SEE3 Financial Accounts

[Pally]

I did note that you said that it was not possible for you Joanne. My comment was just acknowledging that I am sure your ideas and suggestions could be relevant and useful in next steps of development etc

[missT]

£12k for the Christmas calendars and flyers

????!!!! WOW ! REALLY ???? i do wonder who is the lucky printer that got an early xmas present ???

On the market subject ,as seen on another tread on this forum not even people that live in sydenham are 'tempted' to come back .Do people outside of sydenham even know about the market and why would they bother to come ??? why is so much money wasted on unsuccessful promotions when really the best promotion : social networking ,is free and it don't cost much to get an intern to do all promotional work for next to nothing.

Joanna bringing up a lot of question and i think she got all rights to do so like it or not sydenham is not improving enough . people are wondering (again in another thread ) why shops don't stay open , but most shops dont get the support and help that might help them stay open.will a safari art project help sydenham to be more popular? i very much doubt it .
it might be a good time for the Sydenham traders that actually want to make a different to come together and do something independently away from the see3.

[sugahill cafe]

I think a traders association run by actual traders is the way forward but at least 6 businesses hands are already tied and probably would not join thus creating a 'them & us' situation which i think is already happening (has already happened?) in Sydenham. This has to be detrimental to the area on the whole.

[elamundy]

I find the tone of this discussion quite troubling.
But I feel that it is important to shed some light on the fog of suspicion obscuring this forum.

On The Hoof (that is OTH Coffee Stations in Sydenham & Forest Hill) was a beneficiary of the SEE3 support. As soon as SEE3 was set up, we started to receive letters and emails inviting us to different meetings, participating in various initiatives. I remember one of the documents received being a survey requesting local businesses to suggest useful subjects for seminars SEE3 was planning to organize. I further recall being handed the survey on at least 3 occasions. Sometime after, we received invitation to partake in a free seminar. The subject of the seminar clearly reflected our opinion detailed in the aforementioned survey. Despite my personal commitments, raising a young family and fulfilling the demands of four shops, I managed to find time to attend one of the first seminars on the Importance of website presence & social media for business growth. There was only a handful of local businesses attending but we nevertheless found the subject matter very helpful. Sometime after, we received another invitation to participate in a seminar involving visual merchandising, which was one another of the subjects indicated in the previous survey.
I couldn’t personally attend but our member of staff in charge of window display did. He said with regret that there were only around 5 businesses attending (if I recall correctly). He then attended the second leg of the seminar and signed up for one-to-one consultation…
International Visuals then visited 2 of our shops and gave us extensive advice on how to improve our display strategies. And at the end of the session we were offered a £100 grant (sponsored by International Visuals) to purchase merchandising stands for products we display… which came as a surprise to us. There was nothing in this process that indicated that On the Hoof had been singled out for a grant, and we believe it was merely a consequence of attending a seminar designed to bolster burgeoning businesses. The seminar was free and open to all businesses in Sydenham, Kirkdale and Forest Hill.
The assistance and guidance we received from Lynda and Phil was truly valuable; there was no underhanded dealing involved.
I hope that this post serves as a token of good faith in the service of greater transparency for surrounding businesses and curious observers.

[Joanne]

Right from word go (3 yrs ago) I said SEE3 don't have the experience & skills to deliver without outsourcing. Which always turns into an expensive affair. Plus control is lost.

'No' - I was told they DO have the skills.

Fast forward to recently published accounts:

12th Dec I said it feels as if we are paying huge consultancy fees. What else would explain this huge expenditure?

This week for the first time here we are now told that SEE3 did need to outsource and use consultants.

How much was spent here?

Why on earth did they not employ a project management team with the right skills themselves?

[sugahill cafe]

Ela you have said 'there was no under handed dealing involved' but nobody said there was, did they? And the transparency you speak of should have came a lot earlier i don't understand why the information provided in the last 24 hrs was not available before.See3 should have been proud to tell the community that they assisted On the Hoof but instead it was never mentioned. Chris

[Billie]

After reading all this it sounds like people are having a go... And it seems personal. Why are On the hoof feeling the need to defend themselves because they saw the brilliant learning opportunities being offered and attended the free classes? They may be teachers pet but there is no need to insinuate favouritism. Sour grapes sugahill because you've got good competition?!
There seems to be transparency in relation to SEE3... Why are there insinuations that things are shady? It seems odd to me. Chris has set out all the opportunities given for updates. It seems like people didn't bother going!!! Firing off loads of questions and peddling false truths is unfair. Plus, it must take hours for Chris to pick through all the questions and defend the project. And then more people are getting involved in the car crash/pile up that Joanne started (I wish she'd get over her failure to win that bid all those years ago). Eg. Chris clearly stated printing was £2.5k but someone then had a dig and said it was £12k (totally misunderstanding what Chris had said). And so the nonsense continues!!! Joanne's just interested in causing disruption and planting seeds of suspicion. It's very sad.

[Billie]

Also, I've just read Chris Best's post from 12 Dec 'Don't miss Saturday'. Only 440 people read it vs. All the people who have read this thread. The list of things happening that day on the high street are impressive. It Indicates strong relationships/partnerships with highstreet traders to make our highstreet a destination place for shoppers. It's a shame people do not read these posts and see the positive work that Chris and the team are doing. Instead a lot of energy is being put into moaning and attacking - while not bothering to see the broader context.

[Joanne]

Billie,

You sound pretty misinformed to me.

I’ll though focus on one aspect: you mention the lack of people who view Chris Best’s posts. Well that’s the same for Louise Brooks (SEE3) and Sydenham Arts Festival (SAF).

Even if Admin bumps/ pins their posts to the top there is always poor uptake. Nothing inspires from the past so why bother reading it.

So clearly something is going wrong – it is always like that.

One perspective we could take: If I start or add to a thread then it creates lots of views. Therefore if SEE3 are doing something effective then whatever I have to say about it, there has been a heck of a lot more exposure.

At the weekend I watched this. I wrote two words on the thread titled ‘Sydenham Looking Good’ and views shot up in a very short space of time!

No one is out to sabotage Billie nor is there this repeated sour grapes I read about.

The bottom line is this:

The people involved did extremely well to achieve the Portas Pilot funding. They failed in the implementation because they then gave themselves the jobs. Realised that they don’t have the skills and experience to meet the job description so sub contract out to consultants. That will account for a large proportion of the expenditure and SEE3 despite requests have not broken this down for us. That is a requirement because it’s public money.

I don’t think that there has ever been anything underhand which some posters here seem to conclude that I am alluding to. Instead my opinion is that there is a combination of sheer naivety coupled with incompetence.

Accountability and transparency are the points in question. Plus that the same people are bidding for further money to fund pretty weak projects.

Sugarhill have not said this. But for those of you that are unaware, Louise Brooks (SEE3) was contracted to market On the Hoof immediately before SEE3. So of course she will be promoting them, they are her Client.

Sugerhill are not in competition either with On the Hoof. Each have offer a different service.

And

OTH considering all their Master Classes have managed to still overlook the service they provide and quality of food. It’s empty most of the time during prime hours.

They show no indication that they reflect on the recent negative feedback here. And if they don’t read a local, pretty active Forum then Masterclass and Brooks (marketing) has failed them.

[admin]

I’ll though focus on one aspect: you mention the lack of people who view Chris Best’s posts. Well that’s the same for Louise Brooks (SEE3) and Sydenham Arts Festival (SAF).

Even if Admin bumps/ pins their posts to the top there is always poor uptake. Nothing inspires from the past so why bother reading it.

As Admin and a statistician I believe your claim on CB/LB/SAF post views to be unfounded. As someone who partook in many SAF events I found the feedback to be significantly different to what you imply.

You are, of course, entitled to express your opinions and can quite understand that stuff isn't your cup of tea or the way you would have done it. However, you may wish to consider if you are confusing your own opinion, preferences etc as fact. And that to run anything successfully in Sydenham you need to win the hearts and minds of SydFolk.

Clearly SEE3 struggles there. I would have thought SAF less so. Arguably that has more to do with the difficulty of changing generations of shopping and artistic habits of local people than the enthusiasm and creativity of SEE3 and SAF. I don't always agree with their choice of what to do but I consider myself a critical friend. I support what they do and I support others who do what they don't do. And do what I can myself.

I don't see the point in attacking/discrediting them unless there is something positive going to come out of it. I'm struggling to see how your continued public campaign is going to do that. Personally I just find it dispiriting. It is just one heart and mind you have lost. In this you may wish to consider if you are performing more poorly than the CB/LB/JK performance you criticise so much.

Despite that - have a good Christmas. A day without shopping
Admin

[Whiftoff]

Well said admin.

[Columbus]

Hear, hear admin.

[Rachael]

At the weekend I watched this. I wrote two words on the thread titled ‘Sydenham Looking Good’ and views shot up in a very short space of time!

I looked at that thread after you posted because I was hoping against hope that you had added something positive to what was essentially a very positive thread. But you didn't. Your two words were sarcastic and yet ANOTHER dig at SEE3. That's why lots of people looked, but didn't reply to your comment. Because to do so would have taken it (yet again) into negative territory.

I think Admin put his finger on something important - you need to differentiate between what is not to your taste and what can be empirically proven not to work. I absolutely 100% agree with you when you say the operation of SEE3 must be looked at in detail. I am sure things were done wrong. It was a pilot. It was never going to be perfect. Lessons must be learned. As someone with expertise in some of the areas SEE3 operated in, your contribution should be welcomed

But...

When you lump that in with things that you don't personally like (such as, apparently, much of the output of SAF, or street art, or the urban safari) then you are weakening the valid points you make elsewhere. Because other people DO like those things. And your opinion is subjective. And it makes people wonder whether the other points you make are just as subjective, and not based on a fair and professional assessment.

[Chris Best]

The people involved did extremely well to achieve the Portas Pilot funding. They failed in the implementation because they then gave themselves the jobs. Realised that they don’t have the skills and experience to meet the job description so sub contract out to consultants. That will account for a large proportion of the expenditure and SEE3 despite requests have not broken this down for us. That is a requirement because it’s public money.

As I have previously explained the Core Team including the Directors submitted a bid that involved various projects and initiatives. We were always going to recruit people to fill the roles and advertised the posts, shortlisted and interviewed. We have provided summary figures for each of the projects that include the cost of the consultants in the delivery of the projects:

The Shop Revolution Manager was Louise Brooks
Market Makers Coordinator was Deborah Efemini
Community Hubs included Corinne Furness Co-ordinated Jill and Deborah Westrup and Caroline Bourne delivered Jack-in-the-box with our Artists in Residence Michael Burton and Michiko Nitta
Business support projects was led by Tony Buckley in the role of the Town Team Manager

As Chair and a Director I want to make it clear that I have received no remuneration from SEE3 and neither have any of the other Directors. We have put in a significant amount of time overseeing the pilot and put in the bid as people with a keen interest in our local community - as councillors, as chairs of the Forest Hill and Sydenham Societies and as local traders and businesses. We are very happy to be accountable in public meetings and in the recent town team meetings gave an overview of what we have achieved. We have provided regular financial monitoring information to the GLA as part of the pilot project.

[Nigel]

This is getting ridiculous . Other posters may have more generously credited Joanne with making the odd valid point but for me it is now a self indulgent - I won't say rant because the posts are too dull- drone, against people and organisations who are trying to improve Sydenham .
Surely whatever Joanne is trying to say must be said by now ?
A very good evening
Nigel

[Joanne]

I’ve just got home so until now was unaware of all of this upset.

The reason I posted (again) was to defend myself. Billie wrote: ‘’….. the car crash/pile up that Joanne started (I wish she'd get over her failure to win that bid all those years ago).

Then I found myself going over old ground yet again. Just seen Nigel's post that was why.

Now we have admin explaining that he is a statistician. Sorry if I’ve got this wrong- my comment on number of views posts achieve was based on pure observation.

It’s extremely noticeable in areas where uptake is poor. And I’m interested in that- it’s important. Because it might be a reflection on what is happening elsewhere.

The part which I think Admin is very right about are that my views are subjective. ‘’ …you may wish to consider if you are confusing your own opinion, preferences etc as fact.’’

I of course understand that well but this hasn’t been expressed well either, or at all when I post sometimes.

However perhaps I do have some useful insight:

The nature of my business does actually require me to adapt and change to a new location extremely quickly. We run Pop Up Galleries and what might suit one place will not say 2 miles away. Therefore it means that I have to quickly assess the area, the patterns and think of ways to promote us in a short space of time to meet local needs. After all our Pop Ups last 2-3 months.

And seriously we literally do make things happen. We achieve a high and often new footfall and translates into a good turnover. All aspects I do by myself- trust it’s very cost effective. So I do understand costs very well, enough to comment.

I am always interested when Rachael posts because I feel what she says take a balanced approach. Sometimes it has made me think again and at points, that’s if Admin hasn’t closed a thread, I have tried to show this.

I though find myself going over old ground again simply because in my mind we have not been given full answers. Then I get on everyone’s nerves. Then I get nasty comments which has never been my tone. Speaking in a straightforward way, or appearing abrupt is different to sheer and intended rudeness.

Chris Best is now saying: ‘’ We have provided summary figures for each of the projects that include the cost of the consultants in the delivery of the projects’’.

I think it is very reasonable for me to ask why have they needed to use consultants. They had employed people to fit the job descriptions outlined to us – these were salaried roles.

Where were we told that on top of this that they would require consultants too? Why needed if those employed fitted their JD well?There was a whole paid team plus volunteers.

So I think that it is important for Chris Best to breakdown the costs further so that we know what the outsourced expenditure is.

These overviews provided are simply not sufficient.

This needs to be unpacked further.

I don’t understand the obstacle there.

[Joanne]

Chris Best had not told us that expenditures included consultants until I mentioned that it looked like that had happened. Why the major costs otherwise?