Panel Response 2

Posted on the website 20 May 2009

1 Audit Panel

Barry Hallam (Chairman), Linda Polley, Shirley Hetherington

2 Introduction

Barry Hallam reminded members of the background, noted the panel had received the second audit report dated 10 September 2008 and it was agreed this would be used as the basis of the review. They met with Bob de Wardt, Dave Taylor, Barbara Gray, Rob Weston, and David W Taylor to discuss the project in more detail and ensure it was achieving its objectives and complied with the criteria agreed with the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF).

3 Conclusions from discussions

3.1 All items raised at the first audit had been addressed. Control of equipment and insurance were considered adequate. The project was making good progress.

3.2 The digital archiving system was demonstrated and backup arrangements explained. The system was operational. It was agreed it was possible to lose data in the time it took from its production on an individual laptop to the time when all were linked together with the main computer (normally monthly). Procedures where the individuals downloaded their new information to a fob and held it as a copy until all computers were brought together could reduce the risk.

3.3 The plan to establish a digital archiving system is now over 90% complete. Members need further training and experience. Currently Mike Newton transfers the data. A timetable to enable more people to do this work should be considered in order to reduce the dependency on this person.

3.4 Maintaining interest. A high level continues among the original members and there are some newcomers. It was agreed to discuss the subject at the next audit when participation in the autumn meetings could be measured.

3.5 The newsletter and enabled communication with the wider group. Measuring the number of times the website was accessed could be a useful indicator. Minor change to site needed.

3.6 Finances are under control and corporation tax is not seen as a serious issue. There could be a liability on interest from deposits but not profit from the book.

3.7 It was noted several topics did not have leaders. The list was produced from a brainstorming session to generate areas of potential interest. It would not be productive to engineer interest in all areas but let it evolve as appropriate. Some topics may not be covered but that was not a serious issue.

3.8 Linda Polley noted “historic directories “could be of use. Bob de Wardt explained that plans were in hand to gather data where there were few or no records, for example taking core samples and geophysical surveys. The latter could cost £600 but would be done within the current budget.

Barry Hallam, Linda Polley, Shirley Hetherington

Back to Audit Reports

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License