-
ABOUT COMMUNITY
RELATIONS COUNCIL -
OUR
SERVICES
Council Minutes
November 2006
15th November 2006
MINUTES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL ON 15th November 2006 AT CRC OFFICES, 6 MURRAY STREET, BELFAST
01 PRESENT:
Dr David Stevens (Chair), Paul Smyth, Maggie Bryson,Colin Neilands Colin Craig and Eileen Gallagher
02 APOLOGIES
Pauline Morgan, Dr Cathy Gormley-Heenan, Dr Duncan Morrow (CEO), Vanessa McGeown (Staff)
03 IN ATTENDANCE:
Jacqueline Irwin, Jim Dennison, Claudine McGuigan, Libby Smit, Elizabeth McCann and Eileen Deacon.
04 GENERAL BUSINESS
Members were welcomed and apologies noted. Minutes of the last meeting were agreed.
Minutes of the EU Committee Meeting held on 31st March 2006 were also agreed. Minutes from this meeting were initially presented to the EU Committee for consideration/approval at the EU Committee Meeting on 14 June but it was agreed at this meeting that the minutes “would remain in draft format until departmental colleagues (CRU) have had an opportunity to review them for accuracy”. As no amendments to the draft minutes were proposed by/received from CRU (between 14 June and 15 November 2006) they were taken as read.
05 STAGE 1 - RESEARCH ASSESSMENTS
Declaration of Interests
Eileen Gallagher Irish School of Ecumenics
06/0591/039020 – Democratic Dialogue
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 14 for Distinctiveness and 11 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application therefore failed at Stage 1 of the Assessment Process on the Reconciliation criteria.
06/0604/038981 – Trademark
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 14 for Distinctiveness and 11 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application therefore failed at Stage 1 of the Assessment Process on the Reconciliation criteria.
06/0575/039037 - FAIR
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 13 for Distinctiveness and 5 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application therefore failed at Stage 1 of the Assessment Process on the Reconciliation criteria. Committee agreed that the proposal lacked sufficient clarity and detail around content, timing, structure and measurable outcomes to clearly demonstrate that it could meet the minimum reconciliation score.
06/0570/039036 – Institute of Governance - QUB
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 14 for Distinctiveness and 10 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application therefore failed at Stage 1 of the Assessment Process on the Reconciliation criteria.
06/0596/038986 – The Cresco Trust Ltd
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 13 for Distinctiveness and 8 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application therefore failed at Stage 1 of the Assessment Process on the Reconciliation criteria.
06/0571/038890 – Irish School of Ecumenics
· Eileen Gallagher declared a conflict of interest and left the room.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 15 for Distinctiveness and 11 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application therefore failed at Stage 1 of the Assessment Process on the Reconciliation criteria.
06/0562/039021 – NICEM
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 14 for Distinctiveness and 12 for Reconciliation. Committee agreed that the indicative score presented for Reconciliation was slightly high and subsequently agreed a revised score of 11. The application therefore failed at Stage 1 of the Assessment Process on the Reconciliation criteria.
It was agreed that all of the applications listed below received a score of at least 13 in each of the essential criteria and should move to Stage 2 Assessment.
06/0595/038985 – Institute for Conflict Research
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 17 for Distinctiveness and 17 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0605/038975 – Dr Rosellen Roche – QUB
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 16 for Distinctiveness and 16 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0556/038998 – School of Sociology – QUB
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 16 for Distinctiveness and 16 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0600/038998 – UU David Dickson
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 16 for Distinctiveness and 15 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0564/039025 – Youth Action NI
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 16 for Distinctiveness and 15 for Reconciliation. Committee agreed that the indicative score presented for Distinctiveness was slightly high and subsequently agreed a revised score of 15. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0592/038977 – Holywell Trust
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 15 for Distinctiveness and 15 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0606/038915 – Interaction Belfast
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 15 for Distinctiveness and 13 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0601/039031 – Centre for Contemporary Christianity
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 16 for Distinctiveness and 15 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0607/039027 – St Columb’s Park House
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 16 for Distinctiveness and 15 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0563/039038 – Rural Community Network
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 14 for Distinctiveness and 15 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0602/039017 - Arts
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 15 for Distinctiveness and 15 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0598/039024 – Democratic Dialogue
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 15 for Distinctiveness and 15 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0603/038984 – Institute for Conflict Research
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 15 for Distinctiveness and 14 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0590/038971 - SPACE
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 15 for Distinctiveness and 14 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0558/039023 – St Columb’s Park House
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 15 for Distinctiveness and 14 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0565/038983 – Preparing for Post Conflict Trust
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 14 for Distinctiveness and 14 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0608/03906 – Universityof Ulster – Dr Chris Gilligan
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 15 for Distinctiveness and 15 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0560/038997 – Academy for Irish Cultural Heritages - UU
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 15 for Distinctiveness and 14 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06 STAGE 1 - OUTWARD AND FORWARD LOOKING REGION ASSESSMENTS
Declaration of Interests:
Colin Craig Tides Training
David Stevens Tides Training, Public Achievement
Paul Smyth UNESCO School of Education, NIPPA, Public Achievement
06/0616/039046 – Institute for Conflict Research
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 14 for Distinctiveness and 13 for Reconciliation. Committee agreed that the indicative score presented for Reconciliation was slightly high and subsequently agreed a revised score of 11. The application therefore failed at Stage 1 of the Assessment Process on the Reconciliation criteria.
06/0621/039065 – FAIR
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 13 for Distinctiveness and 5 for Reconciliation. The application therefore failed at Stage 1 of the Assessment Process on the Reconciliation criteria. Committee agreed that the proposal lacked sufficient clarity and detail around content, timing, structure and measurable outcomes to clearly demonstrate that it could meet the minimum reconciliation score.
06/0620/038939 – National Union of Students
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 13 for Distinctiveness and 13 for Reconciliation. Committee agreed that the indicative score presented for Reconciliation was slightly high and subsequently agreed a revised score of 11. The application therefore failed at Stage 1 of the Assessment Process on the Reconciliation criteria.
It was agreed that all of the applications listed below received a score of at least 13 in each of the essential criteria and should move to Stage 2 Assessment.
06/0619/039030 – Centre For Contemporary Christianity
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 14 for Distinctiveness and 14 for Reconciliation. Committee agreed that the indicative score presented for Reconciliation was slightly high and subsequently agreed a revised score of 13. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0626/039034 – Community Foundation for NI
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 15 for Distinctiveness and 13 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0631/038987 – Mediation Northern Ireland
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 14 for Distinctiveness and 14 for Reconciliation. Committee agreed that the indicative score presented for Reconciliation was slightly high and subsequently agreed a revised score of 13. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0621/039056 - NICEM
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 17 for Distinctiveness and 16 for Reconciliation. Committee agreed that the indicative scores presented for Distinctiveness and Reconciliation were slightly high and subsequently agreed revised scores of 16 and 15 respectively. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0629/039051 - NIPPA
· Paul Smyth declared a conflict of interest and left the room.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 13 for Distinctiveness and 13 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0630/038965 – North South Rural Voice
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 15 for Distinctiveness and 14 for Reconciliation. Committee agreed that the indicative score presented for Reconciliation was slightly high and subsequently agreed a revised score of 13. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0623/039048 – Public Achievement
· Paul Smyth and David Stevens declared conflicts of interest and left the room.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 15 for Distinctiveness and 15 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0632/039054 – UNESCO School of Education
· Paul Smyth declared a conflict of interest and left the room.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 16 for Distinctiveness and 15 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0633/039043 – Tides Training
· Colin Craig and David Stevens declared conflicts of interest and left the room.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 15 for Distinctiveness and 15 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
06/0627/038857 – Universityof Ulster
· No conflicts of interest were declared.
Members discussed this application and reviewed all materials that had been submitted in relation to it. The application was awarded a score of 13 for Distinctiveness and 13 for Reconciliation. Members agreed with the indicative scoring and comments made by the Assessing Staff Officer. The application was therefore successful at Stage 1.
07 CAPTITAL BUILD UPDATE
Committee members were given an update on the status of the 10 projects awarded Measure 2:1 Capital Build grant aid. Committee were informed that of the 10 projects 6 are progressing well but that the remaining 4 were experiencing difficulties in finding/securing match funding. Members were advised that the deadline for projects to have match funding in place is the 12th December 2006. After this date it will become clear which projects will have to decline the Measure 2:1 capital build award offer and how much capital build grant aid will become available for re-distribution/allocation at the next EU Committee Meeting.
08 JOINT EU & CIC MEETING
Committee were asked about the possibility of a joint EU and CIC meeting were Members could come together to discuss issues associated with grant aid and making decisions on grant aid applications, as well as identifying good practice. Members welcomed the idea and Wednesday 24th January 2007 was proposed as a date on which to hold the first of these meetings. It was agreed that staff would issue an email to Members about possible venues as well as the structure/format of the meeting as soon as possible.
- Date for the next meeting was agreed as 10am on 19th December 2006 in CRC’s Belfast Office (Stage 2 decisions to be made at this meeting).
- Staff and Members were thanked for their contributions.
GO_BACK
