Page 1 of 14

19 GHC MINUTES 19:00 — 16th July 2014

Venue — Community Office

Attendees Apologies

SC — Steve Coles, Chair (BF) JC — Jackie Crook

PB — Paul Brodie, Secretary (BF) SS — Sue Sutton (Salix)

DW — David Walker (RT) DO — Damien O’Connor (BF)

JL — Jason Large (RT) GJ — Gareth Jones (GF)

LM — Linda Manley (BF) JI — John Imoh (RT)

DF — Dave Fraser (Community) SC — Cllr Stephen Coen

PL — Paul Lusk, Lead Advisor LH — Lee Holland

MD — Marie Donaghey (Salford Council) JT — Jan Traynor, Treasurer (NB) H

JD — Jonathan Drake (Salix Homes) SSh — Steve Sharples (ITA)

1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Housekeeping PB informed the Board that the meeting was going to be digitally recorded, for ease of minute-taking — unless there were any objections? No objections. Introduction from the Chair. 1. SC welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Jonathan Drake — Salix Homes, attending on the behalf of Sue Sutton / Jackie Crook, who are both unable to attend.

2. PL asked if Steve Sharples is coming (Independent Tenant Advisor)? PB advised that he had picked up emails late — but had received apologies, and that it was too late to update the agenda.

3. PB asked MD if the Stock Condition information had been shared with Paul Lusk, as this had been requested over 4 months ago. MD responded 'no', but added that it will be sent in advance of Steve Sharples visit.

Apologies PB advised the Board of apologies from JC, SS, JT and SSh.

Agree the minutes of last meeting. Matters arising. Sign Off. Minutes formally agreed as a true record and signed off by SC.

Correspondence. 1. SC advised that we had received confirmation from Companies House regarding the

requested change in 'End of Financial Year' for GHCTMO. SC went on to explain that the second year has been a short year from September 2013 through to March 2014, the accounts of which had been done as a 'Job Lot'. He also advised that these accounts were now ready to be signed and submitted, and that we had until December 2014 to do so.

2. PB advised that the only other correspondence was in regard to the Community Event on 26th July 2014 and that as it was an agenda item (number 5) suggested that we discuss it under that item. Agreed.

Page 2 of 14

2.

Finance 1. SC advised that as Jan was away — we had no financial report to offer. 2. MD advised that she had emailed Jan (copying PB and SC into the email) with the confirmed

figure £6,667.00 from Salford City Council, but as yet, had not received a response. SC advised that the required Banking Information would be sent within the next few days with an invoice.

ACTION: SC / JT provide Bank Account details and invoice to MD for payment

3. Membership 1. SC advised that we had 3 or 4 new members through the website. DF advised that the

outreach team had collected 20 new membership forms on the previous day. SC was concerned with duplication of membership, so it was agreed that he would check the new membership forms against the database of members. DF was asked, if all of the new members were from one session — DF confirmed that it was. DW asked where on the estate had the outreach been collecting opinions and memberships — DF advised outside Newbank Tower, but asked the Board to defer questions until his report later on the Agenda.

2. MD asked if we knew the exact number of Membership, SC replied that the database has 130, plus the recent 3 or 4, and then the 20 from the Outreach Team. However, without first checking for duplication — an approximate figure of 150 is the most likely. PB advised that if this figure was accurate that it represents almost a third of properties on the estate, but commented that the Board were aware of a few resident / members who had moved out — and this would inevitably reduce the membership figures.

3. PL informed that Board that he should be able to compare the tenant list with the database to provide an accurate figure. PL offered to request an updated tenant list and then do a comparison with latest names and addresses.

ACTION: PL to request updated Tenant List and check Membership. 4. SC asked if DF could pass the data on to him so membership records could be updated. DF

advised that this was something already covered in his upcoming framework report and accompanying appendix of up to date members, and agreed to do so.

ACTION: DF to pass relevant new member details to SC.

5. SC and the Board with very happy with the first results from the Outreach work.

4.

Guest Speaker / Reports — Cancelled until another meeting

5.1

Training Sessions — Visits — Events 1. SC informed that Board that Tuesday Evenings, Thursday Evenings and Saturday Mornings

remained the preferred options for timetabling training. MD asked if this information had been shared, as she had only seen a ‘draft’ or 'comments' in an email. SC advised that he was sharing the information now, and that it has been mentioned and discussed before. MD commented that she needed the confirmation for Sue Sutton and herself in order for them to arrange Training.

2. Jonathan Drake asked for clarification on what these sessions were for. SC replied that they are Training and Information Workshops for the Board and members. PL advised that the Training sessions would involve Salix Homes. MD advised that the majority of the Training would involve Salix Homes, and as we were approaching the Holiday Season, that Salix needs as many dates as possible. SC added that a list of Training requirements had already been

Page 3 of 14

5.2. 5.3

provided to Salix Homes following the excellent Training Session delivered by Salix Heads of Department.

ACTION: MD / JD to pass on confirmed days for training to SS. 3. DF advised that we had already scheduled some Community Workshop sessions on Tuesday

and Thursday Evenings (attempting to get 6 sessions a month). MD agreed that Training would work around this, to make sure that there was no double-booking.

4. PB reminded the Board that at the last Salix Training Session, we had requested the electronic copy from SS, who had said that it would be shared. As we had still not received it, could JD make the request again?

ACTION: JD to forward electronic copy of Training Session from Salix. 5. SC advised that he had sent a timetable of Training Sessions from Trafford Hall to Board

members, requesting that members look at what they could attend. PB commented that we had already discussed the opportunities with the other Salford TMO’s, Windsor Albion and New Barracks, to share training sessions, possible visits and costs. MD advised that although Windsor Albion are well established, they currently have new board members and a new manager, who could also benefit from shared training sessions.

ACTION: SC to contact other interested parties for training and visits.

Visits 1. SC advised that Nick Reynolds (Chair NFTMO) and Karen Williams (CEO Bushbury Hill —

Wolverhampton and on the National Executive of NFTMO), had attended the TPAS conference in Manchester, and had arranged to visit Greengate Housing Co-operative. They spent about 90 minutes with SC, and discussed the arrangements for a trip to visit a few West Midlands TMOs.

2. PL suggested that the visit could also include more members / residents, who had shown an interest through the work of Dave Fraser and the Outreach Team. The suggestion was that it could be included in what the Outreach Team was offering. MD suggested that we could invite members from Windsor Albion as well.

3. DF suggested that it should be a 45 seat coach, as this would create further momentum for interested members, e.g. ‘Would you like to see another TMO actually working?’ It would also present an ideal opportunity to work with the members during both parts of the journey.

ACTION: SC to speak with Nick Reynolds regarding visit, to ascertain maximum numbers and date, and then pass to DF. Event Update 1. PB advised that contact had been made with 16 different organisations, with a very poor

response. The most positive response was received from our local PCSO Andrea Fullerton. JD confirmed that 2 officers from Salix Homes would be attending with a stall (Georgina Nield and one other). PB asked if this would be regarding Stock Transfer. JD advised that if Stock Transfer questions came up, then Salix Staff would be able to respond. JD also offered to look at access and grass cutting for the day. MD apologised that as she would be unable to attend, due to other commitments; that she would speak with colleagues to see if anyone would be able to attend on SCC behalf. DF confirmed that there would be 6 members of the Outreach Team attending on the day.

ACTION: JD (on behalf of Salix Homes) to try and arrange with environmental services for access to green-space and grass-cutting.

Page 4 of 14

2. PB also advised the board that he had looked at organisations that ‘match fund’ community

events, and is still waiting to hear from those organisations. PL advised that we have a budget for these type of events, and that we had an under-spend of approximately £12K on the work programme. PB commented that as an emerging TMO we think that we should remain within the budget, and perhaps partner with other organisations to capitalise on the event.

3. SC advised that Julie Thompson (New Barracks’ Co-ordinator) and some Board Members would be attending, and were happy to answer any questions that we felt we couldn’t answer. PB suggested that we contact Adele Langford, Windsor Albion’s new Operations Manager, for their participation too. MD informed the board the Adele was on Holiday until Monday — and suggested that PB or SC give her a ring.

ACTION: PB or SC to contact Windsor Albion after 21st July 2014 4. DF informed the board that the Fire Service had been contacted and agreed to attend,

dependent on any emergencies on the day. PB had also contacted GMP as they have a new Community Funding arm. JD advised that GMP are really pushing their 'Community Development Arm, and that he believes that they also match fund. LM informed the group that Salix Homes sometimes employ a Face Painter, and JD offered to try and attract as many people as possible, Salford Community Leisure for example (as these had been used very successfully on the Duchy Estate previously) and a Face Painter.

ACTION: JD to try and arrange face painter.

6.1

Work Programme — Outreach / Engagement 1. SC invited DF to start the discussion regarding the work of the Outreach Team.

DF explained that they had been operating for 2 days; having a team out, collecting 20 new memberships and starting the conversations. DF detailed the agreed timetable of Outreach work; trying out different dates and times for the maximum effect, and ‘follow-ups’ or ‘one-to one meetings’ had also started. DF asked the board to look at four things; distributed the draft hand outs, explaining the need for clarity and decisions from the Board as to the format and content of the final report. DF was happy to alter anything that the Board felt necessary. JD asked if the work was more to do with service delivery than just membership. DF explained the work being performed by the Team was to feed into the final plans for service delivery, and that if evidence of consultation was required, that this would also be provided. DF requested from the Board a formal approval (either now, or at the next meeting) that this was what the Board expected in the final report.

2. DW raised issues regarding resident views on Lettings Allocations and the statutory policies. MD advised that a Community Letting Policy could be implemented but we would likely have to follow the policy set down by the local authority. Further discussion took place regarding ‘Signposting’ potential residents to appropriate services, and the various bands in Choice-Based-Lettings. PL advised that he thought that this was wider than just Lettings and under the Localism Act, we could have a Local Lettings Policy, and that there is some flexibility around community engagement and it can be built in. This would have to be negotiated with the Council, and the options to interview potential residents, are in the Management Agreement. PL also advised that interviewing for lettings can be quite onerous, so it would really be a question of Board Members committing the time to do interviews. PL also informed the Board that if we become Housing Association tenants, that we would not be

Page 5 of 14

quite as restricted in terms of legislation. Council Housing must be let within the Council’s published Allocations Policy, in Housing Associations there is greater flexibility, as it then falls within the Council’s strategic responsibility and what is negotiated.

3. DF advised that the report would be a ‘stepping stone’ between what people are saying in the foyers, in ‘one-to-one sessions’ and our business plan. JD commented that it could also be a stepping stone for the Board to be creating a Sustainable Tenancy Strategy.

Approval: Following some minor changes, the Board accepted and approved the draft presented to them. 4. DF advised that over the next three weeks the TMO’s profile will be raised, getting the

message out there and collecting memberships. In August there will be more detailed work with residents to help them think through some of the more complex issues that will form part of the Business Plan. DF presented one flyer that had already been agreed and distributed, basically informing the resident body that the Outreach Team were in the area starting the conversation, collecting opinions and increasing membership. The next engagement flyer — for Board Approval — would be on a much more one-to-one basis with follow-ups, informing the resident body of service specific meetings, that they may be interested in attending. DF distributed the hand-outs, for the board to read and check dates etc. He then went on to explain that there were clear time constraints for this work.

5. MD asked if this was being delivered to all members/residents? DF explained that this would be handed to residents through the Outreach Team’s conversations on doorsteps, foyers, entrances. The names will be taken of anyone who shows an interest in the specific subject, and a ‘follow up’ will be scheduled. DF was happy for Salix representatives to attend any of the work, but specifically requested that a representative from Salix attend the workshop on the 27th August 2014.

ACTION: JD to arrange representative from Salix Homes for meeting on the 27th August 2014 6. On the other workshop dates 12th, 14th, 19th and 21st August 2014, either PL or DF will

provide Specialist Trainers, so residents can explore ideas. DF explained that it would be helpful if organisations who already deliver the services could attend.

Approval: The Board accepted and approved the structure of the engagement strategy and dates. 7. JD asked if we wanted Salix Homes to be present at the door-knocking events, and PL asked

if JD was now to be the contact for Salix Homes? JD advised that as SS and JC were unable to attend tonight’s meeting, that he had stepped in on their behalf.

8. The Board agreed that Board members will staff the office on a Saturday Afternoon for ‘Drop-Ins’, and DF advised that this could also be advertised to the wider resident body.

9. DF advised the board that the structure of work performed by the Outreach Team would also be able to evidence and justify majority opinions, this in turn would lead the Board to manage time and costs to either include or exclude specific Services in the agreement. DF advised that as results will be dependent upon attendance, and that August is not the best month to conduct this work, they have also produced a questionnaire/survey called ‘Catch-Up’, which he believes covers the issues. The Board were asked to read through, make comment and alterations as required.

10. JD clarified the process by explaining that the session in July was basically for residents to say what their problems were with current service delivery (grumble meeting); then to use the information gathered as a catalyst for workshops on 12th, 14th, 19th and 21st August 2014 where resident can work up some possible solutions: and then on the 27th August 2014 we

Page 6 of 14

6.2

can challenge the solutions. DF added that the information would then be verified and would then come to the Board at the AGM as a report. Once approved, this would then be incorporated into the Business Plan.

11. PB pointed out that the AGM was initially set for August / September, and discussions took place as to what was set down in the Articles of Association. The Board agreed to incorporate all of the results from the engagement work at the AGM. DF advised that we should do a verification exercise (collecting all information, providing a draft report, reflecting the majority opinion, etc) in September at the AGM.

12. MD asked if this ‘Catch-Up’ will be on the doorstep — DF responded by stating at the door, in the car park, at the Community Event, etc. DF advised that the ‘Catch-Up’ would be anonymous, unless residents wanted to add their name.

13. LM raised an issue with some of the wording — the Board agreed the changes which were accepted by all.

14. DF reminded the Board that they were welcome to attend any of the Outreach Teams work, and to man the Office for ‘Drop-Ins’. The Board agreed that the office will be covered on Saturdays between noon and 3pm, for the next 6 weeks.

15. PB gave set of keys to DF for the Community Office, toilet and refreshment facilities for the Outreach Team.

16. DF raised question from a variety of residents for Salix Homes — in regards to central Heating and cladding. JD agreed to respond the following day. DF also mentioned that lifts being unusable (due to workmen lodging doors open on various floors) were creating problems for the team.

ACTION: JD to reply to DF in regards to questions from residents. 1. MD raised issues about a needed briefing session with all the workers together, so Salix and

the Council could attend and make them aware of works going on with Decent Homes and Stock Options. So if there are any issues procedures would be set down. As this had not been done, issues were now coming up. DF responded to MD that if residents were raising questions regarding Stock Options, then the Team would respond that they know nothing about Stock Options. JD offered Salix Staff to accompany the Outreach Team to prevent confusion. DF suggested that it would likely cause more confusion. MD asked if any questions regarding Stock Options had been raised, to which DF responded ‘no’.

2. LM stated that we have been collecting membership for some time now and that no consultation was required with Salford City Council, DF advised that we were not only collecting membership, but now collecting opinions and inviting residents to attend workshops. DF clarified that the Outreach Team were there to ask questions, not to provide answers, and to encourage participation.

3. JD asked who the Outreach Team were, and if they were Salix Tenants? DF responded that it was a Community Co-operative with session workers and that they were not in this area. JD asked how sure are we that the Team do not have their own agenda regarding the Stock Transfer — DF responded with personal guarantees and confirmed that if they do not conduct themselves at the standard required, they will no longer be working.

4. JL commented very positively, on the time that he was approached by the Team and asked questions in a non-persuasive manner, and that he did not feel that anything that was said could be construed as leading or pushy. DF was pleased to hear this, and clarified for those present that the work was about the ‘tenant’s agenda’ not anyone else’s. DF was happy to take names and numbers of residents if they really wanted information on Stock Transfer, and pass them on.

ACTION: MD to supply Council Stock Option flyers to DF.

Page 7 of 14

5. DF highlighted access problems to the properties — JD would advise and speak with First

Response in regard to providing access. PB offered the Master-Fob, but the Board agreed that JD and First Response would deal with the access issues. PL reminded everyone that the Master-Fob was given to GHCTMO for these reasons.

ACTION: JD to chase up issues with access, with First Response, perhaps offering a password. 6. MD asked if the Team were wearing visible ID’s, which was then confirmed. PL asked what

do the ID’s advertise — it was confirmed that they say Greengate Housing Co-operative. JD asked about risk assessments. DF confirmed that there was a generic risk-assessment for outreach work, but a specific one had been completed for this particular work.

7. MD asked if there was a timetable available for the work over the next 6 weeks. SC reiterated that the times were variable. DF went on to explain that the draft plan exists but it is completely dependent on the availability of session workers, but more targeted to when the Team get the greatest catchment. Finally, DF advised that there would be 6 from the Outreach Team attending the Community Event, and that they would be collecting new membership, opinions, questionnaires and arranging catch-up sessions on the day.

8. MD wanted to pick up on the protocols and the contract, mentioned by DCLG. SC advised that discussions were taking place and agreements existed in principle, with an hourly rate and weekly hours. MD emphasised that the paperwork needs to be agreed, as it involves finance we were seriously at risk. DF responded by saying that the Board had previously agreed to start the work immediately due to the time factors concerned, but that there was also an immediate termination of agreement at any time.

9. PL advised (from previous minutes) that we were using the under-spend from staffing which had been agreed with Linda Higgs from DCLG, and that he had circulated information via email to the Board (not PB or DF). DF suggested that he left the room for the duration of this conversation. PL clarified that there was no financial gain for DF, so leaving was not necessary. DF felt that it was more appropriate to leave.

DF clearly stated that it was better if he left the room whilst the Board discussed finances and contracts. DF left the room — to avoid any conflicts of interest.

10. PL itemised the under-spend from the proposed staffing from May until September — £8.5K

(£1.2K per month), also that there was £2.5K for the website (which he believed would not be spent), and also the available budget for the ‘experts’. PL believes that we are getting excellent work from DF and the Team. The Board agreed. PL went on to describe the connections with Community Organisers / Involved / Contour Homes and the Churches, to the Outreach Workers.

11. PL believed that what DF had put in writing to the Board, meets the conditions of what Linda Higgs (DCLG) had stated. PL proposed that the Board

1. Authorise SC to commit this under-spend (from proposed staffing May to September 2014) plus any other available under-spend, so that he has clear authority from the Board that the engagement work conducted by the Outreach Team is paid.

2. Authorise DF to bring in required ‘experts’ for the specific bits of work needed for this programme. Names already agreed with the Board were Liz Michael and Graham Martin. The external consultancy budget would be used, when needed, to help deliver this part of the programme.

12. SC raised the issues of web-site budget being used for other areas of work, PL replied that it’s really the under-spend from the proposed staffing.

Page 8 of 14

6.3

Approval: The Board approved and authorised SC to commit the under-spend (as described) Approval: The Board approved use of ‘expert’ budget and authorised DF to bring them in; within budget of the DCLG and Salford City Council. DF re-entered the room, and was advised of the approvals. Business Plan 1. MD raised the issue of the Business Plan, which she had received following her request at the

previous Board meeting. PB highlighted that there seems to be some confusion, as emails had been sent back and forth, some emails had not been shared, and one email had been recalled. MD confirmed that there was no confusion, as PL had put out in an email. MD just wanted to know what was going on with the Business Plan, following on from last month discussions which centred round the shape and format of the plan, and that it had not been shared with her. Now that it had been shared, from the council’s perspective there were incongruent dates set down. PB explained that the Plan had been put together as a ‘framework’, starting point for the Board or example, where paragraphs could be moved around cut and our own information inserted, and confirmed that nothing in the plan had been agreed. MD advised that after she had shared it with various departments in the council that it had set alarm bells off.

2. PB and SC provided some background information;— attending a Business Planning meeting with LM in February, taking on the advice of ‘not reinventing the wheel’ and wanting to get something down on paper whilst it was still fresh. PB also confirmed that at the February Board Meeting discussions took place regarding the various sections and the sharing of ‘Responsibilities’ in the MMA, but MD, SS and PL were unable to attend that meeting due to severe weather conditions. The intention of preparing a ‘framework’ for a business so early was simply to get ahead. MD was concerned that as she had no access to DropBox (where the file was kept) and was unaware of the document being updated. SC explained that as it was something that we hadn’t done before, and that it appeared quite daunting, we wanted to start putting something together straight away. MD emphasized that the work done on the Business Plan was to involve all Board Members and Partners. SC advised that all the Board Members had understood this and still have the same understanding.

3. MD explained that she wanted Salix Homes, Salford City Council and the Board to start to develop the Plan together, as the Work Plan clearly sets out dates of when the offer is likely to be and when the ballot will be. MD wanted to make sure that the Board had an understanding of what role the council plays in the offer document, the ballot and the Business Plan. MD advised that we have to stick by these dates as she had to work back from them with internal pieces of work like printing, costing for the offer and procurement for the ballot; as these need to be independent as well. As different dates appeared in the Business Plan that had been sent, alarm bells had starting ringing. PB apologised and reiterated that it was merely a starting point, which upon a request, was sent to all parties, and that he thought that its status was made clear in the previous minutes.

4. PL expressed his anger regarding this piece of work. Whilst acknowledging that we had done this exercise in February, he only found the document in DropBox in May, and he was unaware of any discussions at the time or since. PL also raised the issue that PB had sent the document which states the word ‘Draft’ not ‘skeleton framework’ to Board Members, Salix Homes and Salford City Council. PL explained that MD had requested further information from him regarding the document, and as he had not been consulted, could offer nothing further. He explained that it had all the right words in but was totally unfit for purpose, does

Page 9 of 14

not contain accurate information, and should not have been sent out as a ‘Draft’ Business Plan. He further commented that the Board need to be more involved in the process. PL also commented that it was not sufficient to rely just on the ‘previous minutes’, and told PB and the Board that “we are not playing games here”, and referred back to specific figures and budgets in the document. Again PL expressed how angry he was with this, and another thing which he would come on to, later. He stated to the Board, that if he was in the ‘Lead Advisor’ role, and that the other Board Members are Board Members, that we need to start taking this seriously, or we are just wasting everyone’s time. PB challenged these statements and PL explained that this is what the Business Plan indicates. PB suggested that we as a Board need to have another conversation with just Board Members and Lead Advisor present, which PL was happy to do. SC explianed that he was under the impression that it had been discussed several times, and that it existed, in its current form, in the same way as the Board had been encouraged to take existing documents and to amend them, therefore not in direct relation to our estate. PL repeated that it had been sent out from the Secretary to Salix and Salford City Council as a ‘Draft Business Plan’, which seemed to be a current document. SC added that he thought that it was made clear to all that in its current format it was just a starting point, and apologised if it had caused confusion, as it was not intentional.

5. MD explained that we seem to rely on DropBox quite a lot, and we were expecting everyone to access it — and if they hadn’t or couldn’t — “it was tough!” SC assured MD that this was not the case. MD explained that this was the first time that she had seen it, and it presented significant problems if she had to answer questions from Heads of Service and Councillors. SC replied that it hadn’t been sent to her earlier on, as the Board were aware that it was just a broad skeleton. PL added that it was an appropriate document in those terms.

6. DF suggested that we take what we have, and work with it towards what we want, particularly in regard to having a real Draft Business Plan by the end of September 2014, which he thought was compulsory if we wanted a ballot before the proposed Stock Transfer. PL and MD said that it was not compulsory, and DF replied that it would be a really good idea. PL explained that it was the position that the DCLG had taken in regards to Funding, and that if there were any risk at all, and an increasing risk, then it needed to be fed into the DCLG now.

7. DF asked that if we have a ‘skeleton plan’, have ongoing discussions, the Outreach Team engaging, and partners, then what was the process to move forward? MD replied that it was about getting people together that are interested in the Business Plan, perhaps through these engagements / conversations where individuals are interested in a particular service, and feeding it into the Plan. She went on to explain, that it had to be put together by a group of people along with the council. PL reinforced this by commenting that the Plan must be done jointly between yourselves and the Landlord. MD responded, by saying that it is not just for a couple of people to put together or work on, but for everyone to put meat on the bones, and to agree on it and continue working on it. PL explained that it should reflect the Services and Delivery.

8. MD explained that the next stage is ‘knowing’ about which services we intend to manage, or if it was all of them, and whether we should start that work now or after the engagement work — as this had not yet been agreed. She added that Salford City Council needs to know the feedback from the members, who was really keen to be involved, and to get them involved with the training. DF explained that it would be easier for him to fit interested people into a structure that already exists, and even though we have a skeleton document, it would be helpful to have the skeleton structure to go with it. DF suggested that we break things down in order to engage interested residents who could attend workshops, but also have the wider conversation by taking these smaller pieces of the work to them, thereby

Page 10 of 14

6.4

being more inclusive. MD invited PL to comment on the next stages. 9. PL explained that the way the Work Programme was set up, is that there would be a series of

meetings with Salix, the first of which took place but should have been followed by 3 or 4 sessions looking at various aspects of delivery. He then explained that he would have expected this Board then to have drafted an outline as to TMO’s vision. PL then commented that the ‘Draft Business Plan’ was a good document, and that it was well sequenced, the logic hangs together, with all the words in the right order, however, someone needs to come up with what services we want to run, what we want to take over from Salix Homes, what we want to leave with Salix, and what the nature of the contract will be. He added that he was quite unclear about how the Board saw itself moving forward. The Board should now know, that there is a quite a high cost service which is a potential benefit, but that it is delivered in a very integrated way. Picking bits out of it will be very tricky, similar to removing bricks out of an existing building. PL went on to describe the various options, but reminded everyone that it is in negotiation with the council and Salix Homes. PL also replied to MD directly by saying she had asked exactly the right question, but that he didn’t know the answer. He hoped that from the engagement work, more people would get involved with services and training.

10. MD stated that she can go now go back to the accountants, and Ian Hilton, the two strategic elements from the council to arrange things, and the rest would appear to be down to Salix Homes. PL asked MD why the accountants? MD responded that it would be in regard to the allowances. PL explained that at this point, from what we knew in April, that there would be a lot of money in the plan, and that only when the decisions have been made on what the residents want to manage, will we be able to ask sensible questions regarding what we want to deliver and the allowances.

Training and moving forward 1. DF stated that he was still unsure of the structure, but understood that a key element was

the training with the inclusion of other TMO members. DF also suggested that it may be worthwhile building an extra 30 minutes into the training sessions to discuss how the group would implement, change etc. PL asked how we get to the point of deciding how the TMO gets to the point of choosing which services they want to deliver and that there was some training needed. He also asked the Board how much training they needed, before they were in a position to say ‘we are going to deliver those services as a TMO? PL stated that the briefing in April from Salix Homes was very good, and that he thought the Board were quite a knowledgeable group; and that it was merely a matter of sitting down with Salix to find out more of how the services are delivered now. Pl felt that he had been lacking feedback from the Board and some ‘pushback’ as to where the Board sees itself going.

2. PL was asked by DF how many training sessions were required to make that decision. PL responded that 7 or 8 sessions were allowed in the Work Programme which consisted of 4 or 5 with Salix Homes. Salix Homes were sent a list of proposed training sessions, which received a very quick response. MD commented that they were really waiting for dates which we now have — Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. PL asked the Board if they felt involved in this? JL replied that more knowledge and information was definitely needed. SC agreed with DF’s previous comment of having an extra 30 minutes or hour to discuss which areas the Board proceeds in.

3. PL advised that he could do a session now, on what is involved running a repair service but the key thing is how the existing service is run. SC agreed that the knowledge was required as was the time to absorb it. PL went on to describe “what we already know”, in how the

Page 11 of 14

6.5

repairs service currently functions — that they are ordered through a call centre, then they go through one partner / contractor, who has a dedicated team for this estate, with vans set up for this estate, and we are aware of the costs involved. The Board needed to know how their vision differs from the current delivery. Would the Board want to change how this operates, e.g. repairs to come through their local office, either by telephone or calling in? And if so, then discussions needed to take place with Salix as to how much would come out of their Call Centre budget. SC responded that quite a number of residents had felt the loss of the local Housing Office, and that making an office available locally, at certain hours, was something that the Board were quite keen on. PL advised that this was key thing, that needed feeding into the Business Plan, but it had never been agreed by the Board. SC replied that these were informal discussions that various residents and Board Members have had, and this was an anticipated result from the current engagement work.

4. JD believed that, as a group, that we had probably had most, if not all, of the relevant conversations, at that it was just a matter of formalising them. SC commented that DF and the Outreach Team were consulting residents with a blank canvas, similar to just recording their opinions, without influence, pressure or trying to sway them in any way. DF agreed that it was a blank canvas, because that is what he had been given. However, if there were fixed dots on the canvas, that this would help structure the conversations. DF suggested that we agree the fixed points, perhaps researching the finance whilst the Outreach Team pursued the conversation in parallel. PL added his agreement. DF advised that if the Board were intending to make big changes, then the Council would probably want to see evidence-based work. JD commented that we could start testing some of these ideas / fixed points already, as the Board are likely to be more advanced than the current thinking.

5. PL asked the Board if there were specific areas that they needed to know more about in the short term, and if there were areas that they were clear about — in regards to potentially managing 9 months from now? If the Board thought about the current service — cleaning, caretaking, security, repairs, ground maintenance, lettings, housing management services, neighbour disputes, and then all the income side — in what areas do the Board feel that they need further knowledge? Does the Board need to have that further conversation, or further information from Salix? SC suggested that the Board have a formal recap, to work out what our opinions were. PL commented that this would run parallel to the engagement work.

6. DW suggested that the Board provide DF with a short list of ideas that the Board were thinking about implementing, and that DF could test this opinion with the Outreach Team. MD suggested that we then co-ordinate or prioritise the training with SS or JD to arrange training.

ACTION: SC to furnish DF with list of ideas, from the Board, to shape structure 7. PB suggested ‘employment’ as that the first training session, as this was next on the list that

was sent to Salix Homes. PL commented that this was on the list, as we had intended to employ directly, but that now DF and the Outreach Team were conducting that work, was it necessary? PB and SC both commented that it would be important, for the next stage. JD asked if this is what the Board wanted Salix to deliver next, and would it include TUPE? The Board agreed that it would have to. PB also suggested that if the Board has training on employment, then we could employ a Project Officer from October through to February 2015, but this would need to be agreed with the Board after training.

Website 1. PB stated that he had no updates regarding the website development at this stage. PL stated

Page 12 of 14

that we had been allocated £2.5K for website development (actual £2K). We now have a Wordpress site put together by PB. Following on from the last meeting PL was asked to contact Moonfruit.com (offering a discount on web development), to see if they could incorporate some kind of self-assessment function. PL stated that this came from his idea to build in a competency area and quizzes to the new website. This was not available with Moonfruit, without additional programming. Moonfruit would just offer copyright, design, server, with the facility to edit. PL did not feel that it would add anything more to what we already have. PL added that we also have the stuff that he had done as ‘YOURTMO’, and that the Board should find the relevant information and documents.

2. PL advised that he had recently learned about a new facility coming onto the market called ‘Office Mix’, and that he had read good reviews. This was a facility created by Microsoft for teachers and educators using the Powerpoint Tool, with additions, to create interactive learning, and sounds exactly what he wanted to use. Pl further explained the ease of use of Powerpoint, with the additions of plug-ins like video, quizzes, exercises, etc. Pl advised that when he has more time, as he would be moving over the coming week, that he would learn Office Mix, for his own use anyway. This would enable him to produce the tools that he wanted integrated into the website. PB asked if these Powerpoint exercises could be inserted into any website? PL replied that he didn’t know specifically, but most things could be linked up using hyperlinks. PL went on to discuss the facilities of a Content Management System. PB stated that he had been given £600.00 to initiate the web-development, but as Moonfruit did not appear suitable, did the Board want him to hand the money back to JT? PB added that there were other companies that offered these ‘add-on’ website offers, with a range of options and upgrades, e.g. Websitecreation.uk. PB also added that perhaps we should stick with the well-known web-development companies, established for many years. PL asked how it would be better than what we had already done, and DW asked how that that changes the content, from what we have now. PB replied that all the background work behind a website, something that he admitted knowing nothing about, would be done professionally and expansions could be built into the website for a later date. He explained that we currently have a basic site and that if we wanted to add things to it, that each item costs extra — agreeing a proposal with a web-developer to allow for the future expansion of tools, i.e. paying rent, council tax, e-learning etc, would be included in the cost. PL asked how much Salix Homes pay for their website. No-one knew. PL advised that we were not funded by the DCLG to build a website where residents could pay their rent, as this has serious security issues. He explained that we have funding for what we need to do for the next 6 or 9 months. PB suggested that what we build into a website now, should hopefully expand into the working website for residents, members and Board members, otherwise we spend all this money on something which would be scrapped and we would have to start all over again, something that had the potential of projecting confusion. SC agreed that the site we build now needs to be able to develop into the site for when we go live. DW added that as he works on a website, that has been re-designed 3 times, it is clear that we can change it later. He believed that what we have now tells people what they needed to know. PB reminded the Board that at the last meeting in June, the Board approved a new website that could integrate PL’s quizzes and self-assessment, something which our current Wordpress site is unable to do. PL advised that he could build the Office Mix site, as a stand-alone site, separate from all of the others, and be a separate exercise from GHC. SC commented that it was not critical to decide this evening, and PB disagreed, as we had been deciding for almost 3 months.

Page 13 of 14

6.6

Stage 2 Assessment 1. PB asked SC to provide the Board with an update of the recent conversation that had taken

place with Carole Gradwell. He explained that she seemed to be ok with where the Board were up to, and that if the Board could provide her with the ‘evidence’ in the following week, then she had seemed quite happy with that. DW asked for clarification with the ‘evidence’. SC replied that it was the required documentation that needed to be sent to the external assessor before our meeting with her. SC also commented that he had found the conversation and advice extremely helpful, as it gave him an understanding of the process — working out our development against midpoints. PL advised that we should work from the recommendations from Stage 1, adding anything else that we thought relevant, and that he had certainly left the Tenant Management Booklet with us at previous meetings, so we need the 2012 CAM. PL also offered his assistance, but would be much happier if it came from SC / the Board. SC advised the Board that he was thinking of 7 days to get the ‘Evidence’ to Carole, 7 days for her to assess it, and then to have a meeting with her.

2. DW asked who would be collecting the evidence and if anything was required from him? SC replied that it would likely be himself and PB. JD asked for an explanation of the Assessment, and MD responded with a brief explanation about the Board demonstrating their competencies.

3. MD asked that if the Stage 2 Assessment was going to be in August, then would the Stage 3 be put back? The Board were unable to answer her question, but it would probably be likely. PL advised that it doesn’t really matter when, but a key thing to keep in mind is that the Stage 2 Assessment triggers the next stage of funding, and as we have an under-spend in the budget, it would not be critical to the Board’s development at this time. What was important was to satisfy the DCLG and the External Assessor of our development. PL also explained that he had circulated a piece of paper with 5 or 6 things, from the Stage 1 report, that were the key things that would be looked for; approving the Code of Governance, adopting Financial Regulations, etc. The YOURTMO site was available to the Board for self-assessment, and PL offered to write some small questionnaires to test the Board. PL advised the Board to make sure that they knew the Code of Governance and the Financial Regulations, and if there were any questions that he would be happy to answer them. He also advised that he had found in DropBox a basic Risk Assessment, which was done post the Stage 1, but that it needed updating and some more work. PL explained that he thought we were making the process overly complex, and that what was required was evidence of our awareness, and the progressing of our awareness as a TMO Board.

7. Any Other Business 1. MD asked about the Newsletter, and if it had been distributed, as it was mentioned in the

Engagement brief. DF explained that within the timeframe of the engagement project that the Newsletter would be delivered. PB explained that he had amended draft 1 in accordance with decisions made at the last Board Meeting, sent in to SC for review, and then send to all parties for comment. MD thought that it would be on the Agenda for approval. PB had received no responses back, so had assumed that it was ok with everyone, and intended to incorporate it in with the Engagement work and DF. PL thought that it was a little too long, and commented that PB’s previous newsletters were less wordy, shorter and ‘punchier’. MD was happy with it and suggested that we get it distributed, and update the Work Programme accordingly. ACTION: SC agreed to update the Work Programme

2. MD wanted to mention the Stock Options, advising that everyone should have now received

Page 14 of 14

21.30 — END — Next meeting 13th August 2014 — The Community Room — 4 Newbank Tower

Signed................................

Appendix 1 — Actions and Approvals 16th July 2014

Note 2.2 ACTION: SC / JT provide Bank Account details and invoice to MD for payment

Note 3.3 ACTION: PL to request updated Tenant List and check Membership

Note 3.4 ACTION: DF to pass relevant new member details to SC

Note 5.1.2 ACTION: MD / JD to pass on confirmed days for training to SS

Note 5.1.4 ACTION: JD to forward electronic copy of Training Session from Salix

Note 5.1.5 ACTION: SC to contact other interested parties for training and visits

Note 5.2.3 ACTION: SC to speak asap with Nick Reynolds regarding visit, to ascertain maximum numbers and date, and then pass to DF

Note 5.3.1 ACTION: JD (on behalf of Salix Homes) to try and arrange with environmental services for access to green-space and grass-cutting

Note 5.3.3 ACTION: PB or SC to contact Windsor Albion after 21st July 2014 — invitation to event

Note 5.3.4 ACTION: JD to try and arrange face painter

Note 6.1.3 Approval: The Board approved the draft engagement document

Note 6.1.5 ACTION: JD to arrange representative from Salix Homes for meeting on the 27th August 2014

Note 6.1.13 ACTION: JD to reply to DF in regards to questions from residents

Note 6.2.4 ACTION: MD to supply Council Stock Option flyers to DF

Note 6.2.5 ACTION: JD to chase up issues with access, with First Response

Note 6.2.12

Approval: The Board approved and authorised SC to commit the under-spend (as described) Approval: The Board approved use of ‘expert’ budget and authorised DF to bring them in; within budget of the DCLG and Salford City Council.

Note 6.4.6 ACTION: SC to furnish DF with list of ideas, from the Board, to shape structure

Note 7.1 ACTION: SC agreed to update the Work Programme

the leaflet. PB suggested that this was not the appropriate meeting to discuss Stock Options. MD replied that as it affects everyone, she just wanted to mention the drop-in events and the leaflet drop.

3. MD also advised the Board of New Barracks up-coming AGM at Salford Lads Club. SC advised the Board that he had spoken with Julie and it had been arranged for the 24th. MD encouraged the Board to attend.