Tutor Zone
Annual General Meeting - 2006
Present: A Wigram, S Wigram, H Post, S Hemming, N Wallop, C Garbett, E Duncalf
Apologies were received from: T Pernice, D Straus, L Oram
The meeting was opened by the Chair of Trustees, with a note of thanks to Davison & Shingleton, for the work they have put in, compiling this years accounts. In particular the input from Emma Duncalf (ED) in recasting last the figures to conform with SORP 2005 accounting practice. It was also noted that the accountants had done additional work Pro Bono, and the Chair would write to them acknowledging this.
The previous meeting minutes were approved with no comments
The Treasurer suggested that ED should go through the main points, which she did noting the following :
Presentation of accounts for the year ended April 5, 2006
ED stated that this year the accounts had been prepared under the latest Statement of Recommended Practice (“SORP 2005”) which had resulted in some quite significant changes to the accounts and a restatement of the prior year comparatives.
SORP 2005 requires that where a charity receives grants that are essentially payments for services (for example the Learning and Skills Council North contract) the income and costs have to be accounted for on a percentage complete basis. Historically the income pertaining to these types of grants had been recognised on receipt. ED referred the trustees note 4 of the accounts on page 17 which reconciles the income as reported previously (and cash received) to the amounts recognised under the new SORP. This is so that any donors who wish to look at the accounts can clearly identify their original cash donation. Adopting SORP 2005 has resulted in income of £81,350 previously recognised in 2005 being deferred into 2006 with deferred income carried forward at April 5, 2006 of £54,563.
This method of accounting for performance related contracts also requires that each contract be examined and if any are believed to be loss making, that loss must be recognised in full up front. This situation only relates to one contract – Connexions and a loss of £2,612 has been booked in the accounts for the year ended April 5, 2006.
ED then referred the trustees to note 16 of the accounts on page 22 detailing the movement on each individual restricted fund. Performance related contracts have been separated from other types of grants for clarity and it can be seen from this analysis that when three of these projects were completed in the year a small “profit” was made. This “profit” has then been transferred to unrestricted funds for the ongoing use of the charity as permitted by SORP 2005. ED pointed out that it was looking likely that the Learning and Skills Council North project was going to be very profitable though it was noted that the project was not complete and costs may be end loaded.
ED then covered the main changes to the Statement of Financial Activities which are disclosure items pertaining to the analysis of expenditure. The activities of U Can Do I.T. are now analysed as : cost of charitable activities which can only include directly attributable costs such as tutor fees, travel, recruitment etc, costs of generating voluntary income (fundraising) and governance costs which replaces the management and admin category. The remaining costs such as staff costs and property costs that cannot be directly attributed to an activity are now known as overhead and support costs and have to be apportioned between these activities. ED then referred the trustees to note 7 of the accounts on page 18 which shows the allocation of these costs based on staff numbers derived from note 9. Note 9 shows 1.3 fundraising staff and ED pointed out that this number was discussed with AW and HP in their meeting during the previous week. It was felt that the number of fundraising staff was more like 1.1 but it was agreed not to amend the accounts for this.
AW then noted that after all adjustments the Statement of Financial Activities reflected an overall surplus of £33,487 which was satisfactory. In terms of cash, cash was held at a comparable level to the prior year which was also deemed to be satisfactory.
AW then requested that if there were no further questions, that the accounts be approved by the trustees for signing. The trustees gave their assent and the accounts were duly signed by AW and HP.
ED then left the meeting.
The 2006/7 accounts were then duly signed by the Chair and Treasurer, and returned to ED
In Lisa Oram’s absence the Chair presented the Administration report. He explained that the numbers of learners on the course so far this year were down on the same period last year for the following reasons:
- Overall numbers were lower because Transport for Londons Getting There magazine, which is a good source of referrals, had not been published for 9 months. But he said a further Issue was expected at the end of June
- Secondly, analysis of the time taken to install computers, showed that this was adding some 60 days to the on course lead time.
The chair added that all the major contracts were broadly on schedule, and that LSC and ALG auditors were satisfied with our performance.
AW also said that we had passed an external audit of PQASSO quality assurance, and that we are now working on Matrix.
Chris Garbett gave a short report on Fundraising & Outreach. The main points were as follows:
- That the funding landscape was becoming much harsher because:
- Local Authorities are replacing Grants with Commissioning and contracts, which many voluntary organisations dislike, and who are turning to Grant making Trusts, and so putting pressure on UCDIT’s main source of revenue
- The LSC is increasingly contracting with larger organisations and Consortia
- ESF funding is being reduced as monies are going to new entrants of the Union
- CG explained that in response to this, that UCDIT were:
- Developing relationships with new larger Grant making Trusts, including Ellerman’s, Wates Foundation, and Clore Duffield, where we are now in a good position to secure funding.
- In the process of developing a sizeable partnership bid to the Lottery Fund for Kent, with Royal Association of the Deaf, Kent County Council, Kent Association of the Blind and others
- The Chair then went on to outline the potential for developing a Community Interest Company, whereby UCDIT would set up a subsidiary to sell ICT training to other organisations for profit in order to fund UCDIT’s activities. HP asked whether this meant taking on full time employees. AW replied that the idea of freelance trainers would be used in this company, though an administrator/ business person may be required at a later date.
The Chair concluded the meeting by asking whether Trustees meetings were held frequently enough. HP replied that he sat on a number of larger Charities boards, who held a similar number to UCDIT, so it was agreed quarterly meetings would continue.
The Chair thanked everyone for their time
