Minutes of meeting of the Board of directors of The Autscape Organisation Meeting date: Sunday 21st April 2013 Meeting time: 2.00pm BST Meeting Chair: Martijn Present: Elaine, Martijn, Stephen and Yo Apologies: Trish 1. The directors waived their right to formal notice of this meeting (4 for, 0 against) 2. Ratification 2.1. The board ratified the decision to set the professionals' fees for Autscape 2013 to £210 (shared) / £250 (single/en-suite). (4 for, 0 against) 3. Proposals 3.1. Accountancy. 3.1.1. The board decided to increase the agreed budget for accountancy services to £700 (from £550 previously) [See Appendix A for rationale] (4 for, 0 against) 3.1.2. The board decided to rescind its previous decision to not have an independent examination of the accounts. (4 for, 0 against) 3.2. Programme proposals voting. The programme coordinator (Martijn) acknowledged that Autscape is behind schedule on this and outlined his intentions to organise a vote on the board list before the next meeting. 3.2.1. Delegate scheduling programme. The board decided to work collectively on the schedule with the programme coordinator leading the project (nem con) 3.3. Day fees. There was a brief discussion of the feasibility of coping with the administration involved in day registrations, but the chair (Martijn) expressed faith that the existing registration system and the registrar will allow this to function. The board decided to set the day fees specified in Appendix B. (3 for, 0 against) 3.4. 2014 venue. 3.4.1. The interim treasurer (Stephen) advised that the proposed price that Belsey Bridge are offering looks viable and shouldn't result in a significant increase in fees compared to all previous years. Additionally the comparatively low child rates would help address the concern raised by Debbie about an above inflation trend in Autscape's child fees. The chair (Martijn) thanked members of the research subcommittee (Elaine and Debbie) for their work on this proposal and commented that, in his view, regular attenders will like returning to Belsey Bridge as it was quite popular. Yo commented that, while all venues have their pros and cons, Belsey Bridge has a lot going for it and she favours the proposal. In her view, the only remaining significant downside was location (in terms of travel time for participants and their willingness to attend, as well as the difficulty of arranging venue visits - but the Elaine pointed out that these are probably unnecessary now that we are familiar with this venue). Martijn also pointed out that, as a previous venue, this choice now also has the advantage of easier organisation over an unfamiliar venue. The board decided to book Belsey Bridge for Autscape 2014. (4 for, 0 against) (See closed Appendix C1 on board list for detailed cost information and Appendix C2 below for background and rationale). 3.4.2. Dates. The board considered whether to select: (a) 4 - 7th Aug 2014; or (b) 11 - 14th Aug 2014; as the dates for Autscape 2014. (Link to 2014 calendar in Appendix D for reference). The date of August bank holiday (25th) and UK school holidays (late July - early September) were considered. Yo and Elaine slightly preferred the earlier dates as they are more towards the beginning of the school holidays, leaving the rest of the summer holiday open for personal holidays. Martijn slightly preferred to later dates, feeling that they may be less likely to clash with other conferences/conventions. There were 3 votes for (a) and 1 vote for (b). The board decided ask Elaine to book (a) but also approve her to book (b) if there is any reasonable reason why she needs to change to that in the course of making the booking. (nem con) 3.5. Co-options 3.5.1. Rangesh Nallan (see 16/4/13 'Fw: #log' and 7/4/13 'Rangesh' thread for further information). The board decided not to co-opt Rangesh Nallan (4 against the proposal to co-opt, 0 for). The company secretary (Yo) requested help with drafting an email to him and the chair (Martijn) volunteered. 3.5.2. Debbie F. (see 9/4/13 'Fw: Trustee' for further information). The board decided to co-opt Debbie F. (3 for, 0 against). 3.6. Storage. This item was deferred to the board email list at Yo's request and with the research subcommittee chair's (Elaine) consent. 4. Follow ups 4.1. Submission of accounts/annual report by accountants and signing engagement letter inc. independent examination issue raised by Peter (Stephen). The interim treasurer (Stephen) reported that coordination between the former treasurer (Peter) and the company secretary (Yo) is ongoing, culminating in proposal 3.1 above, due to CASE offering the same fee with or without independent examination. At this point either the interim treasurer or company secretary needs to sign the relevant engagement letter. The company secretary (Yo) asked for clarification about whether it is the former treasurer (Peter) or the interim treasurer (Stephen) who is actually in contact with the accountants and the interim treasurer (Stephen) clarified that the former treasurer (Peter) is. The company secretary (Yo) stated that she is happy to sign the letter now the board has approved the expenditure and will send it to the former treasurer (Peter) to pass on to the accountants. 4.2. Director recruitment (Yo). The company secretary (Yo) reported that the current picture is complicated but attempted to summarise. The board has talked to and now turned down one potential candidate (Rangesh). The board has co-opted another candidate already known to the board (Debbie). There is another potential candidate still to talk to (Liz). Even if the board decides to co-opt Liz, we would still be lacking some key skills, particularly financial. So she intends (on the basis of previous authority) to pursue a more expensive recruitment option and use a service that will actively seek to match us with potential candidates to find those skills. However this will take longer (their forms are incredibly demanding on her resources and time which is why she hasn't done it to date and there are no guarantees of success. The chair (Martijn) thanked the company secretary (Yo) for the clear summary and enquired if anyone could help with the forms. She responded that unfortunately, probably no-one can because it would likely take her just as long to explain the ins and outs to another person. But if she keeps getting stuck she'll reconsider. Mostly it's just a question of reworking and rewriting everything she has already put in the job description and ad into the questions they ask. The chair (Martijn) asked the company secretary (Yo) to let the board know if she runs into trouble. 4.3. Insurance. Elaine reported that the former treasurer (Peter) has sent her the insurance details. The company secretary (Yo) asked whether this means that Elaine is on top of talking to the insurers about this year. Elaine said that she hasn't yet had a chance to act on the information but will get to it after the meeting. The chair (Martijn) asked Elaine to please report on the list when it's done or if there are any problems. 4.4. Potential sponsorship offer (Martijn). The chair (Martijn) reported that he had emailed the person from the organisation who inquired about sponsoring us, clarifying what Autscape is (i.e. autistic run, not your regular parent-run autism conference) and asking them what specifically they had in mind. He has not yet received a reply, except an automated notice saying the person in question will be out of the office until April 22 (tomorrow). If he doesn't get a reply soon after that, he intends to resend that email. 4.5. Outstanding 2012-2013 minutes awaiting approval (Martijn). The chair (Martijn) apologised and reported that he hasn't made any progress on this since last meeting. 4.6. Collecting powerpoints/handouts from 2012 presenters (Trish). Martijn reported that he has received a group of these from Trish, which either he or the IT systems manager (Stephen) should put up on the website. He thinks that Trish's part of this job is done. The company secretary (Yo) asked whether Martijn is sure that he has received all of them, because Trish's part of the job is following up to make sure we get all of them out of the presenters. Martijn undertook to check if he has them all, but thinks so. The company secretary (Yo) commented that getting them up (on the website) seems a low priority job, but it's bound to be helpful to people considering coming to be able to see what past presentations were like. 4.7. Amendment to gender question on registration form for equality reasons (Stephen). The IT systems manager (Stephen) reported that he has no received a response from the former IT systems manager (Peter) on this issue and had let the company secretary (Yo) know this but as far as he knows no-one has followed up on this. The company secretary (Yo) apologised and undertook to post on the list about this. She asked the IT systems manager (Stephen) to send the former IT systems manager (Peter) a reminder email in case he's overlooked it. 4.8. Appointing an onsite transport coordinator (Elaine) - deadline 22nd April. Elaine explained that she has a bit of a dilemma here. She would like us to provide transport because she thinks it is necessary for some people getting to Autscape. However, she can't think of anybody who can be at the station except herself, but is concerned about the conflict with her responsibilities at the venue. She asked for help in deciding which task it would be best for her to do. After some discussion, the board decided to make a final decision on this after considering the likely make-up of the on site team under item 4.9. Following that, the overall consensus was that the strain on the remaining likely members of the onsite team from Elaine's absence at the station is manageable if all goes to plan, whilst acknowledging that it could become very difficult to cope if there are significant train delays or other transport problems. The board decided to appoint Elaine as onsite transport coordinator. (4 for, 0 against) 4.9. (Handled out of order) Onsite team. All 4 directors present (Yo, Elaine, Stephen and Martijn) expressed willingness to serve on the onsite team. Elaine commented that she has some ideas about how the on-site team might work more effectively. Yo wanted to let the board know that she is not willing under any circumstances to serve as coordinator (and hoped the board would understand her reasons). However, she is willing to be on the team in a somewhat limited capacity, just *not* as a frontline person with a lot of direct contact with venue staff and participants. Martijn expressed some reluctance to serve as he is likely to be tired from the start due to other commitments immediately before Autscape. There was a brief discussion of potential non-board candidates for the onsite team, but no conclusion was reached at this early stage. 4.10. Autreat/Autscape overlap possibilities (Martijn). The chair (Martijn) clarified that, given that Autscape and Autreat will happen on the same days, we are thinking of setting up an internet video link and use that in some form or another. This could be ad hoc, just for contact between participants, or more formal, like sharing a presentation or lecture between the conferences. He reported that he isn't sure whether it is going to be realistic to manage anything on this but is willing to try. He felt that it's something that doesn't need to have a very high priority and that could, in a pinch, even be done ad hoc. He intends to propose it on the autreat-info list and see if they would be open to the idea. The board was supportive of this provided Autscape isn't making a huge commitment beyond our ability to manage or giving participants any guarantees that anything will come off. 5. Subcommittee progress reports 5.1. Programme (Chair: Martijn) (proposal voting arrangements and summary of subcommittee comments on proposals, proposed invitations including progress on benefits adviser, assessment of whether there is an adequately strong programme in place or in prospect, other issues). The programme subcommittee chair (Martijn) reported that Yo is dealing with inviting a benefits adviser. Yo reported that she had invited one possible benefits person and got a 'yes but only for substantial fee'. She is working on an alternative and will report back when she gets a reply. The programme subcommittee chair had nothing else to report that hadn't been discussed already. 5.2. Fundraising (Chair: Elaine) (fundraising strategy - deadline for presentation to the board in some form, assistance required, other issues). The fundraising coordinator (Elaine) reported that she had put some of the fundraising strategy on the board list. She undertook to put the rest on after this meeting. 5.3. Research (Chair: Elaine) (childcare providers, transport providers, future potential venues - providing information to the board, any outstanding points on storage, other issues) On childcare, the research subcommittee chair (Elaine) reported that she is waiting for one of the childcare providers to send me their policies and then it can go to a vote. The company secretary asked when she expected this to happen. The research subcommittee chair stated that she expected it to be this week and agreed that if she hasn't heard back from them but the end of this week she will drop them from the vote. The company secretary asked her to also post the information she has already got to the board list in the interim to allow the board time to consider it. On transport, the research subcommittee chair reported that she has the name of the company we used last time and some alternatives. There was a brief discussion of the pros and cons of integrating transport booking into registration and a tentative conclusion in favour of charging via registration and refunding if necessary was reached, along with an intention to discuss the issue further on the board list once the research subcommittee chair has the quotes available. 5.4. Publications and publicity (Chair: Martijn) (poster/flyer, NAS directory, adverts in other publications, updating website text esp. from 2012 to 2013 venue/fee/registration information, information pack, other issues). The publications and publicity subcommittee chair (Martijn) informed the board that no progress has been made in this area since last month. 5.5. Purchasing working group (Coordinator: Stephen). The purchasing coordinator (Stephen) reported that we have 150 pens for this year and a handful of merchandise already. He still needs to obtain pads of paper (we've run low), folders, name badges, interaction badges, etc. He intends to work on a budget for this over the next couple of weeks. The merchandise isn't a priority, and he is not treating replacement sensory equipment as one either; commenting that we've got enough for some sort of sensory room, even if it's not as fully featured as in previous years. 6. Key position progress reports (matters not covered earlier) 6.1. Registrar (Kalen) (registration system, are we on course to open registration on 23rd April?) The company secretary relayed the registrar's (Kalen) comment that she doesn't think she is going to have anything to report as registrar until registration is opened, which is not under her control at all. The chair (Martijn) reported that we are not on course to open registration on 23rd April. The registrar is waiting for something to happen. He hopes that any minor changes necessary in the registration system (e.g. see 4.7) will be able to be implemented soon and hopes we will be able to open registration in the next couple of weeks. 6.2. Venue Coordinator (Elaine) (matters arising, obtaining plan of fire doors, special diet discussion/draft menu) The venue coordinator (Elaine) reported that her priority is to get the venue info on the website but that she needs technical help to do so and to locate the venue text from the 2011 information pack (last time we used Ackworth). Martijn undertook to find them for her. The venue coordinator also reported that she has the name of the chef/catering manager and will now be able to start work on the menus. She reported receiving calls on the Autscape mobile and asked whether people can register by phone or post. The chair was unable to answer this immediately. He comments that he doesn't believe the registrar is likely to have the resources to manage this, but that an alternative might be for someone else to receive information in these ways and manually enter the data into the registration system. Further discussion of whether offering this is manageable was deferred to the board email list. 6.3. IT systems manager (Stephen) (handover, website updating - especially venue information prior to registration opening (Last month Martijn offered to find the Ackworth information and email it to Elaine for checking - has this happened?), registration system, anything else). The IT systems manager (Stephen) reported that website updates have been done semi-regularly over the past month, there are a couple of urgent ones left over from last month he needs to get done including updating the cancellation policy and putting up the 2012 presentations. He believes Martijn is in communication with Peter about the registration system. Martijn responded that he isn't but will be. 6.4. Interim Treasurer (Stephen) (actions taken under delegated authority, paypal handover, are we ready to take payments from registration in all the likely forms?, handover progress, training needs - including consideration of how the current year's accounts are going to be compiled, contact with bank/accountants, anything else). The interim treasurer (Stephen) reported that Paypal handover hasn't yet happened, due to difficulties with his ID documents and suggested that someone else might take control of the Paypal account in the interim. Other than Paypal, he believes that the likely forms of payment should be easily handled, though he needs to check with Peter (former treasurer) on how to pay cheques into our account before they start arriving (he intended to do that later that day). Given the delay in recruiting a potential treasurer, Stephen sees the need to request guidance from the former treasurer on compiling accounts (and intends to do this in the next week), since it seems likely that he will have to do them himself for this year. 6.5. Company Secretary (Yo) (bulletins, situation re 2010 and 2011 accounts from old organisation, follow ups from previously delegated actions, actions taken under delegated authority, outstanding issues). The company secretary (Yo) reported that she had sent out a members' bulletin and requested confirmation that others had received it (several directors confirmed receipt). She undertook to post to the board email list about the 2010 and 2011 accounts as the issue is complicated. She reported that the venue coordinator is checking on the PVSL documentation with the venue. Finally she noted that she is up to date with minutes and agendas. 6.6. Chair (Martijn) (road map, actions taken under delegated authority, board functioning and communication, progress so far in 2012-2013 and next tasks) The chair (Martijn) had nothing much to report, but felt that the entire meeting had given a good indication of our progress so far. 7. Other business 7.1. Elaine (who has undertaken to run a snack bar during Autscape 2013) queried whether she should request a budget for it or underwrite it herself and just send the profits to Autscape, as she did last year. The interim treasurer (Stephen) explained that Elaine underwriting it shifts the risk from Autscape to herself personally, which is advantageous to Autscape but which Elaine should not feel obligated to do unless she is entirely comfortable doing it. Elaine stated that she actually finds it easier to take the risk herself. Meeting closed 16.26
APPENDIX A Rationale: Back in November 2012 we decided not to request an independent examination in order to save money. However interacting with the accountants it has become clear that they are in fact unwilling to provide us with accountancy services for less than £700, which is their standard fee including an independent examination. Consequently we may as well have the independent examination for the same price. The only alternative would be to shop around for cheaper accountancy services and my advice to the board as company secretary is that (a) it is unlikely we would be successful in securing cheaper services; and (b) the potential saving is not worth the demands of time and effort to try to find suitable alternative accountants and establish a working relationship with them. Yo For reference "November 2012 minutes 2.1. Independent Examination. The board considered a proposal (deferred from last month) not to have Autscape's accounts subjected to an independent examination henceforth (see Appendix A). Some mild concerns were raised about the potential for a negative reaction from some members, but there was a consensus that the sum saved (£300-400) was significant enough to outweigh the likelihood that a relatively small number of members may be less than comfortable with the decision. The board noted, as last month, that an independent examination is not a legal requirement for Autscape due to our small size and that the process is largely redundant since Autscape's accounts are, in any case, prepared by external accountants. The board also noted the possibility of having an independent examination less frequently that every year if that was felt to be of benefit and the importance of explaining this decision to the membership in advance of queries being raised. Yo volunteered to write the explanation and Martijn offered to proofread and simplify. The board decided not to have Autscape's accounts subjected to an independent examination henceforth (unless it becomes legally necessary or the board sees fit) and to communicate an explanation of this decision to the membership. (5 for, 0 against)" APPENDIX B Day fees proposed: Adult Standard £75 1 day / £150 2+ days Adult Low cost £65 1 day / £130 2+ days Child standard £60 1 day / £120 2+ days Child low cost £50 1 day / £100 2+ days Child 0-4 £30 1 day / £60 2+ days Professional £90 1 day / £180 2+ days Carer/PA: 1 day - £30 2 days - £60 3+ days - £90 Notes: We're charged GBP 30 per day compared to GBP 40 a day for full attendance, so I've aimed at a reduction of GBP 30 for a 3 day attendance, based on the corresponding residential fee for a shared room. I have made the two day attendance be the same as three days, and the one day attendance be half of that, as we have been doing for the past few years. The result is that, for standard income adults at least, our day rates are slightly lower than the day rates for the past two years. The exceptions are: Child 0-4: Unreduced. Whether the venue charges us for young children is based on if the child needs a bed or not for overnight attendance, and I have literally no clue how they'd do it for day attendance. Carer: The cost isn't the same for 2 days as 3 days to allow us to charge only what the venue is charging us. Stephen APPENDIX C2 Background I have been working extensively on venues recently with help from Debbie. A lot of the venues we had on the list have had to be eliminated for one reason or another after closer scrutiny. E.g. Sneaton Castle at Whitby has always looked promising. However, during a phone call, which also sounded promising it suddenly emerged that whilst we could have exclusive use of the living accommodation we could not have exclusive use of the conference rooms as they are used by various groups on a regular basis throughout the week. As a result we are left with 2 familiar venues (Ackworth and Belsey Bridge) and 2 possible new venues, one of which Debbie is visiting (King's Park conference centre near Northampton) and one of which I am visiting (Cloverley Hall near Whitchurch). There are other possibilities but they have yet to be investigated fully and are not so easy to arrange a visit because of the distance involved. However, bearing in mind that at the September 2012 board meeting, item 2.1.3, we had a discussion in which we were all keen to return to Belsey Bridge but were put off by the increased price quoted, I decided to call to see if I could negotiate a better price. Details of the response I got are available to the board in Appendix C1 on the board list but cannot be made public due to the commercial sensitivity of the financial information. Unfortunately they won't hold this offer open very long and I have to let them know next week if we are going to accept. If the board decides to wait until the outcome of the planned venue visits before deciding it runs a very strong risk of losing Belsey Bridge. There is also no guarantee that the two planned venue visits will be successful and therefore we might be left with just Ackworth to choose from until other venue visits can be made. I also think it is worth considering that they might not offer us a good rate again should we turn them down. By choosing Belsey Bridge now this also takes the pressure off trying to find a venue for 2014 with such a small board and lots of other tasks. Hopefully the momentum started can continue but without the urgency to find us a new venue for 2015. Elaine APPENDIX D http://www.calendardate.com/2014.php