We are firmly convinced that the timescale for this development is dependent on the support, funding and cooperation of the executives of the London Borough of Lambeth. 
Our ability to attract important necessary funding to ensure the sustainability and maintenance of the Old Library depends on Lambeth’s willingness and commitment to the principle of partnership and community empowerment.  Our ambition is to provide the necessary funds to fill identified gaps in service and delivery and to support, facilitate, accommodate and encourage the specific groups that this report identifies.  We intend to develop and build a successful community enterprise that will eventually generate millions of pounds of unrestricted funds that WNCD, the friends of and the wider community can then determine how it is used or distributed. 

We have explained our view of community involvement and empowerment.  The emphasis upon which is to give local people an opportunity to achieve their aspirations and to realise their full potential by having opportunities that include education and training.

 The Interim Management Group (`IMG’)

IMG has been established by Lambeth (Phyllis Dunipace).  Our views on this group and its formation were made clear earlier in this report. But, let us take a look at its formation, the motivation behind its establishment and some of the events that have taken place within this group.

We firmly believe that Lambeth (Phyllis Dunipace) used this group to mount a campaign to undermine WNCD in that it invited other groups and service providers, many of
them from outside our local community, to submit expressions of interest within the Old Library building that duplicated or mirrored the projects which they knew we had already put forward to them.

We were informed by Lambeth’s IMG that we would be expected to submit expressions of interest for their appraisal and approval for the services we intended to deliver and the space we would occupy within the building.  This was a project which was inspired and motivated by WNCD.  We felt totally insulted at the suggestion that we should be  made or forced to submit an expression of interest to a group that had no authority other than the one forced upon us by Lambeth.  After careful consideration, we concluded that Lambeth(Phyllis Dunipace)  thought that because they have the power they can infringe your intellectual copyright and they can disenfranchise us  and steal our project. They do not have to respect the principle of partnership.

In spite of this we remained in the IMG.  There were groups around the table that we had concerns about.  Two of those were Little Stars and Woodcraft Project.  Little Stars expressed an interest in operating and managing the crèche facilities.  Woodcraft Project expressed an interest in Youth Club provisions. Our concerns were, firstly, they were invited to the table by Lambeth(Phyllis Dunipace)  Secondly, the projects they brought to the table were exact mirrors/duplicates of our own projects.  Thirdly, we have always maintained and emphasised the importance of partnership. At no time whatsoever did Little Stars‘ or Woodcraft’s representatives express any interest in working in partnership with WNCD to provide education and training. 
 

Furthermore, they did not express any interest in providing training for people within the local community. When we examine the real plan that Little Stars produced then we start to understand why they were not keen to work in partnership with WNCD.  It is because their plan was about taking control of the entire building.   We were therefore viewed by them as an obstacle in achieving their real objectives. 

There were times at these IMG meetings when we felt surrounded by a bunch of vultures preparing to devour us and we told them that the minutes of the meeting might not reflect that.  But then, the minutes were another area of contention between us and Lambeth’s IMG.  We felt that the minutes did not accurately reflect our views and accordingly we made a request for a minute taker to be made available at future meetings.  This request was abruptly refused by Lambeth(Phyllis Dunipace)  on the grounds that there were no funds available for this. We do not think we have to tell anyone how important it is to have an accurate record of what takes place at such meetings. This caused us to reflect on the amount of money that was made available to carry out the numerous consultations that Lambeth commissioned.  They cost thousands of pounds but they came back with the same answers that WNCD had previously provided them with.  We are firmly convinced that if there was willingness on their part, the few pounds that it would cost to facilitate a minutes taker would have been provided.  But we can understand their reasons for not wanting to provide this facility.

It has become obvious to us what the intention is.  It is to manoeuvre WNCD out of our rightful position in the building and the overall project. 

Mrs Clover Williams, member of WNCD, was eventually appointed to run and manage the catering facilities within the centre.  This was achieved after we were able to quash questions of her ability to run and manage this small facility.  We pointed out that, prior to its closure, Mrs Williams was responsible for managing and operating the catering facilities situated within Norwood College.  Once again, we felt insulted that the capacity of such a highly respected member of WNCD, the community and her profession was being questioned by Lambeth.  Through Lambeth’s (Phyllis Dunipace) IMG were determined that Lambeth would take control of all the facilities within the building which included the catering; the IT suite; offices; internet café; hall bookings and general management of the building.  They were determined that they would leave WNCD with one office, two computers and, as we understood it at the time, the audio-visual production facilities. 

As these meetings progressed, the numbers were diminishing.  Woodcraft had already achieved their objectives and was no longer in attendance.  There were others that realised we would be an obstacle to them in achieving their hidden agenda and so they also decided to withdraw. 

The Creche

A decision had to be made about the crèche.  There were two expressions of interest for this facility.  We voiced our concern about the selection process.  We thought that the way in which Lambeth presented the two expressions clearly demonstrated a bias towards Little Stars. We made that point known at the time. We were not involved in the process as we should have been and key elements that we considered were important were not considered, i.e. partnership, training and personal development. 

The other candidate that had expressed an interest (we choose not to name them) offered an opportunity for training and personal development and, most importantly, to deliver this in partnership with WNCD.  We considered this to be fundamental to their expression of interest. 

This situation, we found, could not be amicably resolved.  WNCD were therefore forced to abstain from the voting after we had made our objections known to Lambeth’s IMG.

Part of the IMG’s remit was to oversee the refurbishment of the Old Library building and to plan the Open Day event.  During one of the meetings a view was expressed by Lambeth (Phyllis Dunipace)  that all speeches should be vetted by their IMG.   We knew why and did not concede to that request.  They were afraid that WNCD would use the opportunity to say some of the things we are now saying in this Report.  What they could not understand was how important this day was for WNCD, friends of, and the West Norwood community.  Here, at last, would be tangible evidence of  the hard work and collective effort of WNCD and all those who had supported us over the years. 

At last, the opening came.  We looked around the room and saw many top level Lambeth officials.   They seemed to be giving themselves a quiet pat on the back as if they had made a positive contribution to the project.  How ironic!  We knew there were some among them that did not want WNCD to succeed but this was a day of celebration.  We were determined that we would co-exist with these hypocrites.  The day proved to be a very successful and memorable one.  WNCD were afforded the closing speech. As our spokesperson took the microphone, there were many faces that instantly turned red… the tension could be seen in their faces.  It was obvious to us that they were afraid that we were about to say in public what we are now saying in this report.  But, as we have already stated, this was a day of celebration.

Our speech was powerful and conciliatory. Delivered not from prepared notes but from the heart of WNCD. We opened our hearts to our community.  Thanked them for their support over the years and hoped that we would continue to earn and maintain their support in the future.  We made clear our long term commitment to the sustainability of the building.  We also reminded them that it was their building and invited and encouraged them to take ownership of it.  The response was overwhelming.

What we were not prepared to divulge, because of our concern that it would mar the day, was that WNCD would not actually be in the building. 

We were only offered a licence that would afford us accommodation of one room in the building, being `our office’ and with only thirty days security of tenure which effectively meant that upon delivery of a notice to quit, WNCD would be required to leave the premises within 30 days.  We found this totally unacceptable.  We determined that we would not move into the building under those circumstances and we were prepared to launch another campaign to establish and secure what we believed was our rightful tenure in the building.

In spite of all this, we still continued to play our part and attend Lambeth’s IMG meetings although the numbers were still diminishing.    At one of these meetings WNCD raised the question of racial discrimination.  What were the IMG’s views?  There was a suggestion by one of those present, representing a local group, that there may be a level
of tolerance.  We were astonished at this and extremely concerned. Firstly, because racial discrimination is illegal and secondly because within WNCD we operate  zero tolerance of any form of discrimination on the grounds of culture, religion, politics, sexual orientation or gender.   

We raised this question because of an incident that was reported to our management by a project worker responsible for coordinating our Summer Project.   There was a dispute between a female member of Woodcraft and our project coordinator, Claudette Campbell.  Another black female member of Lambeth’s staff was also present.  Both were told by this individual,

 `I am white and have power’.

It is important that this statement is acknowledged and questions asked.  Why did this person make this statement in the first place?  Who had she been communicating with within Lambeth and what made her feel empowered to make such a disgraceful racist statement?

We had intended to bring this to the attention of Lambeth and its IMG.  But we realised that this IMG was really a remodelled version of the Norwood Action Group (`NAG’).  The main difference being that Lambeth (Phyllis Dunipace) had control of this IMG and, as we have already mentioned, NAG evolved to be independently minded and supportive of our cause.  We decided against bringing this to the attention of Lambeth and its IMG as we concluded it would be a waste of time. 

Little Stars were represented at the table by white people as was Woodcraft.  When the building was opened it was Woodcraft’s project that was first up and running, likewise
Little Stars and the crèche facilities. That gave us some indication as to why this individual from Woodcraft felt she was empowered to make the statement,

`I am white and have power.’

 WNCD made it clear to Lambeth that we were not prepared to accept a tenancy in the building that only secured us thirty days’ tenure.  What we were in fact being offered is a licence and not a lease.  We had earlier made it clear to Lambeth that there were two very important criteria that had to be met before we would occupy our office.  The first being that Lambeth should agree to the transfer of the building to a charitable trust and the second being that we should be extended a minimum seven year lease.

Some months later at another Lambeth’s IMG meeting, which took place at The Old Library building, John Hogarth, Head of Education & Business Partnership, London Borough of Lambeth, made a statement that he was asked to repeat several times by Councillor Robert McConnell.  Councillor  McConnell  instructed that this be included in the Minutes.  The statement said that Lambeth had conceded to WNCD’s request for the Old Library building to be transferred as an asset to a community trust and that WNCD would be granted a seven year lease.  We had suggested initially that the asset transfer should take place within a seven year period.  However, we were pleasantly surprised when John Hogarth suggested that this should be done more expeditiously and that the process should not take longer than two years.

We were now prepared to accept the office accommodation and a temporary licence pending the production of this seven year lease.  Funds have been identified to pay the legal costs but to date we are still awaiting the presentation of the first draft for our consideration. We intend to hold Lambeth (Phyllis Dunipace) to this commitment.  It is our intention to enter into negotiations with the newly formed charitable trust to secure the long term tenure of WNCD within the building in the form of a 99 year lease. 

At this point we would like to remind you that during the initial stages of our campaign we consulted with our local community and invited them to give us their views as to what they thought would be the best use for the building.  There were many hundreds suggestions.  Many of them said the same things.  But not one of them said that the building should be returned to being yet another local government office, which is what it is at the moment. This is yet another example of the dictatorial attitude taken by Lambeth (Phyllis Dunipace) when dealing with WNCD and our local community.  So, can they then wonder why there is no trust? 

Let us imagine what this Borough could be like if Lambeth had performed to the same level and demonstrated the same yield on investment as WNCD.  Bearing in mind the
billions of pounds of investment, the returns from this could transform Lambeth from the mess we are in today to being the flagship Borough of the country.  We could afford to build and equip our schools and hospitals, there would be affordable homes for everyone, there would be wonderful social and recreational facilities.  Our roads would be  clean.  We may even have to think of introducing some kind of border control to prevent the nationwide clamour of people trying to live in Lambeth. It is ironic then
that a failed entity like Lambeth should question the merits of what has proved to be a successful community group.  We will not be disenfranchised by Lambeth (Phyllis Dunipace)  in taking up our rightful place within the Old Library building. It became obvious to us some years ago that Lambeth needed to build its capacity to interact, understand and support local community groups,  particularly those of black and ethnic minority origin and most specifically these groups in their infancy stage of development.  

We have inthe past offered to facilitate such developmental training but to date that offer has not been accepted.  We would recommend that the Executive lead by example, respond positively to our offer and accept the development training they desperately need.  We are proposing that this should take place in the form of a one-day seminar with discussions and workshops which we are prepared to facilitate and would expect Lambeth to fund. 

This would give the Executive an opportunity to interact through discussion to gain a better understanding of the fears and aspirations of these groups.  But most importantly, it gives the Executive the opportunity to see  how they are perceived by these groups they purport to represent and the impact they have as key decision-makers on the
lives of those in their local community.   This offer is not made out of arrogance but out of our genuine concern for the way in which these groups are sometimes misunderstood.  Our experience has taught us that they can make a difference.  We have been there so therefore we know what it is like and can identify and understand their fears and their aspirations.  It is important therefore that this Executive share this experience and knowledge as a way of enhancing their capacity to better understand the situation so that they are more able to respond appropriately. 

Findings and Recommendations

We live in a multi-racial multi-cultural society but when we look at the makeup of the Executive Board of the London Borough of Lambeth this in no way reflects that.  This situation raises serious concerns.  How are these executives appointed?  Just how transparent is the process?  How people from other are races and cultures encouraged and informed about these positions?   Is it Lambeth’s policy that these people are only capable of being receptionists, security guards or cleaners?

Lambeth need to take a hard and honest look at itself.   It has to understand and accept its failures before it can improve or go forward.  There can be no excuse, reason or justification for the way in which the people and the community of West Norwood have been failed.   

Lambeth need to ensure that systems and mechanisms are put in place to monitor resource distribution throughout the Borough and to identify under-resourced areas.  They need to realise the difference they can make and the value that groups like WNCD bring to their local community.  We believe that Lambeth should adopt what we call a cradle approach: support and understand.  We are in no way political but we do support the government’s view on community and community empowerment.  We share the view that these initiatives should be grass roots led.  Lambeth (Phyllis Dunipace) however are not prepared to buy into this thinking.  Perhaps this is because it would contradict their dictatorial attitude.  WNCD believe that there are serious questions to be asked and we expect answers to be given about the level of funding, resource and support that is offered to and received by black and ethnic minority groups in comparison to their white counterparts.  We recommend that Lambeth invite the Commission for Racial Equality to carry out a study and an audit to answer these questions.  However, if this recommendation is not acted upon it is our intention to furnish the Commission with a copy of this Report and invite them to initiate their own Report and Audit. 

As mentioned earlier, discrimination on the grounds of colour, culture, religion, or gender is illegal.  We remain convinced that the study and audit when carried out by the Commission for Racial Equality will support our view.  We intend that our Report coupled with the Commission’s findings be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.  We intend that those individuals found to be responsible for this kind of behaviour be made to account for their actions through the legal process.  

What readers of this Report should understand is that none of the individuals that make up the Executive Board of the London Borough of Lambeth are elected – they are all appointed.  How dare they argue with the will of the community and WNCD when their salaries are paid by us?  It is our view they are there to serve the community rather than dictate.

The failure of the elected Councillors to condemn this type of behaviour and to act in a decisive way to eradicate this bigotry will send a negative message to our community which will be remembered when you come knocking on our doors come election time.  If you are not prepared to publicly condemn this bigotry then we will assume that you support it.  

We are convinced that the Executive Board of the London Borough of Lambeth is in breach of our human rights fundamental to the multi-cultural society in which we live in.