English|
In this section
|
9 January 2008: Trustees MeetingMinutes of the meeting of the Trustees of the Independent Living Fund (2006) held on Wednesday, 9 January 2008. The meeting commenced at 11.00 am
Present: Stephen Jack (Chairman) from item 4
In attendance: Gary Stephenson (Finance and Corporate Services Director) The Vice Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. He explained that the Chairman had been delayed. 1 Apologies Apologies were received from Mike Boyall, Margaret McGlade and Sue Winterburn. 1.1 Conflicts of Interest and or Loyalty on Agenda Trustees were asked if they had identified any area on the agenda where there was an actual or potential perceived conflict of interest or loyalty. All Trustees confirmed that no issues had been identified.
The Business Development Director explained that policies were being developed in line with the Information Security standard ISO27001 to develop a more comprehensive Information Security Management System (ISMS) for the organisation. The policies had been approved by the Audit Committee for agreement by the Trustees and subsequent signature by the Chairman. 2.1 Information Security Policy Statement The Business Development Director presented the paper to Trustees. He explained that this was an overarching statement and confirmed the policy of the ILF was to ensure confidentiality, availability and integrity of data; that information security training was available for all staff; that designated responsibility for the provision of advice and guidance on information security policy was with the Chief Executive and assigned responsibility for the management of information security was with the Business Development Director. Outcome: Decision - Trustees agreed the Information Security policy and the Chairman signed the policy at the end of the meeting. 2.2 Data Disclosure Policy The Business Development Director presented the paper to Trustees. He explained that the policy outlined guidelines for all staff when dealing with the disclosure of information so that all ILF data was treated as confidential. The policy would be supported by training sessions for all staff. In answer to a question from Peter Cooke regarding staff working with the policy, the Business Development Director acknowledged pressures on staff to avoid incorrect disclosure but said that the process should be workable, with specialist staff to deal with more sensitive disclosure requests. Sally Sparrow queried disclosure to those with Power of Attorney for a user of the Fund. The Business and Development Director said that this issue was dealt with under the new User Agreement form. Yogi Amin commented whether the processes to handle challenges on decisions to refuse to disclose data might increase the risk of premature challenges at too high a level. The Business Development Director said that the Information Request process logged all requests and challenges. A challenge would initially be considered by the Business Development Director, followed by the possibility of the Chief Executive and Trustees. The Chief Executive said that when any appeal to disclose information was considered and rejected the letter would outline only the next stage to minimise the risk identified. Outcome: Decision -Trustees agreed the Data Disclosure policy and the Chairman signed the policy at the end of the meeting. 2.3 Records Management Framework The Business Development Director presented the paper to Trustees. He explained that systems were currently in place but further work was needed to improve the framework. In answer to a question regarding electronic document management, the Business Development Director said that a separate review was in progress with specialist consultancy advice; this would be an ongoing process due to the pace of change in IT. Outcome: Decision - Trustees agreed the Records Management Framework and the Chairman signed the document at the end of the meeting. 2.4 E-mail Policy The Business and Development Director presented the paper to Trustees. He explained that there was separate guidance to staff on appropriate business style for ILF e-mails. Nick Danagher asked if para 4.5 covered ‘disablist’ as well as other unacceptable discrimination. The Business Development Director said that he would review the wording and check the ILF Dignity/Diversity policy for comparison. Outcome: E mail policy with revised wording to be recirculated to Trustees for comment 3 Minutes of the UPCC Meetings, 8 October, 26 November and 20 December 2007
Peter Cooke presented the minutes to Trustees. He said that the He said that the Committee had looked at 19 cases to date with favourable outcome decisions in 9 cases.
The Chief Executive said that she had received correspondence from Nick Danagher commented that it seemed unjust to ignore Trust Funds but penalise other applicants with high capital. In response to a question on whether the current policy took into account when the Trust was set up, the Chief Executive said that the current policy had no regard to the source or date that the fund was set up as it focussed on whether the money was intended to be spent on personal care and /or domestic assistance. Outcome: The minutes of the UPCC meetings were accepted by Trustees. 4. Minutes of the Meeting held 28 November and 12 December 2007 The minutes of the meeting held 28 November 2007, were approved by the Trustees and signed by the Chairman at the end of the meeting. The minutes of the meeting held 12 December 2007, with an amendment on page 5 third paragraph removing the word “not”, were approved by the Trustees and signed by the Chairman at the end of the meeting. Outcome: Information 5. Matters Arising 5.1 Media and Publicity Communication Policy for Ratification The Chief Executive explained that the comments made by Trustees at the December meeting had now been incorporated into the document and Trustees were asked to ratify the policy. The Chairman commented that a supporting protocol for Trustees’ engagement with the media had been circulated to Trustees by e-mail. Outcome: Decision - Trustees ratified the policy and the Chairman subsequently signed the policy. 6 Outstanding Action Points The Chief Executive updated Trustees on the position with the lease. Agreement to the wording was now awaited from all parties involved with the Head and subsequent leases. Clarification was being sought on the legal requirements for document signature by Trustees. Trustees confirmed that they were all happy to sign the document if required. The Chief Executive said that it was hoped to sign the document in March 2008. Delay dates were agreed to several action points. The Chairman said that it would be beneficial for action points with a DWP lead to be added to the document to track progress. Trustees discussed the issue of the letter of comfort which had been requested. Outcome: Yogi Amin to liaise with the Chief Executive so that a proposed form of wording, agreed with the Funds’ lawyers, could be provided to DWP for consideration. 7. Chairman’s Issues
The Chairman said that he had received a letter from the Minister Outcome: Information 8.Finance 8.1 Grant in Aid and Benefit Forecast The Finance and Corporate Services Director presented the paper to Trustees. He explained that expenditure was expected to remain within budget for 2007/08 with an expected cashflow balance of £2.4m. He said that discussion with DWP was still needed to clarify the position on any balance when transferring from AME to DEL. The current planning assumption was that this amount could not be considered as additional funds. He said that an e-mail had been received from DWP confirming the funding settlement for 2008-11. Outcome: A formal letter to confirm the DEL settlement was requested from DWP at the meeting. He said that two expenditure scenarios had been provided to inform future financial planning decisions. He said that scenario 1 outlined what would happen if the LA’s response to the changes brought a surge of applications prior to April 2008 leading to new awards in the period April to September 2008. It is estimated that, if the rate of new awards increased a further 20% i.e. to 86 from the current level of 72 new awards, 2007/08 monies would meet expenditure but all 2008-11 funding would be committed with no monies for other potential options for user expenditure. Trustees accepted that policy decisions needed to be made at the February and March meetings when the impact of any potential current surge in applications was clearer. Scenario 2 outlined current awards remaining constant until the planned reduction of cases (40 per week) from October 2008 showing the cash balances available to fund new potential policies from April 08. With Northern Ireland (NI), forecast assumptions were used in both scenarios but NI applications do not reflect the GB situation and no surge was expected. In the half yearly review of NI funding for 2007/08 the grant in aid has been increased to £10m and the Finance Director confirmed funding for 08-11 would continue to meet expenditure. In response to a question about the relative position for NI on the planned changes to Threshold sum and prioritisation and whether NI funding moves to a DEL arrangement, Norman Cockett (DWP) said discussions with the Department for Social Development were ongoing and Trustees would be kept updated.
In answer to a question from the Chairman, the Chief Executive said that some of the LAs who make the highest level of applications had been contacted regarding their reaction to the December 2007 letter. Of those contacted the focus seemed to be on the long term position rather than immediate plans to make applications prior to the April 2008 changes. Outcome: Information 9 Strategic Budget Planning 2008-11 The Chief Executive explained that Local Authorities (LA) and Group 1(former Extension Fund) and 2 (former 1993 Fund) Users in GB have been notified in writing of changes to be brought in from April 2008. Trustees were advised that NCIL had issued a press release in response to the letter and the Chief Executive would contact NCIL to discuss this. The Chief Executive summarised decisions Trustees had made so far and explained that the February meeting would focus on possible new policies including budget management contingencies. The March meeting would focus on topics and options for the proposed LA dialogue in 2008/09. The Chief Executive explained that any points discussed today would still potentially need further legal advice.
Equivalent income issue Outcome: Decision- Trustees agreed they would prefer a single composite priority group of the two elements of the income based benefits of Income Support, income based Job Seekers and Pension Guarantee Credit and those on an equivalent income. The Chief Executive commented on the assessment process and what this may entail to make it equitable. The Chief Executive said she would present proposals at the February 2008 meeting for decision in the light of Trustees’ comments. Peter Cooke asked about the risk of legal challenge. The Chief Executive said this was always possible so legal advice would be obtained as there was a current expectation that all valid applications meeting eligibility criteria would be accepted.
Process of prioritisation Outcome: Decision - Trustees agreed they preferred Option 4 from the paper with the management of applications within a designated month.
Further factors to take into account Sally Sparrow and Nick Danagher both said that regard should be given to gross LA/ILF potential costs when deciding on size of package and Trustees agreed with this. The Chief Executive confirmed that there would be no restriction in people re-applying and that there would be no change to the established LA input policy so this could reduce the possibility of repeat applications after 3 months.
Delegated authority Outcome: Decision - Trustees agreed to delegate the authority for decisions on the selections process when needing to apply some limitation in numbers or first level appeal to a group of Senior Managers at ILF and that the UPCC would deal with any final appeal or challenge. Threshold Sum and £ for £ The Chief Executive presented the paper to Trustees. Outcome: Decision - Trustees agreed the policy to formally end the £ for £ policy from April 2008. Defining and Applying Priority Groups in Deed The Chief Executive presented the paper to Trustees. Outcome: Decision – Trustees agreed the policy Defining and Applying Additional Selection Criteria The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees. Outcome: Decision - Trustees agreed the approach to use the gross LA and ILF cost of the package as the additional criteria should it be necessary to prioritise applications further Appeals and Reapplications
The Chief Executive presented the paper to Trustees. She said that appeals might be received from those who met the Common Eligibility criteria but were not in a named priority group or those in a named priority group but who could not be funded due to the prioritisation process. Outcome: Decision – Trustees agreed to delegate initial discretionary decisions on prioritisation when exceptional factors needed to be considered to a panel of senior managers Appeals against decisions on prioritisation would be considered by the UPCC Consideration of application requests to be considered exceptional would initially be decided by the panel of senior managers Appeals against decisions not to be considered exceptional would be heard by the UPCC Appeals on any other grounds would be considered through the usual review of decisions process Closure, Suspension and Re-opening of Cases The Chief Executive presented the paper to Trustees and explained that some discussion may be necessary with legal advisors. Outcome: Trustees agreed the policy subject to further discussion on any legal points. Backdating The Chief Executive presented the paper to Trustees and gave an overview of the backdating policy. Outcome: Decision - Trustees agreed to pay from the date of receipt of the User agreement acceptance form for up to four weeks earlier without invoices on applicant request. Backdating requests for period in excess of four weeks must be supported by evidence of incurred liability for the whole of the period of the request. The Chief Executive explained that the policies agreed only apply to GB not NI. However the policy on backdating could be seen as better administration rather than linked to budget issues. Outcome: Decision - Trustees agreed to defer the decision on applying the backdating policy to NI until the Department for Social Development response to the issues of the Threshold Sum and prioritisation of applications had been received. 10 Minutes of the HR Committee Meeting 28 November 2007 Sally Sparrow, Chairman of the HR Sub Committee presented the minutes to Trustees. She said that it was a productive first meeting. Various polices had been approved and she did not feel there were any particular issues to bring to Trustees attention. Outcome: Trustees accepted the minutes. The Chairman proposed that if a sub committee approved a policy at a meeting there would be no need for the board to ratify. The Chairman of the main Board may still need to formally sign the policy. Outcome: Decision - Trustees accepted the proposal that Sub committees could both approve and agree the policy on behalf of the Board with subsequent Chairman of the Board signature if required.
11.1 Trustees Elections The Chairman said that the annual elections for office holders, Chairmen and sub committee members was scheduled for the March meeting and he proposed a new process whereby Trustees would E mail the Chief Executive to express continued or new interest in any of the posts to ensure that all had an equal opportunity prior to formal nominations. Trustees agreed this. Outcome: Chief Executive to circulate E-mail to Trustees outlining requirements on expressions of interest pre- elections. 11.2 Trustees’ Remuneration DWP confirmed that there was no further update on Trustees’ remuneration. Outcome: Information 11.3 Date of Next Meeting Date of Next Meeting would be Wednesday 13 February 2008, venue to be advised. Due to the lengthy agenda the meeting would take place from 10.30 am – 2.30 pm. There being no further business the meeting ended at 14:00 hrs.
|
 |
