Alexandra Palace and Park Board survey attracts barely a response - Harringay online2024-03-29T06:33:16Zhttps://harringayonline.com/forum/topics/alexandra-palace-and-park?commentId=844301%3AComment%3A260059&feed=yes&xn_auth=noI do agree with you Clive.
…tag:harringayonline.com,2011-07-07:844301:Comment:2611922011-07-07T16:13:51.893ZSallyPallyhttps://harringayonline.com/xn/detail/u_1uxcvr48h6mlf
<p>I do agree with you Clive.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Did you hear anything about Haringey Council suggesting that the building is given to The National Trust? I can't think of a better positioned non political group to carry a publicly owned asset. Can you?</p>
<p>I do agree with you Clive.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Did you hear anything about Haringey Council suggesting that the building is given to The National Trust? I can't think of a better positioned non political group to carry a publicly owned asset. Can you?</p> I BELIEVE that underlying all…tag:harringayonline.com,2011-07-07:844301:Comment:2615702011-07-07T15:37:00.540ZClive Carterhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/CliveCarter
<p>I BELIEVE that underlying all the myriad minor problems and the many medium-sized problems is the chronic issue of governance. The current Trustee has controlled our Palace for 30 years. The problems of the un-reformed council committee known as Alexandra Palace "Trust Board" may be summarised thus:</p>
<br></br>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 16px;">Lack of continuity and long-term vision</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 16px;">High turnover of chair and Board…</span></li>
</ul>
<p>I BELIEVE that underlying all the myriad minor problems and the many medium-sized problems is the chronic issue of governance. The current Trustee has controlled our Palace for 30 years. The problems of the un-reformed council committee known as Alexandra Palace "Trust Board" may be summarised thus:</p>
<br/>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 16px;">Lack of continuity and long-term vision</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 16px;">High turnover of chair and Board members</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 16px;">Highly politicised decision making</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 16px;">Lack of non-political/independent perspectives</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 16px;">Risk of commericially senstive papers in the public domain</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 16px;">Skill set of Board limited</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 16px;">Structure ineffective and ambiguous</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 16px;">Questions over 'going concern' status</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 16px;">Lack of trust and high levels of scrutiny</span></li>
</ul>
<br/>
<br/>
<p><strong>This is not my list!</strong></p>
<p><span>It appears in a <a href="http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=15830" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">(public) report</a> presented to the Board on 2 March 2010<strong><em>,</em></strong> entitled <em>The Way Ahead – Governance Review and Vision.</em></span> </p>
<p><span>Note the date. This list was derived from the "Trustees' Away Day" and the "Stakeholder Forum" and were presented as <em>the main barriers to success for creating a sustainable venue for future generations.</em></span></p>
<p><span>While I wouldn't agree with every item on the list, it nonetheless represents perhaps the most honest appraisal of the chronic issues I have seen emanating from either the Board or a Board employee I have seen. There might have been added,</span></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>fundamental conflict of interest between Duty to the Council and Duty to our Trust</strong></li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p>The list was complied 15 months ago. The lack of action, result or conclusion speaks for itself. The fundamental problems have long been known but there is no action that is meaningful. In the wake of the first Walklate Report, the then general manager prepared a municipal action plan. But it meant nothing, like so much else of the tonnes of paperwork this quango generates.</p>
<p>And yet, so many ordinary people actually care about this big building on our skyline.</p>
<p>Good luck with the Theatre, Sally.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> Thanks to Clive, Chris and St…tag:harringayonline.com,2011-07-07:844301:Comment:2616562011-07-07T13:11:32.174ZSallyPallyhttps://harringayonline.com/xn/detail/u_1uxcvr48h6mlf
<p>Thanks to Clive, Chris and Straw Cat for this lengthy yet highly informative discussion. I would like us all to cut our way out of the endless brambles that surround this building and aim for something that looks like a solution. I would like to propose that the only way for us to start to feel like we own this building and can do something with it is to act as a single voice. I would like the many consultative, statutory and stakeholder groups to speak through one body. That single body is…</p>
<p>Thanks to Clive, Chris and Straw Cat for this lengthy yet highly informative discussion. I would like us all to cut our way out of the endless brambles that surround this building and aim for something that looks like a solution. I would like to propose that the only way for us to start to feel like we own this building and can do something with it is to act as a single voice. I would like the many consultative, statutory and stakeholder groups to speak through one body. That single body is non political and open to all. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>This single umbrella group, united in focus, can operate as a force for positive regeneration. This unified focus being to bring the disused areas of the building back to life. If you consider the vast numbers of people who would love to be involved in some community spirit at Alexandra Palace, it is not impossible to imagine that a unified positive vision would attract enough support to enable the project to raise money.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It would raise money through holding large music events, like those organised by All Tomorrow's Parties and, in addition, launching a crowd funding scheme. I don't doubt that the £200,000 needed to bring the theatre back into a useable condition could be raised by crowd funding alone.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am hopeful that, in times of crisis, our old, stuffy institutions will be forced to invent new ways of attracting public support. Space being the final frontier, for it is via the intelligent mobilising of wasted space that we can support ourselves better, creating new funding streams and growing a stronger community at the same time. See the great work of the embryonic <a target="_blank" href="http://posterous.com/site/profile/unlibrary">Unlibrary</a> - based in Crouch End library - for an example of how donated space forges connections between groups from which new opportunity can grow.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Oh, and if you wanna see how one event is starting to create a buzz on the Vintage scene at Alexandra palace then come along to the next <a target="_blank" href="https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=136658126409057">Cakewalk Revival</a>: July 17th. The event is making use of the wasted space of the Palm Court to bring new custom to the bar and new event organisers are already keen to run more vintage themed community events at the palace. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am keen to get this rolling and would love to hear what people think? Any ideas?</p> Chris: many thanks for all y…tag:harringayonline.com,2011-07-05:844301:Comment:2609452011-07-05T15:49:23.881ZClive Carterhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/CliveCarter
<br></br>
Chris: many thanks for all your interesting, relevant questions. I try to answer below:<br></br>
<br></br>
<blockquote>So it was bought for the public by the Council in order to protect it against commercial interests, otherwise it would have been knocked down and covered in houses by now, wouldn't it?<br></br></blockquote>
Yes and for the last 20 years, including the present day, the current trustee (a council) has been trying to return it in whole or in part, to wholly commercial interests, though…
<br/>
Chris: many thanks for all your interesting, relevant questions. I try to answer below:<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote>So it was bought for the public by the Council in order to protect it against commercial interests, otherwise it would have been knocked down and covered in houses by now, wouldn't it?<br/></blockquote>
Yes and for the last 20 years, including the present day, the current trustee (a council) has been trying to return it in whole or in part, to wholly commercial interests, though possibly not housing.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote>I wonder how best to grow a public asset and say again, surely we need to help fix the system, not abandon it? I write this to help develop my thinking.<br/></blockquote>
It <strong><em>is</em></strong> a public asset, but the charitable side has largely been ignored by the current Trustee. If ‘fixing’ "the system" means keeping the local council as sole Trustee, then that is a triumph of hope over experience. With due respect, are you aware of what has gone on in our Charity in the last 30 years? Do you know the extent of the mismanagement? These are not entirely rhetorical questions and its not difficult to find the consistent record of waste, bungling and foolishness – for 30 (thirty) years.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote>You seem to be agreeing that Councillors do have the final say (they can choose to ignore a recommendation) but imply that they are no good at the job.<br/></blockquote>
Councillors have the final say – in theory. This assumes several things: that they are interested, knowledgeable and have the facts in front of them. This last point was the one on which the previous council leader Charles Adge was in March, Found to have Breached the councillor code of conduct, following my Complaint and he's currently suspended for four months, after bringing the council into disrepute with his conduct over the attempted sale of AP.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote>This is exactly how Central Government works, isn't it? Civil Servants do most of the 'work', overseen by politicians who can appear totally unsuited to the job when measured by results and often 'rubber stamp'.<br/></blockquote>
Whether or not central government works like the Trust Board is not really the point. I think another assumption here, is that expert, devoted council employees of integrity make up for the possible lack of interest of councillors on the Board. Rubber stamping of poor policies by poor governors lead to those very policies going forward.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote>Are you saying that Councillors should not be given this sort of power, or that they don't have any? Are you saying the Councillors are lazy or incompetent?<br/></blockquote>
It is one thing for councillors to have power; another thing to consider the available pool of talent. Amongst other things, I say councillors have enough to do with their Wards and regular council business, without trying to supervise a Charitable Trust and a huge building, for which none are qualified or competent. The councillors rotate through the council committee known as the “Trust Board” on a <strong>Buggins Turn</strong> basis.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote>You seem to be implicitly agree that, given that the Trust exists and only has Councillors on the Board, it's fair that the mix reflects that of the full Council - i.e the party in power has the majority of Board members.<br/></blockquote>
The Trust Board mix <strong>does</strong> reflect the council – that's part of the problem! That is not in dispute, or the point. If the mix were a perfect reflection of political representation, it does not follow that any of them are capable of running a big Charitable Trust.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote>2) the Council is unable to run a Charitable Trust because of the conflict of interest between the aims of the Trust and the aims of the Council. Does this apply to pretty much all the Trusts run by the Council?<br/></blockquote>
<p>I am not aware of any other Trusts run by the council. The situation is an anomaly.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p>Should Councils be able to be run Charitable Trusts on our behalf or should that idea be abandoned? </p>
</blockquote>
<p>IMO, the idea should be abandoned as it is now discredited. The Charity Commission’s policy now is not to approve of new municipal trusts because of conflicts of interest<br/> <br/></p>
<blockquote>As abandoning this would overturn centuries of practice, does it need a much stronger reason for a revolution?<br/></blockquote>
<p>No, the Charity Commission recognizes the inherent difficulties. And a court decision in the last year or two involving a council-trust also shows the writing on the wall for this severely compromised form of administration.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p>Are you in fact expressing absolutely no confidence in the ability of Councillors to fairly represent us in important matters of public assets, and further that they are, in this respect, incompetent?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In respect of this Trust, with which I'm familiar, yes. Please check the recent history of our Trust.<br/> <br/></p>
<blockquote>Are you also saying that Council Officials are incompetent as it's they who actually do the work, or are you saying that, because Councillors do not direct them properly, Council Officials are headless chickens wasting our assets?<br/></blockquote>
With exceptions, yes. In practice its both, with the bulk of responsibility <strong>on those who govern.</strong> The Trustee should not comprise a majority of councillors, nor should its employees be council staff. Our charity has existed in a grey area in the past in which all sorts of shenanigans went on.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote>3) The undischarged debt of circa £41m is largely bogus. – I'm sure you don't mean to make such a serious allegation of financial misconduct as, from what you wrote about rubber stamping, you are accusing the Chief Financial Officer - a civil servant with, presumably, no personal interest. Why would a CFO allow such a situation?<br/></blockquote>
I certainly do mean to make that allegation. <strong>The debt is largely bogus.</strong> The allegation is not as novel or as sensational as you seem to think and nowhere near as unsupported as you suspect. Can I respectfully refer you to the 1996 Letter of the Treasury Solicitor on this very subject? Yes, I mean <strong><em>The</em> Treasury Solicitor</strong>. The "debt” is written off, but keeps rising, but any or all of it could be discharged with the stroke of a pen. Given that Haringey is responsible for all of it (it is a debt they owe to themselves) they will eventually choose to do this, but it requires leadership).<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote>Provided the Council is willing to wait to be repaid, does it not have the effect of a long term advantageous loan to the Palace of the People?<br/></blockquote>
The debt is written off. But that it is undischarged, has acted as a self-imposed planning-blight. It’s existence has helped to frustrate most of the council’s botched sale attempts.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote>Is that not a good thing or would you rather the banks were in charge? If independent trustees were able to obtain a loan on such good terms, would you condemn them for it?<br/></blockquote>
These sums are only loans if you adopt the distorted council-thinking. These “loans” are in fact council-controlled, councillor-authorised spending. Often, overspending. They are no more loans than the spending on rubbish collection in Haringey is a loan and the rubbish collectors owe millions to the council! Our Trust is 100% council-controlled. The AP Trading Company is wholly owned by the council and almost 100% controlled by the council.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote>Independent trustees – with expertise, interest and integrity – Can you give any further specifics on who we would get? Are you talking, for example, about Lord Sugar, Lord Archer or Lord Foster? Why would any of them be motivated to get involved? <br/></blockquote>
You are quite right about the current keenness of experts to get involved – given the current state of affairs. Haringey’s reputation goes before it no one in their right minds would want to get involved – with Haringey still in control. The latest council-inspired scheme (to sell off two-thirds to a music operator) is likely to fail. I fear we are headed to a Firoka situation, with the council offering unlimited sweetners to get a developer interested.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote>Are you confident that these people will be able to be appointed by Councillors already on the Board, or do you think someone else should appoint them? Should they have voting rights?<br/></blockquote>
No, not confident. The local council has limited ability and knowledge for this work. Such appointments should be made at national level and selected from a larger pool of talent. Not only should experts have voting rights, they should have majority control! The record of our local council as stewards for our Charity has been one of waste and disaster – not just for the last 30 weeks, but for 30 years.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote>I ask all this because I really think that the situation can be improved, but I'm not sure what improvements would actually work, let alone how to bring them about.<br/></blockquote>
Never stop asking questions! The situation can be improved but it involves a change of heart of the local council who must face up to the fact that their stewardship has not been a success. It’s not the current incumbents on the Board who brought about this situation. The original mistake was made 30 years ago when total control was awarded to a single, skint, local council.<br/><br/>
<br/>
I think that StrawCat has responded well enough to your last point.<br/>
<br/>
Any more comments or questions Chris?!<br/> Chris, you're dead right that…tag:harringayonline.com,2011-07-05:844301:Comment:2603842011-07-05T02:35:44.299ZStraw Cathttps://harringayonline.com/profile/StrawCat
<p>Chris, you're dead right that Ally Pally "has relatively poor public transport for a venue capable of holding 10,000 people ". It was designed to be integrated with a railway line from Finsbury Park but this was closed in the 1950's and the route is now the Parkland Walk. There have been council plans to re-open it as a light railway but there are always howls of protest from local residents, so the council always backs down ...</p>
<p><br></br>But the Palace and Park were designed and built for…</p>
<p>Chris, you're dead right that Ally Pally "has relatively poor public transport for a venue capable of holding 10,000 people ". It was designed to be integrated with a railway line from Finsbury Park but this was closed in the 1950's and the route is now the Parkland Walk. There have been council plans to re-open it as a light railway but there are always howls of protest from local residents, so the council always backs down ...</p>
<p><br/>But the Palace and Park were designed and built for the education and recreation of people of all London, not just Haringey, let alone Muswell Hill. The trustees used to be drawn from councils from much of north London, and ran the place pretty well and often at a surplus, but since 1980 they are only drawn from Haringey, and tend to think their duty is to the borough (which it normally is) rather than the whole of London ... and sometimes (especially when it comes to bits like the internationally-important TV studios) simply don't get the importance of what they are holding in trust. In reality they are out of their depth, and it's the officers who run the place -and sometimes have got out of control. Hence the overspending after the 1980 fire, which the Attorney-General ruled could not be charged to the charity since the money was not authorized. So you have to choose whether to believe the Attorney-General of England and Wales - the top law officer - or the then CEO of Haringey, Mr Gurbux Singh. Afterwards famous for having to resign from being CEO of the Race Relations Board after being arrested for being drunkat Lords' cricket ground, boozily saying to the policemen "do you know who I am?"</p>
<p><br/>You say "The very idea of a place given to the public as a charitable act so that it was 'free for public use and recreation' seems to be from a byegone age - so much has changed. When I read 'free for public use', I thought, does it mean that all events should be free to attend?"</p>
<p><br/>Do you use Hampstead Heath? or Kenwood House? or anything owned by the National Trust? all these are places which those funny old Victorians and Edwardians also decided should be "given to the public as a charitable act so that it was 'free for public use and recreation'". The difference is, they are run by very eminent, committed, expert trustees who actually want to do what they are doing. And are good at managing.</p>
<p><br/>The original trustees of Ally Pally were as well - people like Henry Burt, who also built Hornsey's first free public libraries (another daft Victorian idea, maybe). One or two current Haringey councillors are quite successful businessmen. But they are not on the board of AP.</p> Apparently a group of Council…tag:harringayonline.com,2011-07-02:844301:Comment:2600592011-07-02T16:42:03.612ZChris Setzhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/ChrisSetz
<p>Apparently a group of Councils led by Hornsey clubbed together with others a long time ago to buy the place outright because the owners wanted to sell it to build houses on the the land. Because of the Londonwide Govt re-org, It was handed over to the GLA, then finally to Haringey Council in 1980, moments before a big chunk burned down. Haringey overspent by £30m on the refurb, saddling the Trust with a big debt.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So it was bought for the public by the Council in order…</p>
<p>Apparently a group of Councils led by Hornsey clubbed together with others a long time ago to buy the place outright because the owners wanted to sell it to build houses on the the land. Because of the Londonwide Govt re-org, It was handed over to the GLA, then finally to Haringey Council in 1980, moments before a big chunk burned down. Haringey overspent by £30m on the refurb, saddling the Trust with a big debt.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So it was bought for the public by the Council in order to protect it against commercial interests, otherwise it would have been knocked down and covered in houses by now, wouldn't it?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The very idea of a place given to the public as a charitable act so that it was 'free for public use and recreation' seems to be from a byegone age - so much has changed. When I read 'free for public use', I thought, does it mean that all events should be free to attend?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I wonder how best to grow a public asset and say again, surely we need to help fix the system, not abandon it? I write this to help develop my thinking.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You've written:</p>
<p>1) In practice, the Trust is actually run by Council Officials, because all the Councillors do is 'rubber stamp' their recommendations.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You seem to be agreeing that Councillors do have the final say (they can choose to ignore a recommendation) but imply that they are no good at the job.</p>
<p>This is exactly how Central Government works, isn't it? Civil Servants do most of the 'work', overseen by politicians who can appear totally unsuited to the job when measured by results and often 'rubber stamp'.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Are you saying that Councillors should not be given this sort of power, or that they don't have any? Are you saying the Councillors are lazy or incompetent?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You seem to be implicitly agree that, given that the Trust exists and only has Councillors on the Board, it's fair that the mix reflects that of the full Council - i.e the party in power has the majority of Board members.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2) the Council is unable to run a Charitable Trust because of the conflict of interest between the aims of the Trust and the aims of the Council.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Does this apply to pretty much all the Trusts run by the Council?</p>
<p>Should Councils be able to be run Charitable Trusts on our behalf or should that idea be abandoned? </p>
<p>As abandoning this would overturn centuries of practice, does it need a much stronger reason for a revolution? Are you in fact expressing absolutely no confidence in the ability of Councillors to fairly represent us in important matters of public assets, and further that they are, in this respect, incompetent? Are you also saying that Council Officials are incompetent as it's they who actually do the work, or are you saying that, because Councillors do not direct them properly, Council Officials are headless chickens wasting our assets?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>3) The undischarged debt of circa £41m is largely bogus.</p>
<p>I'm sure you don't mean to make such a serious allegation of financial misconduct as, from what you wrote about rubber stamping, you are accusing the Chief Financial Officer - a civil servant with, presumably, no personal interest. Why would a CFO allow such a situation?</p>
<p>Provided the Council is willing to wait to be repaid, does it not have the effect of a long term advantageous loan to the Palace of the People? Is that not a good thing or would you rather the banks were in charge? If independent trustees were able to obtain a loan on such good terms, would you condemn them for it?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>4) independent trustees – with expertise, interest and integrity</p>
<p>Can you give any further specifics on who we would get? Are you talking, for example, about Lord Sugar, Lord Archer or Lord Foster? Why would any of them be motivated to get involved? </p>
<p>Are you confident that these people will be able to be appointed by Councillors already on the Board, or do you think someone else should appoint them?</p>
<p>Should they have voting rights?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I ask all this because I really think that the situation can be improved, but I'm not sure what improvements would actually work, let alone how to bring them about.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It seems that Ally Pally has relatively poor public transport for a venue capable of holding 10,000 people at a single event. Parking seems way below standard. The station is further away than most people are used to in major venues. There's only one bus. The resident population don't seem to be interested enough in a nearby venue to notice it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So, although it appears to be a goldmine, it may in fact be a bit of a white elephant. </p> Chris the facts you've set ou…tag:harringayonline.com,2011-07-01:844301:Comment:2591252011-07-01T11:25:53.747ZClive Carterhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/CliveCarter
<p>Chris the facts you've set out are broadly and baldly accurate but don't give the full picture. A charity does not manage our assets: it's important to remember that our charity <strong><em>is</em> a Charitable Trust</strong>. Our assets are governed by the Trustee (the council) via a "Board". In practice this council committee, which meets a few times a year, acts as a rubber stamp on the reports of council employees.</p>
<p>The main effect of the rotation of councillors, that you mention,…</p>
<p>Chris the facts you've set out are broadly and baldly accurate but don't give the full picture. A charity does not manage our assets: it's important to remember that our charity <strong><em>is</em> a Charitable Trust</strong>. Our assets are governed by the Trustee (the council) via a "Board". In practice this council committee, which meets a few times a year, acts as a rubber stamp on the reports of council employees.</p>
<p>The main effect of the rotation of councillors, that you mention, is discontinuity.</p>
<p>The undischarged debt of circa £41m is largely bogus and is kept there "in case oil is struck under the palace" (quote from a former general manager). The council will tell you that 40% of the building is derelict – what sort of a record is this after three decades. How much time should they be given to get their act together?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Conflicts of interest, between duty to the council and duty to our Trust, explain almost of the last 30 years' worth of waste, decay, mistakes, mismanagement and distorted governance.</p>
<p>If it is thought that the council is a benign steward, just misunderstood, then it should be remembered that for most of the last 15 years, the council's policy was the "holistic" – i.e. 100% – sale of the building for commercial property development (on a 125 year Lease).</p>
<p>They carefully selected the developer-of-last resort, Firoka, whose reputation I suggest you check yourself. However, the conniving permission from the Charity Commission to sell our asset was tested in the High Court in 2007 and 10 months later the developer withdrew. It took two and a half years for the council to abandon the policy of holistic sale.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now, we have a more modest sale attempt, whereby the council seeks a music operator to take a similar long lease for up to two thirds of our Charity's premises. I predict this attempt will also fail, because no sane developer can have confidence in their counter-party. It is even admitted this latest attempt to "secure the future" is at risk of stalling.</p>
<p>AP was always too big to be entrusted to a single council. There is a vicious circle operating whereby operation by the rules of the Local Government Act ensure failure in this context.</p>
<p>The local council will probably always be represented on the Board, not because of any expertise, but simply because this is the biggest and most important building in the Borough. But independent trustees – with expertise, interest and integrity – need to be on the Board as a matter of urgency.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>More information on <a href="http://www.saveallypally.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">SAP web site</a> on this <a href="http://carteruncut.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">blog site</a>.</p>
<p> </p> As far as I understand it Cli…tag:harringayonline.com,2011-07-01:844301:Comment:2593752011-07-01T10:22:03.233ZChris Setzhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/ChrisSetz
<p>As far as I understand it Clive, Alexandra Palace & Park is a public space, given to 'the people' over a century ago and is managed by a Charity ('The Trust'). I have no connection to it, just go there if there's an event I like. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Trust is run entirely by Haringey Councillors on the Board, in a mix that 'reflects the political balance' of the Borough. In other words, whichever party is in the majority on the Council will have a majority of Councillors on the Board…</p>
<p>As far as I understand it Clive, Alexandra Palace & Park is a public space, given to 'the people' over a century ago and is managed by a Charity ('The Trust'). I have no connection to it, just go there if there's an event I like. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Trust is run entirely by Haringey Councillors on the Board, in a mix that 'reflects the political balance' of the Borough. In other words, whichever party is in the majority on the Council will have a majority of Councillors on the Board of the Trust. They seem to rotate the Councillors from time to time. The Board can use the services of all the Council Officials it requires (such as Solicitors, planners etc.) and seems to get them for free as far as I can tell.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The trading arm tries to make money from the events etc. It has around 50 employees, many of them temporary workers - managed by salaried people including a General Manager and a Chief Finance Officer who, presumably, are professionals. The Trust is looking to appoint a Chief Executive. Looks from the latest accounts (March 2010) as if they created revenue of £5.3m with an operating profit of £396k, almost all of which went back to the Trust. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Trust has formed two committees who have no votes but can observe, make recommendations etc - to represent the views of residents (the Advisory Cttee), and the views of interested organisations (the Consultative Cttee).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Advisory Cttee is for residents, who are represented by one person from each of the following:</p>
<p>Alexandra Residents’ Association: </p>
<p>Bounds Green and District Residents’ Association</p>
<p>Muswell Hill and Fortis Green Association</p>
<p>Palace Gates Residents’ Association</p>
<p>Palace View Residents’ Association</p>
<p>The Rookfield Association</p>
<p>Warner Estate Residents’ Association</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Trust nominated one person from each of the following orgs to form the Consultative Cttee:</p>
<p></p>
<div>Alexandra Palace Amateur Ice Skating Club</div>
<div>Alexandra Palace Allotments Association</div>
<div>Alexandra Palace Angling Association</div>
<div>Alexandra Palace Organ Appeal</div>
<div>Alexandra Palace Television Group </div>
<div>Alexandra Residents’ Association</div>
<div>Alexandra Palace Garden Centre</div>
<div>Alexandra Park and Palace Conservation Area Advisory Committee</div>
<div>Bounds Green and District Residents’ Association </div>
<div>CUFOS</div>
<div>Friends of Alexandra Park</div>
<div>Friends of the Alexandra Palace Theatre</div>
<div>Hornsey Historical Society</div>
<div>Muswell Hill and Fortis Green Association</div>
<div>Muswell Hill Metro Group </div>
<div>New River Action Group</div>
<div>Palace View Residents’ Association</div>
<div>The Grove Café </div>
<div>Vitrine Ltd - The Lakeside Café</div>
<div>Warner Estate Residents’ Association </div>
<p></p>
<p>The commercial parts had been given to a commercial company that claimed to be able to return a profit to the Trust but it didn't work out and the Trust lost a lot of our money getting rid of them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Trust has debts of around £41m I think (owed to the Council so it won't go bankrupt) and appears to be losing around £2m a year, although some of this is funny money (I don't fully understand the accounts) as the trading arm appears mildly profitable.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>>>This is not how our (or any) charitable trust should be run </p>
<p>What gives us the power to change things? We aren't elected and have no track record.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>How should this public building and park be run, Clive? Seems like they've covered all the bases - pretty much anyone with a voice can get heard, it seems. You could say that Councillors shouldn't be running a commercial venture, but they're not - they employ people in the trading arm and retain contractors to do that for them, getting free stuff from the Council when they can.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Are other public spaces run in a more representative way?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Surely the answer is to help the Council run things better, not take away from them?</p> Survey posted here.tag:harringayonline.com,2011-06-30:844301:Comment:2590642011-06-30T16:31:35.154ZHughhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/hjuk
Survey posted <a href="http://www.harringayonline.com/forum/topics/ally-pally-park-users-your" target="_blank">here</a>.
Survey posted <a href="http://www.harringayonline.com/forum/topics/ally-pally-park-users-your" target="_blank">here</a>. Hugh: I was present at the me…tag:harringayonline.com,2011-06-29:844301:Comment:2586742011-06-29T13:18:06.260ZClive Carterhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/CliveCarter
<p>Hugh: I was present at the meeting and was sitting by the journalist. My sense is that her story fairly reported what was said, i.e. general disappointment with the response to the questionnaire.</p>
<p>We frequently hear the repitition of mantras from AP, like "consult with stakeholders" "improve governance". None of it means much because the Trustee is the local council and it is an instrument of politics.</p>
<p>This is not how our (or any) charitable trust should be run, but we can…</p>
<p>Hugh: I was present at the meeting and was sitting by the journalist. My sense is that her story fairly reported what was said, i.e. general disappointment with the response to the questionnaire.</p>
<p>We frequently hear the repitition of mantras from AP, like "consult with stakeholders" "improve governance". None of it means much because the Trustee is the local council and it is an instrument of politics.</p>
<p>This is not how our (or any) charitable trust should be run, but we can expect little from the appropriate regulator.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>One irony about the <strong>park maintenance</strong> is that it may yet become markedly superior to other parks in Haringey. Park upkeep has been a responsibility of the Charity although had the council flogged the building to Firoka they were willing to take this cost over directly (circa £750k p.a.) (This was part of the raft of sweeteners offered to the property developer).</p>
<p>Now, within parks under direct municipal control, maintenance may be slashed, leaving AP park to stand out by comparison.</p>
<p>In principle, I think there should be an annual grant from LBH to AP for AP park maintenance, as this is a huge burden on our Trust. In practice, the park may escape the Haringey hatchet.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Finally, the problem with all surveys conducted online is that of the <strong>Self-Selected Sample.</strong> It is entirely possible to conduct a scientific survey (by genuine random sample) but on line surveys are rarely representative.</p>
<p>If this survey had been conducted online by LBH, there would be the double disadvantage of a self-selected sample plus up to 95% of the survey requiring equal opportunity monitoring questions, such as whether your current sex differs from your birth sex.</p>
<p>The extent of equal opportunity monitoring questions (for which I have little time) makes me suspect that responding sample (for whatever the real question) mainly reflects those of the population who have high tolerance for municipal equal opportunity monitoring.</p>