Agenda item
Implementation of Budget Decision - Reduce Communities Team - ECS/11/024
Minutes:
(A) DEPUTATIONS
As agreed at the start of the meeting (article 2 refers), the Committee heard from Ms Deirdre MacDonald on behalf of UNISON. Ms MacDonald referred to the briefing paper circulated by UNISON prior to the meeting, and noted that UNISON promoted and supported workers and lifelong learning. She spoke of the activities which went on in the wards of elected members and stated that these ran as a result of the work of the Communities Team. She highlighted examples of community learning users, such as a group of young mothers who wanted to improve the health and wellbeing of their families; someone struggling to read medicine labels; a person who wanted to work towards getting a job to improve their situation; or people who wished to learn how to use IT. Ms MacDonald mentioned the Big Plus adverts which promoted the improvement of literacy and numeracy and noted her concern that any decision taken to reduce the Communities Team could mean that there was no-one to answer the calls from those who had seen the advertisements. She highlighted the impact she felt there would be on specialist placements where people had particular learning difficulties. She felt that the proposals before Committee meant that none of the activities mentioned would be possible in future, and warned the Committee of what she felt were the dangers of making a hasty decision on the future of the team.
Members then asked several questions of Ms MacDonald.
At this juncture, the Convener advised that members had exceeded the allotted 10 minutes allowed for questions to deputations, and the Committee agreed to suspend Standing Order 10 (7) to enable further questions to be asked of Ms MacDonald.
The Committee then heard from
Mr. Phil D’Arcy, Ms Lynn Duncan and
Ms Ann-Marie Walls on behalf of community centre management
committee volunteers in the city.
Mr D’Arcy stressed how much they
depended on the support of community learning workers. He advised that the centre where he volunteered
was linked to Dyce Primary School and was not purpose-built like
some of the leased centres. He acknowledged that the management committee at
Dyce were responsible for the purchase and replacement of
equipment, but stated that the Council was now asking for them to
take responsibility for the building.
He said he was unclear what technical advice would be provided,
what the financial involvement of the Council would be and who
would pay for works needed. He stated
that contracts of employment, pensions, training and other
employment matters were all very complex and that if the proposals
were agreed, management committee volunteers would be expected to
take on this work with no expertise in the area. He noted that the Council had the benefit of a
specialist HR department to assist with these matters, and
highlighted that the volunteers did not have this kind of
support. Mr
D’Arcy also mentioned that the individual members of
management committees would be personally liable if the proposals
were approved. He noted that management
committees would have additional financial responsibilities, and
that if they were to pursue charitable status, this would mean they
would be required to produce annual accounts. He said that although it could be argued that
leased centres currently undertook all
the additional duties, they were mainly small, purpose-built
centres which enjoyed Council technical
services and insurance provision, neither of which were included in the new agreement before Committee
for approval. He stated that he had
spoken to Inchgarth Community Centre
and had been advised that the volunteers there put over 90 hours a
week into the centre. Mr D’Arcy asked how many hours would
therefore be required at the other centres. He asked that
the Committee recognise what he felt
were significant differences between the current leased
centres and the other centres, and that enough staff be retained to make
the centres sustainable. He said that if the Community Learning staff were
to be removed, it was likely that the centres would close. He
felt if Community Learning staff were
allocated to centres and if that centre
was then given targets to meet, this would mean the 27 community
centres would not be required to turn
into small businesses. Mr D’Arcy said he would be willing to work
with officers on this, if Committee felt it was a
possibility. Members than asked several questions of the
deputation. The Convener thanked
both deputations for their contributions.
Prior to consideration of the report, the Clerk to the Committee advised that in terms of Standing Order 25 (1), any officer in attendance who had a pecuniary interest in the matter before Committee for discussion would have to withdraw from the meeting.
(B) REPORT
With reference to article 2 of the Council Budget meeting of 10 February 2011, the Committee had before it a report by the Director of Education, Culture and Sport which set out the implications of the Budget decision to reduce the costs of the communities team by £1.4million into 2011/12 and provisionally a further £1million in 2012/13. The report also provided information on the Council request that officers investigate the implications of moving all centres to leased centre status.
The report set out the costs to the Education, Culture and Sport Service of each Council community learning centre moving to leased centre status, and advised of the potential loss of income currently generated by existing management centre committees. The report also noted the potential VS/ER and building costs as well as the amount required if support was continued to externally delivered projects.
The report advised that the budget decision would require a reduction in the staffing resource of approximately 67%, with the budget available to deliver front-line adult learning and youth development activities reduced by around 83%.
It was further noted that there were 51 community centre facilities in Aberdeen which cost in the region of £1.87million to service each year. The report advised that many of the buildings would require significant maintenance in future and therefore it was recommended that all community centre type properties be subject to a review under the wider Educational Asset Review.
There were 27 centres owned by the Council which were currently managed by community learning and development, and the report recommended that these would now be managed through either a lease or management agreement model. It was proposed that any agreement would include a requirement for centres to participate in the HMIe inspection process. Of the 27 centres, the report advised that 9 were stand alone and could potentially become leased facilities. Fifteen of the centres were part of other facilities such as sports centres, schools and 3R schools and it was recommended that these facilities could be managed by community organisations or existing leased centres via a management agreement. The report advised that the remaining 3 facilities were community flats and that these would not be suitable for either a lease or management agreement. Officers were currently considering the resource available for these facilities and it was intended to report back to the next Committee on the matter.
It was noted that due to the scale of work required to progress the proposals, and the reduced workforce, it might be necessary to put transitional arrangements in place at some centres and officers would negotiate this with management committees if required. Officers would report back to Committee on the transfer arrangements and on proposals for a model lease and constitution.
The report then outlined the impact of the proposals on community learning hubs, noting that there would be insufficient resource available to progress hubs in the short term. Learning partnerships would continue to be facilitated. There would also be an impact on the More Choices, More Chances and Curriculum for Excellence Work and a follow up report on this would be provided to a future meeting of the Committee. The report advised that there might not be the resource available to deliver a city wide youth development and adult learning service, but that officers would report back to the next meeting of the Committee on any changes to programmes.
The report recommended:-
that Committee:-
The Convener, seconded by the Vice-Convener, moved:-
Councillor Laing, seconded by Councillor Boulton, moved as an amendment:-
“that this Committee notes the feedback received from various consultees and seeks a further detailed report to Council on 27 April 2011, addressing the issues raised and providing full details of the educational and financial implications of these proposals, and instructs that an emergency meeting of the Finance and Resources Committee be called prior 1 April 2011 to agree that the budget shortfall from not implementing the recommendations in the report be taken from reserves.”
On a division, there voted:- for the motion (14) – the Convener; the Vice-Convener; and Councillors Corall, Cormie, Leslie, May, Reynolds, Robertson, Jennifer Stewart, Kevin Stewart, Wisely and Yuill; and Mr. A. Aitken and Mr. P. Campbell; for the amendment (8) - Councillors Boulton, Collie, Cooney, Crockett, Farquharson and Laing; and Mr. G. Bruce and Mr. S. Duncan.
The Committee resolved:-
to adopt the motion.
Supporting documents:
PDF 87 KB