This year the Annual Meeting and Annual Meeting of Parishioners will be underpinned by worship at 10:30 am on Sunday 29 May. 

The revised Electoral Roll for 2022/2023 can be found here. 

The 2021 Trustees Report (with corrections) can be found here 

The 2021 Accounts can be found here 

The booklet with the previous minutes of the Annual Meeting in May 2021 and key reports can be found here

Proposed amendments to the Church Representation Rules can be found here and a briefing document from the PCC secretary can be found here 

Please contact the Vicar or the Churchwardens if you would like to stand for PCC or Churchwarden. 

*You are eligible to stand for election to the PCC if:

• Your name is on the Electoral Roll, and unless you are under 18 years of age at the time of the Meeting, you have been on the Electoral Roll for at least the preceding 6 months
• You are an actual communicant (i.e. have received communion at least 3 times in the last 12 months)
• You are over 16 years of age (Churchwardens must be over 21 years of age)

Questions from John Hudson

PLEASE NOTE that almost all of these questions relate to errors in the draft Accounts and draft Annual Report which were subsequently corrected before the Annual Meeting. These corrections are effectively the answers to those questions which do not have a written response to them below. 

JH = Jonathan Hawkes  

JNorm = Julian Norman 

NB = Naomi Breen 

JD = Justin Dodd

Discrepancies/errors in accounts.

Page 1. Voluntary income unrestricted 98,754. But Note 3 has 97,353. Which is correct?

Page 1. Voluntary income restricted 9,533. But Note 3 has 11,185. Which is correct?

Page 1. Activities for generating funds 2021 total 2,826.  Clearly wrong. Should be 3,626 as per note

Page 1. Employment costs for 2021 is shown as “0”. Clearly incorrect assuming note 10 is correct.

Page 2. Balance Sheet. Debtors and prepayments should read Note 13, and not Note 12.

Page 4. Note 9 General activities. There are no entries and no total in the Restricted Funds column.  This cannot be correct if the restricted funds entry on page 1 of 9,741 is correct. Point 6. Statement of Financial Activities. Restricted Funds. Church Activities £9,741. But Note 10 still shows only £1,420. A discrepancy. 

The difference is the AV Equipment for which funds were raised by the Psalmathon. The receipt from the fund raising has, I think correctly, been reflected as an element of Voluntary Income (Restricted). But unlike other sums raised it has been used to acquire the AV Equipment and as such the sums so raised are reflected as an addition to Fixed Assets in the Balance Sheet. - JH

Page 4. Note 9 General activities. The 2020 total of 155,049 is clearly incorrect.

Page 5. Note 12. Net Book Value 2019 should read 2020.

Queries on accounts.

Page 3. Note 3. I don’t understand the descriptors for several of the income items. Is ‘Giving ex HSBC’ Planned Giving Scheme income into the HSBC account? Is ‘Giving ex NWB a/c’ Planned Giving Scheme income into the NatWest account? I assume ‘Giving ex PGS’  represents standing orders paid  into a church bank a/c from donors not within the Planned Giving Scheme. Is that correct? Suggestion going forward. The current descriptors should be made clearer. The PCC may know what they mean. I doubt if anyone else will. 

There are three donation streams. Direct Donations into the HSBC Account, some modest "legacy" Direct Donations into the NWB Account and finally Parish Giving Scheme Donations (PGS) where the PGS makes two monthly payments to the HSBC Account, one of donations and the other of the associated Gift Aid. For the aforementioned Direct Donations the PCC itself makes the Gift Aid claims. I take your point with regards to the descriptions - these are used to make sure the donations are captured for the accounts but as you suggest they may not be clear to the wider parish community. - JH

Page 3. Note 7. What exactly is the £200 Donations cost for please? 

This is a fee charged and a legacy figure from earlier years accounts.

Page 4. Note 9. Equipment testing 2,400 up from 298. What was tested to explain the massive cost increase? 

The prime records are currently with the Examiner but the difference would appear to be how an expense has been categorised and allocated rather than an increase. Here there had to be a full Electrical Report which cost £2,112.00 and was paid for on 24 September 2021. In the 2020 year the expense related just to safety testing of kettles and other small electrical appliances, testing of which also took place in 2021. Again this issue of consistent allocation to expense category year on year is something we are aware of and it is hoped to remedy if the accounting software can be utilised going forwards. That said here I think in this instance the allocation was correct and as a general comment, we are trying to move away from every single expense item being separately detailed in the accounts. - JH

Page 4. Note 9. What exactly does “Virtual Ministry Assistant” represent and why has the expenditure increased for 2,824 to 11,960? 

Virtual Ministry Assistant is a service that provides ministry administration, design, editing and other social media services on a needs-basis. This includes preparing the weekly booklet and bulletin, the weekly enews emails, promotional materials for fundraisers, managing materials on various online platforms and helping to coordinate requirements for when we were in COVID restrictions such as online booking. Demand on these services increased in 2021 especially as we came in and out of lockdowns and given our staffing situation. - JD

Page 4. Note 9. Office Churchdesk  1,548. Why this amount when 2020 was apparently 0?

This will be an Expense Allocation issue. Churchdesk was used in 2020. See https://www.churchdesk.com/en/... for details as to what this expense relates to. - JH

Page 4. Note 9. PCC Support 900. What is this for please when 2020 was 0?

Again this will be an allocation/description issue - this is the payment to Willesden the PCC makes and it would also have been paid in 2020 - JH

Page 4. Note 10. I would like a breakdown of the Music Staff Employment costs of 13,430. I am specifically requesting this as the accounts for 2020 erroneously showed 5,646 being paid as Organist Salary, when I know that Hugh is unpaid.

The 2020 Organist description was an error and the amount paid related to a member of employed staff. Hence the use of "Music Staff" in 2021 for the two employees engaged in relation to musical activity. - JH

Page 5. Note 11. Full time equivalents are shown as 2. Clearly Nick is full time.  But Kavi’s and Henry’s duties together cannot possibly be equivalent to 1 full time person. Am I missing another employee? And what is the exact calculation please?

You cannot have a fraction of a person so the full-time equivalent is rounded up to two. As you rightly say there is one full time plus two not full time; which for reporting purposes = FTE of two. These are the only three Employees of the PCC. - JH

Comment Note 9. The change of accountants has saved 1,070 compared to 2020. Good. But only good if the accounts are actually correct!

See earlier comments. - JH

Page 4. Note 9. Grounds Maintenance reduced from 10,756 to 150. Excellent. How was this massive reduction achieved? 

In 2020 there was a payment made to Kiwi Landscaping of £10,586 for historical landscaping works/creation of a surfaced children's play area that were apparently undertaken in a year prior to 2020. - JH

Discrepancies/errors in Annual Report.

Page 5. 2021 Surplus shown as £10,185. Accounts show £28,431.

Page 5. Increase in Unrestricted Funds shown as £8,741. Accounts show £26,987.

Page 5. Increase in Restricted Funds shown as £10,185. Accounts show £28,461.

Page 5. If the answer to points 19 & 20 above is somehow to do with accruals, then surely (as I assume the accounts are on an accruals basis and not a cash basis) the accruals should be taken into account when compiling the figures in Note 9?  And in any event £28,431 less creditors/accruals £19,412 = £9,019, not £10,185. Likewise £26,987 less creditors/accruals £19,412 = £7,575 not £8,741. Point 22. Accruals.  The Annual Report states that ”there are accrued expenses relating to 2021 of £19,412 that have been paid out in 2022.” As the Accounts are on an Accruals basis, why is this £19,412 not included as expenditure in 2021 as an actual deduction ? What are these expenses actually for? (If late expenses claims from church members – unlikely given the amount – I recall that several years ago John Newbegin rightly insisted that expenses claims must be submitted timeously or they would not be paid.) 

The sum accrued is included in the Accounts as an element of the appropriate general activity at Note 9. to the Accounts. So Debit GA nominal and Credit BS Accrual is the double entry.

The point of the Note is to clarify that the actual payment and the settlement of these accrued expenses takes place in 2021; and so the Bank Balance is not as rosy as might otherwise appear. If the wording "paid out" has caused confusion and instead "paid out of the HSBC bank account in 2022."

I cannot comment on your accruals point any further other than to say that now the point has become known to us both Naomi and I have asked to be made aware of all sums expended as they are incurred. 

In addition sums owed to Energy Providers for some of calendar 2021 were not known until much later due to the collapse of suppliers and the enforced transfer to another supplier. But clearly the Church and Hall were still using energy throughout all of 2021 and so those energy charges were accrued for.

It is also literally only this week that final electricity charges, some of which going back to 2020, have been finalised due to Smart Meter problems. These being bought to the supplier's attention last year when the fault became apparent with the Smart Meters. 

Therefore I would not anticipate the same levels of accrued expenses and costs for 2022 as there were for 2021. - JH

Page 6. Total receipts on unrestricted funds shown as £184,950. Accounts show £184,150.

Page 6. Fifth paragraph. Excess of receipts over payments shown as £10,185. Accounts show £28,431. (This is in effect the same query as in point 19 above.) 

Queries on Annual Report.

Page 1. If Jonathan was elected from APCM 2019 to APCM 2023, he surely should not also be shown as co-opted? 

Jonathan was co-opted not elected. That is my mistake I'm afraid in sending over the list of current PCC members; my apologies. - JNorm.

Page 3. Deanery Synod Report appears still awaited.

Page 3. Is “English Language Classes in Southall” the classes run by St John’s Church, Southall? 

English Language Classes - Southall: in order to provide the necessary assurance, I would need to track back the transactions but, subject to confirmation, this paragraph could more accurately identify the charity in question as 'The Parochial Church Council of the Ecclesiastical Parish of St Johns, Southall Green' with the additional point that the donation is restricted to their Women's English Language classes (referencing the current website description - the programme may have been categorised differently of course during the course of 2021). - NB

Page 5. Do we actually have the Independent Examiner’s Report?

The PCC Report layout  is somewhat misleading in that it implies the immediately following paragraph sub-headed “A Strategic Overview” is the Independent Examiner’s Report. 

See above comments. I agree your point and raised it myself, as did the IE when they were copied with a draft of the TR. So it would appear that the heading "Independent Examiners Report" has been included erroneously. - JH   

Page 6. Fifth paragraph. I don’t understand some of the comments and figures. —Why should cash in the safe be excluded when the balance sheet refers to “Cash at Bank and In Hand”? —Balance sheet shows Cash at Bank and In Hand 104,424. Subtract Restricted funds per accounts Note 16 23,340 = 81,084. The Report states “the sum of unrestricted bank and deposit balance was £81,084 excluding any monies that were in the safe.”   So either the accounts have also excluded cash in the safe – if so, why? — or the statement in the report is incorrect. Is the £25,000 figure correct?  Taking the above £81,084 and subtracting accrued expenses £19,412 and three months of unrestricted expenditure £39,291 (per accounts 157,163 x 3/12 = 39,291) gives £22,381. If the £25,000 was meant to be an approximate figure, then it should say so. –Why does the report state that cash in the safe has been excluded? This does not agree the definition in the accounts. And cash in the safe should NOT have been excluded anyway. –  The £25,000 figure quoted (like others) is not correct.  

In terms of clarifying the cash in hand and potential monies in the safe at 31 Dec 21: it was confirmed that a large cash "deposit of £3,070 - the funds in the safe - was made 30th Dec 21 in order to clear into the bank account for the year-end. This was the second cash deposit that last week of Dec21, there having been a cash desposit of £280 29/12/21. 'Cash at Bank and in Hand' in the bal/sheet summary would be recognisable as the customary title and would need to remain as also refers to any prior year figures. I'm happy to source the 30/12 deposit docket (but this will not be by Sunday 29th May) to confirm but for now can opine that there would be a reasonable confidence level that if any funds were left in the safe 31 Dec 21, they would be low materiality coinage. - NB

Page 6. Sixth paragraph. The 2020 Employment costs were £50,833 (per accounts) and not £35,011 per Report. How is the £35,011 arrived at? 

On the Salaries point 2020 would have included an exceptional payment of £14,514 in relation to the historical redundancy of a member of staff. So to include that one off and exceptional payment as an element of "in year" staff costs for 2020 when comparing them with 2021 staff costs would not have provided a true comparison. - JH

Questions from Ian Hamerton

Justin Dodd

PLEASE NOTE response of the treasurers and vicar regarding all highlighted questions:

These questions are the result of hard copies of an incorrect set of accounts being left at St Barnabas and Ian’s questions are based on those erroneous figures. That arose due to my error and in large part the Accounts being prepared on Excel and not Accounts software. Corrected accounts were made available online and then in hard copy before the meeting. The finance committee will be meeting very shortly to discuss how this can be avoided in the future. 

Financial Issues: 

1) “Employment Costs” in “resources expended” (note 10) are shown as £0. However, in the note “Maintenance and Music” are shown as having a cost, (Note 11). This is unclear when viewing the first page of the report. 

2) I understood the “Livestreaming Equipment” costs were to be around £6,000 but it seems this was doubled (almost). Prior to approval by the PCC, what was the anticipated cost, and if not close to the higher figure why not? 

I cannot comment on where you obtained the figure of £6000. The cost estimate presented to PCC on 6 May 2021 was £11114.92.

3) It seems the “3 months cash at bank” is a little high at present, or are the running costs per month really in excess of £35,000? 

4) For “activities generating funds” the ‘Other Events’ category seems to be the opposite of generating with income of £446 and expensed at £1,040. What were these events? Do you know why these have lost money? 

5) Can you please provide clarity of the role of the “Virtual Ministry Assistance” and why it is needed? 

Virtual Ministry Assistant is a service that provides ministry administration, design, editing and other social media services on a needs-basis. This includes preparing the weekly booklet and bulletin, the weekly enews emails, promotional materials for fundraisers, managing materials on various online platforms and helping to coordinate requirements for when we were in COVID restrictions such as online booking. Demand on these services increased in 2021 especially as we came in and out of lockdowns and given our staffing situation.

6) There used to be the establishment each year of a sinking fund for buildings maintenance of £5,000 for the church and £5,000 for the Halls. Had such a facility been maintained then the heating problem could have been easily resolved rather than now having to seek grants. Has this practice now been abandoned and if so, how is it proposed to maintain the buildings in good repair for the future? Too many churches relegate this issue to the bottom of the pile resulting in major building issues that decimate congregational goodwill. 

Given the significant financial disruption created by COVID-19 there is not at present any policy reserving maintenance funds for the hall or church.  However, the maintenance of the buildings is a core priority of the PCC. During 2021 the PCC appointed a new architect with the intention of creating a strategy for the renewal and maintenance of the buildings into the next generation.

Other issues: 

7) Are there any plans to return to a calendar of events, as promised in previous APCMs? Would this then be maintained and available sufficiently far in advance so that events are not given such short timescales to both organise and be publicised? 

Not at present. The PCC and Ministry Team may consider this in the future.

8) Currently the ‘volunteers’ for church activities seems to be a very small number of people. E.g. the simplest and easiest form of volunteering and the one that is associated with one of the most significant fund raising aspects of the church life (£78,302) is opening and closing the Halls/Church for various events. The current list of people volunteering to do this totals six! I am not aware of the efforts made to decrease this burden (as it can be described with so few people). Can you explain what is being done to share this with a wider group? I was also under the impression that the vicar would be happy to participate in this, living as close as he does. It is, after all, a wonderful opportunity to spread the word to people who may not otherwise enter the buildings. 

Susan Proud is currently taking steps to increase this list of volunteers. 

9) Can it be shown to what extent the PCC members are involved in church activities? I do not see many of them at Pitshanger Pictures events and if this is the extent of involvement in other events then how can they make decisions on our behalf. I realise that, unlike Members of Parliament, they only represent themselves at PCC meetings, but it is unclear how the whole congregation is represented if they, individually, are not fully involved in all church activities. 

All members of the PCC are hardworking and dedicated members of the church. They’re primary responsibility is “cooperating with the incumbent in promoting in the ecclesiastical parish, the whole mission of the Church, pastoral, evangelistic, social and ecumenical,” as outlined in the PCC Powers Measure 1956. As indicated in earlier conversations with yourself, Mthr. Fiona and I are more than willing to support rethinking the current model employed by Pitshanger Pictures with a view to generating bigger audiences. 

10) Why is the Vicar’s Report not available alongside these others?

The Vicar’s report was published as a formal letter sent by email on 28 May which gave details about the Ministry Team and Churchwarden’s Team. Additional time was needed to finalise the churchwardens team. 

From Charles White

Can the Chair direct the PCC (or named individuals) to commission a survey on the impact of heat/lack thereof on the organ?

Can the Chair direct the PCC (or named individuals) to commission a survey on the benefits and challenges of achieving net zero carbon by 2030, in line with the prophetic call of General Synod in 2020?

The Chair agreed to both these proposals.