub-group of
three members of regional council had met earlier in the week to discuss the
responses. The Chair then reminded council that the purpose of the full London
regional council meeting was to decide to uphold or over turn proposals. The
Executive Director noted that if any changes had been made to the proposals the
impact of these on the new portfolio recommendations would need to be considered.

Regional council continued to discuss the clarity of difference between the
disinvestments and non-renewal policies. The Head of Legal Services noted that
the disinvestments policy had been written for occasions when council were to
consider withdrawal of funds from a particular organisation and that a footnote
clearly stated that this would not apply in a whole portfolio review scenario. He also
commented that there had been no material deviation from the policy and that the
arguments raised in the responses should, in his view, not impact on the decision
making process. He reinforced, however, that procedural arguments raised in the
submissions were matters for Regional Council to consider. Council noted his
points of advice, but expressed their concern over the confusion it had caused.

The Executive Director noted the organisation had already planned to review the
process and learn from the experience. She invited any regional council member to
feed into this review and asked regional council members to contact her individually
if they were interested in putting their views across.

One regional council member asked how the Mayor's views had been taken into
account. The Executive Director noted that all local authorities that were partner
funders had been given the opportunity to respond to the proposals and she would
highlight where these responses had been received during the meeting. She
indicated that, as the strategic lead for London, the Mayor's response would be
treated in the same way. In response to the same question, another regional council
member noted that the Arts Council had a statutory responsibility to take account the
Mayor's cultural strategy although not the personal view of the Mayor on individual
cases.

                                                                                         3
One council member asked to confirm whether the decisions made in the meeting
were fixed for three years. The Executive Director agreed that this was the case
and that any changes would have to be the result of disinvestments from the
portfolio as the funding envelope was fixed for 2008/09 to 2010/11.

Regional council discussed the implications of judicial reviews and whether the Arts
Council felt able to defend its decisions. The Head of Legal noted that specialist
legal advice had been taken and that the Arts Council remained confident that the
decisions would be defensible.

The Executive Director responded to a question regarding the weighting given to
lobbying petitions. She informed regional council that it was important for regional
council to be made aware of the petitions and lobbying on behalf of organisations,
but that decisions could not be based upon the level of lobbying or support, rather
on the basis of whether the original proposal was considered to be sound.

5.2   Non-renewals
5.2.1 No response to the letter of 12 December 2007
The Executive Director noted the following organisations either did not respond to
the proposals or had already been disinvested by 12 December 2007 and therefore
no response was necessary. In alphabetical order, the list included:
   · Artsline ­ Artsline had already been formally disinvested in 2007.
   · Association of British Calypsonians ­ ABC agreed with the proposal as
       funding was being diverted to Carnival Village
   · Audio Arts ­ had already been formally disinvested in 2007
   · Independance ­ had already been formally disinvested in 2007
   · London International Jazz Festival ­ LIJZ agreed with the proposal as the
       funding was being diverted to Serious
   · London Magazine - there was no response to the proposals
   · National Network for the Arts in Health ­ It was noted that the Board had
       closed organisation in 2007 and no further submission had been received
       from the organisation.
   · Quilombo do Samba ­ the company ceased trading in 2007
   · Red Shift Theatre Company ­ the company had previously indicated that they
       did not wish to be considered for regular funding from March 2008
   · Showhow, - had already been formally disinvested in 2007
   · Tete a Tete ­ In agreement with the company and officers at Arts Council
       England, Tete a Tete opted to apply through Grants for the Arts for future
       funding.
   · Unknown Public ­ had already been formally disinvested in 2007

                                                                                       4
    ·   Untitled ­ The company had not been in communication with the Arts Council
        since 12 December and no response was received.
    ·   YCAT ­ had already been formally disinvested in 2007.

Action: The London regional council noted the 14 organisations that had not
responded to the letter of 12 December 2007 and agreed to recommend to the
London regional arts council the proposal of not renewing funding
agreements for 2008/9 to 2010/11. Regional council held a unanimous vote to
agree the proposals.

5.2.2 Non-renewal responses received
The London regional council considered the responses made by the remaining 39
organisations proposed as non-renewals:
· Adfed ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to agree
   to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   African and Caribbean Music Circuit ­ Action: London regional council
    unanimously voted to agree to overturn the initial proposal and agreed a
    funding for one year with notice of tendering the service from 2009/10

·   Ambit ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to agree
    to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   Body Data Space ­Action: London regional council agreed to uphold the
    proposal not to renew funding to Body Space Data. It was further agreed
    that the company should be advised to apply for transitional funding based
    on their ability to make a strong case to support the EU funding and in the
    future they could apply to the Grants for the arts funding programme.

·   Brazilian Contemporary Arts ­ Action: The London regional council
    unanimously voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   British Association of Steelbands Ltd ­ Action: The London regional
    council unanimously voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew
    funding

·   Centerprise Trust Ltd ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously
    voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding


                                                                                     5
·   Central London Arts Ltd ­ Action: The London regional council agreed to
    uphold the proposal not to renew funding by a majority vote of 8 to 6. It
    was also noted that the use of the building as a cultural asset should be
    preserved and that discussion with the local authority was pertinent here.

It was noted that Regional council members who voted against the proposal felt very
uncomfortable with the decision.

·   Chisenhale Dance Space ­ Action: The London regional council
    unanimously voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   Circus Arts Forum ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously
    voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   City of London Sinfonia ­ Action: The London regional council
    unanimously voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding.
    There was one abstention to the vote.

·   Community Focus ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously
    voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   Contemporary Music Making for Amateurs ­ Action: The London regional
    council unanimously voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew
    funding

·   David Glass New Mime Ensemble ­ Action: The London regional council
    unanimously voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   Early Music Network ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously
    voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   Filmwaves ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to
    agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   ITC ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to agree to
    uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   Interchange Trust ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously
    voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding
                                                                                  6
·   International Workshop Festival ­ Action: The London regional council
    unanimously voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   Jacksons Lane ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted
    to overturn the proposal not to renew funding and unanimously voted in
    favour of funding for one year within the parameters of improving
    partnership funding with LB Haringey and other partners. The regional
    council authorised the Executive Director to use up to one year's funding
    as leverage for negotiation. The final amount to be allocated would be re-
    presented to regional council in March.

·   Kaos ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to agree to
    uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   London Bubble Theatre Company - Action: The London regional council
    unanimously voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding
    but strongly recommended transitional funding for 2008/09

·   LDAF ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to agree
    to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   London Libraries Development Agencies ­ Action: The London regional
    council agreed to uphold the proposal not to renew funding by a majority
    vote of 14 to 1.

·   London Mozart Players ­ Action: The London regional council
    unanimously voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   London Musicians Collective - Action: The London regional council
    unanimously voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   Overtones ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to
    agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   Oxford House ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to
    agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·   People Show ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to
                                                                                 7
      agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·     Pop Up Theatre ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted
      to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·     Portfolio ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to
      agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding but noted that
      transitional funding should be considered to enable the transfer to the
      Scottish Arts Council

·     Robert Hylton Urban Classicism ­ Action: The London regional council
      unanimously voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·     Station House Opera ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously
      voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·     Subtext East ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to
      agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·     Total Theatre Network ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously
      voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·     Union Dance Company ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously
      voted to agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·     Vertigo ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to agree
      to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

·     Watermans ­ Action: The London regional council agreed to uphold the
      proposal not to renew funding by a majority vote of 6 to 4 with 3
      abstentions and one member having left before the vote was cast. It was
      noted that this had been an uncomfortable decision to take.

      Writers Inc ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to
      agree to uphold the proposal not to renew funding

5.3      Below standard uplift

5.3.1 No response to the letter of 12 December
                                                                                 8
The following organisations either did not respond to the proposals or had already
been disinvested by 12 December 2007 and therefore no response was necessary.
In alphabetical order, the list included:

   ·   Architecture Foundation - The rationale stated that funding would be annual
       rather than a three-year agreement whilst monitoring took place. The
       organisation did not dispute this recommendation.
   ·   Beaconsfield - The rationale stated that funding would be annual rather than
       a three-year agreement whilst monitoring took place. The organisation did
       not dispute this recommendation.
   ·   Community Music ­ The rationale showed that the reduction took into
       account the reduction in overheads and agreement that the Arts Council no
       longer funds Level 3-5 courses managed for universities. The organisation
       did not dispute this recommendation.
   ·   Moti Roti - The rationale stated that funding would be annual rather than a
       three-year agreement whilst monitoring took place. The organisation did not
       dispute this recommendation.
   ·   New Work Network - The rationale stated that funding would be annual rather
       than a three-year agreement whilst monitoring took place. The organisation
       did not dispute this recommendation.
   ·   Ocean Music Trust ­ some funding set aside to support another provider of
       music education services. LB Hackney aware and not disputing.
   ·   Onedotzero - The rationale stated that funding would be annual rather than a
       three-year agreement whilst monitoring took place. The organisation did not
       dispute this recommendation.
   ·   Third Text - The rationale stated that funding would be annual rather than a
       three-year agreement whilst monitoring took place. The organisation did not
       dispute this recommendation.
   ·   Yaa Asantewaa Arts and Community Centre ­ The rationale stated that the
       capital portion of the subsidy would be allocated to Carnival Village. The
       organisation did not dispute this recommendation.

Action: The London regional council noted the 9 organisations that had not
responded to the letter of 12 December 2007 and unanimously voted to agree
to uphold the proposal of giving a BELOW standard award for 2008/9 to
2010/11

5.3.2 Below standard uplift responses received
London regional council then considered the remaining 13 organisations proposed
to received a BELOW standard award. Alphabetically they were as follows:
                                                                                      9
·   Alternative Theatre Company (Bush) ­ Action: The London regional council
    unanimously agreed to overturn the original proposal and reinstate the full
    grant to the organisation.

·   Anvil Press ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously agreed to
    overturn the original proposal and reinstate the full grant to the
    organisation with conditions as specified by officers

·   Arcadia Books - Action: London regional council members unanimously
    voted 9 to 0 against the proposal to reduce funding for Arcadia Books and
    therefore reinstated the full funding for the three years. There were three
    abstentions to the vote and two members had left before the votes were
    cast.

·   Crafts Council ­ Action: London regional council unanimously voted
    against the proposal to reduce the funding by 20% and, instead, voted in
    favour of a reduction of 10 % over three years by a majority vote of 11 to 1.
    Two members had already left the meeting before the vote was cast.

    English Touring Theatre - Action: The London regional council
    unanimously voted to agree to uphold the proposal to give a BELOW
    standard award for 2008/09 to 2010/11.

·   Film London ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to
    over turn the proposal to give a BELOW standard award for 2008/09 but
    agreed to reinstate funding in 2008/09.

·   LIFT - Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to agree to
    uphold the proposal to give a BELOW standard award for 2008/09 to
    2010/11



·   Orange Tree Theatre ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously
    voted 10-0 to over turn the proposal to give a BELOW standard award with
    two abstentions and two members having left the meeting before the votes
    were cast.

·    Quicksilver Theatre ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously
     voted to agree to uphold the proposal to give a BELOW standard award

                                                                                10
     for 2008/09 to 2010/11

·   Shape London ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted
    to agree to uphold the proposal to give a BELOW standard award for
    2008/09 to 2010/11

·   Spread the word ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted
    to agree to uphold the proposal to give a BELOW standard award for
    2008/09 to 2010/11

·   Tara Arts ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted 11- 0
    to agree the proposal to give a BELOW standard award with one
    abstentions and two members having left the meeting before the votes
    were cast.

·   Vayu Naidu ­ Action: The London regional council unanimously voted to
    uphold the proposal to give a BELOW standard award for 2008/09 to
    2010/11

The Executive Director summarised the decisions made by the London regional
council and in particular noted that, in the case of the Bush, Anvil and Crafts
Council, the organisations were considered of National strategic importance and
there maybe a case for the additional funds needed to support the overturned
proposals to come from National managed funds.

The Executive Director noted that regularly funded organisations would be sent a
letter on Thursday 31 January. It would be a standard letter that would be tailored to
deal with the issues of communication that have arisen during the process.

The Executive Director also noted that the communications after the announcement
of decisions would also be crucial. All regional council members would be given
some further information on the new organisations and all decisions for release on 1
February. The Head of Communications reminded regional council that all the
conversations were confidential until 1 February 2008. The Chair asked that in the
letters to organisations receiving a below standard award that we ensure that they
are made aware of how supportive we continue to be in their company. Revised
guidance would be circulated to regional councils with key messages for any future
lobbying. Local authorities would also receive letters at the same time as
organisations. All MPs would also receive letters regarding organisations in their
constituencies after 1 February.
                                                                                     11
6     Corporate plan
6.1 The Chair noted the paper and asked for volunteers for a sub-group. Anupam
Ganguli, Louisa Bolch and Guy Nicholson volunteered. A further paper would be
presented in March meeting with the final version of London plan being submitted to
National Council in June


7     Grants for the arts review
7.1 The Chair noted that review and the changes to the programme. The regional
council noted the contents of the review.


8     Grants for the arts statistics quarter 3 2007/08
8.1   The regional council noted the contents of the paper.


9     AOB
There were no further items for discussion.
The meeting finished at 7.15pm




                                                                                  12