Present: Honorary Officers: Honorary Treasurer, Carolin Göhler Honorary Secretary, Helen Tranter

Transcription

1 16 October AGM 2014 Minutes Page 1 of 6 Minutes of the Eighty fifth Annual General Meeting of the Landscape Institute held on 16 th October 2014 at the University of Greenwich, Stockwell Street, London SE10 9JN Present: Honorary Officers: President, Noel Farrer Immediate Past President, Sue Illman Vice President, Ian Phillips Honorary Treasurer, Carolin Göhler Honorary Secretary, Helen Tranter Board Members: Chair EMC, Michelle Bolger Chair PCC, Merrick Denton Thompson Advisory Council Members: Robert Holden John Stuart Murray Amanda McDermott Adrian Wikeley Candida Diamond Rose Walker Annie Coombs Dan Bowles Katharine Schofield Adrian Clarke Christine Tudor Claire Symons David Watkis Jan Taylor Steve Fancourt Rachel Tennant Alan Nowell Colin Moore Clare Michael Kate Bailey Members in attendance: David Parfitt Licentiate Tom Turner CMLI (retired) Marianne Park Licentiate Lewis White CMLI Jo Watkins CMLI Amanda Renshaw CMLI David Scully CMLI Peter Wilder CMLI Ralitsa Zaharieva MLA Duncan Goodwin CMLI Anna Lowgley CMLI David Appleton CMLI Brian Clouston PPLI FLI Martin Bhatia CMLI Kate Bailey CMLI Stephen Fancourt CMLI Annabel Downs CMLI Tony Edwards FLI Ruth Davies CMLI Alastair Ferrar CMLI Paul Cowell CMLI Edward Hutchison CMLI Helen Neve CMLI Simon Odell CMLI Giles Hopgood CMLI Rory McNally CMLI Hal Moggridge CMLI Julian Gladman CMLI Joanna Pittman Sayer Vincent Staff in attendance: Phil Mulligan, Chief Executive Paul Lincoln, Director of Policy and Communications Chris Sheridan, Head of Education and Membership Simon Odell, Head of Technical and Professional Services (see above) Stephen Russell, Policy and External Affairs Manager Sabina Mohideen, Events and Competitions Manager Becky Brewis, Communications Officer Yvonne Matthews, Executive Assistant and HR Officer

2 Emma Wood, Professional Support Officer Item Item Item Item Item Apologies for Absence The President welcomed those present. There were no apologies of absence to report. To approve the Minutes of the Annual General Meeting held 8 th November 2013 The President asked for corrections, none were received. A vote was taken to approve the minutes. The minutes were approved. The President presented the highlights from the annual review and thanked Sue Illman for her presidency. Decision: The minutes were approved as an accurate record of the last AGM. To receive the report of the Board and approve the Audited Accounts of the Institute for the previous financial year, ending 31 March Brian Clouston, PPLI, asked why the accounts did not show expenditure and income against P2C and CPD events. It was explained that this level of detail was not included in the published accounts as the format of such accounts is set by the Charity Commission. However, this level of detail can be provided to members on request. Brian proposed that front and back office services should be separated to save costs. Carolin Gohler, Honorary Treasurer, gave a presentation on the audited accounts and thanked previous Honorary Treasurer Penny Beckett. A vote was taken to approve the accounts. Decision: The accounts were approved. To re appoint Sayer Vincent as Auditors The President stated that auditors Sayer Vincent had carried out an excellent audit and asked for the auditors to be re appointed. A vote was taken to re appoint the auditors. Decision: Sayer Vincent were re appointed as the Landscape Institute Auditors. Motions from members The President advised that Motion 1 and Motion 2 would be taken together. Five minutes to be given to the speakers for the motion, and five minutes for those against. Speaking for Motion 1 David Appleton, CMLI, spoke on behalf of a group of LI members that describe themselves as the reform group. David expressed the opinion that the LI should better recognise the devolution agenda. Increased funding was therefore proposed to reinvigorate Branches. He referred to the LI s various committees and sub groups, and whether this was an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. Speaking for Motion 2 2

3 David Appleton claimed there was no need for a working group to consider a future office location that included London. It was stated that the LI should move out of London to reduce costs. He believed the Board's response was farcical Speaking against Motion 1 The Honorary Treasurer presented the Board s response. Branches are highly valued and increased support has already been agreed. The Branch Funding Working Group was set up to provide a fair and transparent way to distribute funds to Branches. It would not be appropriate to give large sums of money to Branches that lacked the capacity to spend it. Speaking against Motion 2 There are many factors to be considered before moving location. London should not be ruled out as a possible location. The Board's response is more inclusive. Other speakers were invited and asked to keep their presentation within two minutes. Most did not. Tom Turner (CMLI and a requisitioner of the motions) reflected on having taught over 1,500 students. He believed that the profession faces lots of opportunities, but claimed that the profession s finest hour was behind it, under Jellicoe's presidency. His view was that the profession must produce more policy statements, and that the production should be devolved to Branches. Brian Clouston (PPLI and a requisitioner of the motions) referred to the LI decision in 2007 to change the constitution and limit decision making. The motions now being presented to the membership propose that instead of the Board of Trustees deciding how to spend 30% of the LI s income, members at the branch level will decide. Brian felt this approach was considered more equitable. Merrick Denton Thompson (FLI, Board member) responded by reminding the AGM that the Landscape Institute is a small charity. The comment made earlier concerning a front and back office separation would not be viable. He also reminded the AGM that members are able to vote for trustees through the election process. Ian Philips (CMLI, Board member) responded to Tom Turner's comment on policy work. He explained the LI produces targeted policy statements to specific audiences for maximum effect, which is recognised as a more effective approach. As for office location, all options should be considered. Michelle Bolger (CMLI, Board member) supported Ian Philips s comments. All options for a new location should be considered by the working group. As for motion 1, Michelle challenged David Appleton s assertion that the LI has too many committees. The LI s committee structure is clear evidence that the LI is engaged with members. Amanda McDermott (Council member licentiate rep and a member of the Yorkshire and Humberside Branch committee) explained that the Branch committee had discussed Motion 1. It was agree that more funding was necessary, but 30% was too high. It was recognised that a central LI provided positive benefits due to economies of scale. Amanda expressed some frustration that as a Licentiate member she was unable to vote at the AGM. 3

4 Tony Edwards (CMLI) asked whether the LI is functioning as well as it could. He claimed that both motions are linked to better engagement with members. Tony encouraged the AGM to take a risk and vote for the motions. Sue Illman (FLI and Board member) responded to Tony Edwards s encouragement of taking a risk, given the LI s recent financial past. Diverting 30% of income to Branches is very risky, and it was not clear that all Branches would be in a better financial position. Edward Hutchinson (CMLI and a requisitioner of the motions) claimed the AGM shows a split in membership. He suggested the LI has three categories; the disinterested, those who are active and accept that the LI is for the public benefit, and the reform group who believe the LI should focus on LI members. Edward expressed disappointment that not all the trustees had attended. Alan Nowell (CMLI and Council member Yorkshire and Humberside Branch rep) explained that he would vote against the motions. As a branch member he recognised that Branch funding has been increased in recent years. Rose Walker (Council member licentiate rep) said that handing such a large percentage of funds to Branches is risky. As a Licentiate member she also expressed frustration that she could not vote. Simon Odell (CMLI and a member of LI staff) believed that splitting the organisation into a front/back office model would not be economic given the size of the LI. He noted that many professional bodies are based in London. He added that in his opinion the LI staff team is effective, and that this should be recognised as part of the AGM discussion. Lewis White (CMLI) had sympathy for the views of the requisitioners, but felt Yorkshire made a good case of the reality at a Branch level. Tom Turner explained that Motion 1 is to distribute money, not to waste it or spend unnecessarily. He reaffirmed his view that the profession needs more policy work. Ian Philips reminded the AGM that the LI produces targeted policies. He also expressed concern that in his view, Edward Hutchinson s comment on focusing on LI members misunderstands the nature of the LI s Charter. Professional bodies work in the interest of the public. The LI cannot act as a trade association, but it can and does support members. Tony Edwards added that the reform group want to effect change. The risk in diverting funds to Branches is being overstated. Controls would be in place. Brian Clouston explained that at a North West Branch meeting several years ago, previous Chief Executive Alistair McCapra agreed that members do not visit the London office. Brian also referred to a comment by Nick Raynsford MP, who suggested that professional bodies would be better lobbying local MPs via Branches. It is hard to engage MPs in London. The AGM debate was then closed, and the President reminded all that only corporate members can vote. He also advised that the counting of proxy votes had been witnessed by a representative 4

5 of the requisitioners The total votes cast by proxy and in person at the AGM were as follows: MOTION 1: That the money allocated to the branches is increased yearly to 2019 to reach 30% of the Institute's total income. The distribution is to be based on the number of members in each branch, the financial contribution made by the practices and the need for policy officers for the devolved nations. The distribution of money to be determined by the Board of Trustees. An annual account and report justifying the expenditure and the benefits accrued to the Branch and the Institute to be submitted at the end of each financial year. A review of the scheme as a whole after 5 years with a view to increase or decrease the % allocated to the branches. Votes for: 118, votes against: 119, abstentions: 6 The motion was not passed MOTION 2: That Landscape Institute members should be consulted in the investment of the 1.2m receipt from the sale of Barnard Mews and propose: a) That the money from the sale of Barnard Mews should be invested in a headquarters property outside London, in a location with reasonable access to a majority of members. b) In the interim the capital receipt should be invested in safe high yield accounts set aside and identified as a property investment account i.e. ring fenced for the purchase of a headquarters building. c) That a headquarters working group should be set up with representatives from all the branches to advise the membership on: i. On the cost benefits of relocation from London to a provincial location. ii. A preferred location for a headquarters building outside London. iii. On the savings to the Institute achieved by purchasing a freehold property, the potential income generated from letting any surplus space, and relative savings in staffing costs from locating outside London. The working group to report back within 9 months. d) That a move to locate out of London is timed to coincide with the first break clause in the current lease for the headquarters. Votes for: 126, votes against: 113, abstentions: 4 The motion was passed Closing comments A final comment was made from the meeting that discussion via Talking Landscapes should be promoted and better structured. The President was thanked for his diplomatic chairing of a debate where speakers rarely kept within their allocated 2 minutes

6 The meeting closed. 6