Minutes of the ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING Held on Saturday 21St May 2011 at Fishbourneromanpalace

Minutes of the ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING held on Saturday 21st May 2011 at FishbourneRomanPalace, Salthill Road, Fishbourne.

Present: Mr R Akhurst; Mrs J Akhurst; Mr G Appleby; Mrs S Appleby; Mrs V Blandford; Mr D Bond; Mr N Brown; Mrs J Butt; Ms S Daly; Mr J Dame; Mrs L Drewett; Prof P Drewett; Mrs C Evans; Miss E Evans; Mr G Evans; Mrs S Hanna; Mr P Herridge; Dr M Holmes; Mrs C Holton; Mrs S Howe; Mr I Judd; Mr G King; Mrs A Knowles; Prof G Leigh; Mrs A Locke; Mr P McLoughlin; Mr D Millum; Prof R Milner-Gulland; Mr M Morley; Mr D Napier; Ms I Nold; Mrs D Norris; Mr F Plachy; Mr D Roberts; Mr D Rudkin; Mr D Rudling; Ms J Rowe; Mr P Sangster; Mrs A Sharp; Mrs C Shirley; Prof B Short; Mr T Sparling; Dr M Vickers; Mr J Vokins; Mrs J Vokins; Mr C Watson; Ms H Winslade.

Apologies: Mr I Askew; Mr C Braybrooke; Mrs D Braybrooke; Ms B Frost; Dr A Hewerdine; Miss C Hewerdine; Mr J Houghton; Mrs B Houghton; Mr J Kaminski; Mrs J Lucas; Mr R Martin; Dr J Pennington; Mr D Richardson; Dr A Thomas; Mrs E Thomas; Mrs P Vickers; Mrs R Watson.

In attendance: Tristan Bareham, CEO; Lorna Gartside, Membership Secretary; Ruth Sutton, Marketing and Admin Officer; Mark Filsell, Knill James

Professor Peter Drewett, President of the Society, took the chair and welcomed those attending to the 165th AGM of the Society.

A record has been included of questions and answers given by those who gave their names as requested at the beginning of the AGM.

1. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING held on 12th June 2010.

The Minutes were signed as a correct record of the Meeting.

2. RECEIVE THE REPORT OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL FOR THE YEAR 2010.

Peter Drewett presented the report to the meeting.

Michael Vickers reminded the meeting that AGM that individual trustees seeking election could be individually approved and not just voted in en bloc. Peter Drewett agreed that this was the case.

David Roberts asked Brian Short to expand upon the relationship between the new Records Office (The Keep) and the Society.

Brian Short explained that while development of The Keep was going ahead, the Society had no financial or working connection with it.

3. RECEIVE THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR 2010

Peter Sangster as Chair of the Finance and Administration Committee presented the Financial Statement.

Peter said that the Auditors had a responsibility to review the Society to ensure that it was a financially viable organisation. He reported that the Auditors had reviewed the costs, and were happy to approve the report. Peter recommended that the report be adopted.

Peter Drewett drew attention to that fact that Mark Filsell from the Auditors, Knill James, was in attendance at the meeting and was ready to take questions.

Michael Vickers enquired as to whether the Society had anyoutstanding bank loans.

Peter Sangster responded that the Society had no bank loans.

Judith Akhurst enquired as to the prognosis for the future for the Society in comparison with other charitable organisations that the Auditors worked for.

Mark Filsell responded that other charities which relied on visitors for their income had done relatively well last year and that trend was continuing. It was government funded organisations that were facing difficulties. He stated that Knill James were happy with the prognosis for the Society.

Judith Akhurst asked over what period of time the prognosis applied.

Mark Filsell responded that they projected forward for a twelve month period from when the accounts were signed off at the AGM.

Judith Akhurst enquired if the Trustees sought advice from Knill James during that period.

Tristan Bareham responded that the financial sustainability of the Society was monitored by internal checks and balances and that Knill James provided technical guidance where necessary.

Susan Howe asked if a full profit and loss sheet should be appended to the Members’ Report.

Peter Sangster replied that it was a thirty page report and was available on the website in full detail which complied with statutory requirements. Tristan Bareham added that the report was very detailed, but the Members’ Report tried to make the information accessible in a summary form.

Glynne Evans said that this seemed reasonable and satisfactory and commented that the Members had been informed of this in advance of the Meeting.

Tristan Bareham added that the intention was to be transparent.

Mike Holmes asked if Peter Sangster were satisfied with the way in which the Society’s investment income was being managed.

Peter Sangster responded that Cazenove who managed the fund were well respected and that they were specialists in the charity sector. The Society met them three or four times annually to review the balance of the portfolio. There was currently a 4.5% return which was satisfactory but the Society would continue to monitor this on an ongoing basis.

Philip Herridge asked if the operating surplus at Michelham was augmented by a bequest, and if so did that mean that the site was operating at a loss.

Peter Sangster replied in the affirmative to both questions.

David Roberts asked why East Sussex County Council did not contribute towards the cost of a County Museum at Lewes. He stated that SAS was the only County without a County Museum.

Tristan Bareham responded that the Council was aware of this and that it had been supportive towards the Society but that there was no funding, and due to the current political climate of cuts to services there was unlikely to be any in the future. However, the Council could provide support in other ways, for example by giving support for grant applications.

David Rudling commented that in Sussex it was District Councils rather than County Councils that funded museums and that Lewes District Council did not provide any museum funding.

Judith Akhurst asked if the accounts were prepared by each individual property and how the individual strengths and weaknesses of each property could be worked out.

Tristan Bareham responded that each property had very specific budget lines for income and expenditure and that budget variance reports were produced monthly to monitor these.

Peter Sangster added that the accounts were kept centrally and information was sent out to property managers with a breakdown for their sites.

Judith Akhurst said that she would like to see a breakdown of each property spend with common themes identified in order to share best practice between properties.

Tristan Bareham responded that this happened internally already and that all sites shared best practice through meetings and information transmitted by the Accounts Officer and the CEO.

Judith Akhurst said that she would like to get information to the Friends groups so that they could help financially.

Tristan Bareham responded that he had been to visit all the Friends groups to explore such possibilities and to share information.

Peter Sangster added that the Trustees were conscious of the importance of the Friends groups and that they had been trying to incorporate Friends members into the Trustee body which now included a representative from the Friends of Anne of Cleves House, the Friends of The Priest House and the Friends of Michelham Priory.

Peter Drewett commented that a mechanism was in place to access information and that ideally all the Friends organisations would be represented on the Council.

Judith Akhurst commented that she felt that although they were in contact there was a gap between the grass root ‘helpers’ and the organisation.

Derrick Napier asked ifthe Society actively promoted legacies.

Peter Sangster replied that the Society offered a will for free service to encourage legacies, information about which was disseminated annually to members. He added that he felt it better for people to leave a fixed sum rather than a percentage of the residual estate and added that the Council had decided to keep a low profile in regard to legacy fundraising.

Franz Plachy commented that the Royal Academy had recently sent out a letter asking people to remember them in their will and that perhaps the Society should do the same.

Tristan Bareham explained that this issue was discussed at the last Council meeting. The RSPB received up to half their income from legacies and he and Mike Holmes had agreed to work together to take this area forward as it could present a significant income stream in the medium and longer terms.

Peter Sangster added that caution should be exercised in relation to legacy donations and forward financial planning due to the uncertainty of such income.

David Rudkin sought definition of the term ‘curatorial’ used in the Members’ Report.

The response was that it consisted of costs associated with the Library, the Research Officer, Finds Liaison Officer, the Membership budget, some of the Museum Officer’s staff time and Margary grants.

Tristan Bareham added that he would like to revise the budget ‘labels’ to create greater clarity.

Peter Sangster stated that he would expect the curatorial budget stream always to show a loss and added that it is part of the charitable aims of the Society to provide these services.

Brian Short asked where the administration costs were shown.

Tristan Bareham responded that the Society would be revisiting these too and that these cross cutting costs such as VAT exemption, Trustee indemnity and some salaries were apportioned across the Society and embedded within the accounts.

Glynne Evans reminded the Meeting that all this information is available to members in the full accounts, and added that he had trust in the Trustees and staff and that he liked the distillation of information in the Report to Members.

4. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE CHAIRS OF THE COMMITTEES

The Chair of each Committee (except Finance) presented a report to the Meeting, the contents of which are included in the Report of the Trustees.

David Rudling, Chair of the Membership, Events and Education Committee (ME&E)

Glynne Evans commented how much Lorna’s work is appreciated by members.

Connie Shirley asked if the changes in archaeology training provision at the University of Sussex would affect SAS membership.

David Rudling said that he did not think there would be an impact as it was field archaeology and research that would be most affected.

Tristan Bareham commented that he had written to the Vice Chancellor of the University on this matter. He also commented that the Society needed to look at what it could do to enable people to engage with archaeology. He paid tribute to the excellent work which David had undertaken through the CCE courses which he had established.

Professor Brian Short, Chair of the Research and Museums Committee

In response to a question from Franz Plachy, Robin Milner-Gulland clarified that there would be no expense for the Society in producing the proposed South Downs books, and that once costs had been covered the Society would receive the profits from sales.

David Roberts asked how the census returns could be made available to historical researchers rather than only family history researchers.

Brian Short advised booking early on the machines at the Record Office.

Haighleagh Winslade commented that Chichester University’s History Department was overlooked and that they were expanding the modules they offered despite the current economic climate.

Terry Sparling agreed that awards were a good idea and suggested contacting the Leicestershire Archaeological Society which had run an award scheme for thirty years.

Franz Plachy commented that Ringmer Historical Society had monthly meetings which were free to attend and that the programme was on the website. He said that links with the Society were missing and that it might be worthwhile to conduct a membership drive for SAS via the local history groups.

Richard Akhurst, Chair of the Properties and Tourism Board (PTB)

Jenny Rowe asked what specific plans were in hand for the Mill at Michelham Priory.

Tristan Bareham responded that he had replied in detail to this question by email prior to the meeting. Consultations had been carried out with stakeholders and professionals with regard to the reinterpretation of the whole site. He also explained that a grant application had been made to Veolia for £300,000 to fund this redevelopment which would include the Mill.

Philip Herridge commented on the dearth of hands-on activities at Michelham Priory and identified the Mill as an ideal site for this and other learning opportunities. Tristan Bareham confirmed that the grant referred to earlier was specifically for heritage and education. The Education Officer at the Priory already liaised with the milling team and made very effective use of the mill. Michelham Priory was the next big priority for the Society.

Derrick Napier commented that security issues should be considered if redeveloping the grounds at Fishbourne and suggested the use of thorn bushes to discourage ingress.

Tristan Bareham agreed and added that it was necessary to maintain the local community’s support for any changes.

Mike Holmes commented upon the new atmosphere within the Society and the closer relationship between the Friends’organizations and the Society which had not existed in the past. He also pointed out that Lewes Castlewas the only property that did not have a Friends group.

Tristan Bareham said that he was sure many people would want to join a Lewes Castle Friends group and that many people were unaware that the Castle was not in public ownership and that the Society was having to pay for its upkeep.

5. APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS

Peter Drewett asked that the membership accept Knill James of Lewes as auditors for the coming year.

Proposed by Peter Sangster, seconded by Brian Short. They were duly appointed without objection.

6. ELECTION OF COUNCIL MEMBERS

Peter Drewett explained that Peter Sangster was standing down as a Trustee and thanked him for his work for the Society especially during recent difficulties. Peter Drewett also explained that Marvyn Turrell had decided to step down and thanked him for his contribution.

Peter Drewett introduced Anne Locke and Franz Plachy who were standing for election.

They were both elected unanimously.

Sarah Hanna asked how many Trustees the Society had.

Tristan Bareham gave the names of the eleven Trustees, and reminded the meeting that there were also co-options to the various Committees. He asked anyone who would like to make an extra commitment to the Society by getting involved at Committee or Council level to approach him.

7. AOB

Michael Vickers commented that he was hopeful for the future of the Society.

Jenny Rowe referred to the second part of her question which had been submitted. This related to communication between members and the CEO.

Tristan Bareham responded that he was keen to be in contact with members and that e-mail was the best form of communication for him. He highlighted his need to plan strategically across the organisation and stated that communication is a key part of that.

Jenny Rowe commented that she hoped that Tristan was being supported in this work.

Judith Akhurst asked that microphones be made available at future AGMs for the hard of hearing.

Philip Herridge asked if any thought had been given to inviting sponsorship for the Society.

Tristan Bareham replied that it had and that all avenues for fundraising needed to be assessed for possible return versus staff time and work required to achieve it. The steps at Lewes Castle had been a successful sponsorship opportunity, and Fishbourne has also attracted sponsorship. Jeff Leigh commented that Shoreham Port Authority have donated £1000 for the installation of audio-visual equipment at Marlipins.

There was then a discussion on ways to increase membership. Various suggestions were made concerning this including more contact with those who visited the Society’s properties and the possibility of introducing a non-academic membership, although this would affect the viability of the Sussex Archaeological Collections.

There being no further business, the meeting was then declared closed.

END

1