Agenda item

i.          To approve the minutes of the meeting of the informal Joint Statutory Advisory and Consultative Committee (SAC/CC) held on 8^th November 2011.

ii.         To note the minutes of the Advisory Committee held on 8^th November 2011.

iii.        To note the draft minutes of the meeting of the Alexandra Palace and Park Board held on 29^th November 2011 (TO FOLLOW).

i)          Joint Alexandra Park & Palace Advisory and Consultative Committees (SAC/CC)

The minutes of the Joint SAC/CC held on 8^th November 2011 were approved as a correct record.

ii)         Alexandra Park and Palace Statutory Advisory Committee

The draft minutes of the meeting of the Statutory Advisory Committee held on 8^th November 2011 were noted.

iii)        Alexandra Palace and Park Board

The draft minutes of the meeting of the Alexandra Palace and Park Board held on 29^th November 2011would be considered at the next meeting.

Matters arising

The Chair asked for clarification of one item related to the minutes of the Board meeting held on 18 October, which although tabled at the previous joint meeting had not been discussed. This was concerned with the final resolution of APBO147, Consideration of Outcome of LB Haringey Standards Committee Determination Hearing. While the matters to do with the Hearing itself had been resolved and were minuted, the final point had not -  this still required a response by the Chief Executive on behalf of the Board to three core questions related to matters outside the scope of the Hearing. These unanswered questions had arisen in the Joint SAC/CC meeting on 31 May 2011.

In the absence of a written response there were differences of view on how this matter should be treated – either the questions should still be answered, or since much time had already been devoted to related matters it was time to move on to concentrate on regeneration and the future of the Palace. It was agreed that it was important to conclude this business so that it could be put in the past. To this end it was agreed that the minutes of this meeting would be considered as a full and adequate response. The following section restates to the three core questions with the associated response from the Chief Executive:

Q 1. Do the trustees, and the council solicitors, consider the licence given to Firoka both valid and binding, or, ultra vires and not binding? If the latter, will the trustees challenge that the charity’s funds should indemnify those losses and order they be not charged to the charity’s funds as a debt?

Response: The Chief Executive confirmed the view that the licence given to Firoka was intra vires (i.e. the Trust’s decision making powers). This view is supported by the Board’s resolution of 24 April 2007 that the General Manager be authorised to begin the process of a phased transfer of the charity, staff and contracts to the Firoka Group. The General Manager subsequently signed a Licence in accordance with that resolution. Firoka was entitled to rely on the document. There is no suggestion in any of the Walklate reports that the licence was “ultra vires” for the Trust.

Q 2. Have the trustees taken independent legal advice as to whether the charity’s various legal advisers should have (a) checked the final version of the licence and warned the trustees accordingly; (b) monitored and intervened on behalf of the charity to protect it during the licence period; (c) advised the trustees to terminate the licence with Firoka and evict them immediately after the successful JR, and (d) consider whether the charity or council should take action to recover the resultant losses to the charity, from those advisers?

Response: The Chief Executive stated that independent advice had not been sought as to any alleged negligence of the Trust Solicitor and it was not considered prudent at this stage to investigate sub-questions a, b, c and d. Any further pursuit of these items would be disproportionably expensive and unlikely to yield any benefit.

Q 3. Have the trustees taken advice as to legal action against Firoka Ltd for an account of profits during its occupation of the Palace?

Response: The Chief Executive response was that no comment can be made on the possibility of any future legal action. Regarding the possibility of a claim by Firoka, the Chief Executive advised that it was unjustified to spend further resources on a claim that may never be pursued.

A further response to the suggestion that there should be regular reviews of the Trust’s legal advisors the Chief Executive agreed and reported that the Trust was considering re-tendering for its legal service provision.