SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 4
CS&B COMMITTEE AGENDA
OCTOBER 24, 1996
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: October 10, 1996
TO: Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets
FROM: Director of Community Services, Social Planning
SUBJECT: Community Services Grant -
Downtown Granville Tenants Association
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT Council rescind approval of a 1996 Community Services
Grant in the amount of $25,500 to the Downtown Granville
Tenants Association; this funding to be transferred to the
unallocated portion of the Community Services Grants budget,
to be available for emerging issues or unforeseen
circumstances.
B. THAT Social Planning report back on organizational and
funding options to meet the community develop-ment and
advocacy needs of low income residents in Downtown South.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of
A and B.
COUNCIL POLICY
The Vancouver Charter stipulates that grants may only be given to
registered non-profit societies.
On September 30, 1993, Council adopted, as policy, the criteria and
priorities which are used in assessing Community Services Grants
applications.
All grant applicants agree, in writing, to abide by any conditions
placed on the grants by Council - failure to do so results in the
grant not being paid.
PURPOSE
This report explains why the approved grant to the Downtown Granville
Tenants Association should not be paid to them.
BACKGROUND
On April 2, 1996, City Council approved 87 Community Services Grants,
including one to the Downtown Granville Tenants Association (DGTA).
Council also placed a condition on the grant to DGTA, namely:
" that the Board develop a plan by July 15, 1996 for
strengthening itself and the organization as a whole.
Payment of the 3rd and 4th instalments of the grant are
subject to implementation of this plan, to the satisfaction
of Social Planning. "
Even though this organization was able to demonstrate early in 1996
that there was a functioning Board in place, and that an acceptable
level of service was being provided, by May, it became increasingly
difficult to determine who was on the Board, and what, if anything
they were doing. Consequently, Social Planning placed a hold on
payment of the first instalment of the grant (grants are usually paid
out in four equal payments throughout the year).
The work of the organization was being done by a volunteer Executive
Director, with help from other community volunteers. They arranged a
major fund-raising event with local bars in June which was to have
netted $70,000, but seems to have raised only $20,000. However, on
the strength of that effort, and (unrealistic) optimism about other
funding coming available, the group moved to a new location, with much
higher rent.
One of the anticipated other sources of funding was the City's Housing
Centre, which had jointly funded the position of a housing relocator
with the Province, through BCHMC. The City had provided a 1994-95
grant of $18,505, but this was not renewed for 1995-96 because the
minimum requirements of quarterly activity reports and financial
statements had not been met. The organization had been advised on a
number of occasions that funding would be provided as soon as these
requirements were met, but the simple paperwork was never provided.
So even though they were counting on the funding for the relocator,
they did nothing to ensure that such funding would be approved.
By mid-July, the conditions on the Community Services grant had still
not been met, so payment of the second instalment was not approved by
Social Planning. Staff were hopeful, though, that with the move and
the money from the fund-raising event, the organization was making
progress.
At the end of July, the Director of DGTA approached the Community
Development Unit (CDU) of the Provincial Secretariat Office for
assistance. We understand that the CDU initially agreed to help out
by covering the rent for up to three months and supplying a part time
bookkeeper and a community developer worker. However, CDU staff say
that this assistance was offered on the understanding that the
organization was in reasonable financial health and that the Board
would commit the assist with this rejuvenation process.
DISCUSSION
Within two weeks, the CDU discovered that all was not as it seemed.
The CDU reported to DGTA's funders that the organization was more than
$20,000 in debt, with absolutely no source of funds in sight. Three
quarters of the debt was money payable to the Receiver-General as
source deductions for employees.
There was no sign of a functioning board, and no one, including those
that were named as board members, could say who was or was not on the
Board. Legally, the Board members registered in Victoria are
responsible for the organization's debts, but the names on the list
have not changed since the group was registered more than three years
ago. The whereabouts of most of those potentially liable for the debt
is not known.
Finally, we have just learned that the Registrar of Societies has
removed DGTA from the register of societies in good standing, as of
September 13, because of a failure to report on its status for the
past three years. Even if the debt was not an issue, and the Board
had continued to function, the City could no longer provide grants to
DGTA as the City Charter specifies that grants can only be given to
registered non-profit societies.
WHAT NEXT?
The current lease for the DGTA office has a three-month cancellation
clause. It is doubtful this month's rent can be paid. Social
Planning is in discussions with other social service agencies in the
community (several of whom are going to have to relocate in the near
future) to try to arrange for them to move in and take over the lease.
Once the dissolution of DGTA has been finalized, City staff will work
with other, well-established community groups to try to develop a new
organization which can carry out the community development and
advocacy functions that are so badly needed in Downtown South. We are
recommending a report back to Council once it is known what such an
organization could look like and how it might function.
CONCLUSION
The Downtown Granville Tenants Association no longer exists as a
registered non-profit society; therefore, previously approved City
funding should not be paid out.
* * * * *