Co-operative fears take-over

Press, 18 May 1984, Page 5

Co-operative fears take-over

The Co-operative Development Forum is anxious to safeguard its political independence. The forum, made up of work trusts, co-operatives and other groups, set up and administers the Resource Centre in Cambridge Terrace. A grant of $20,000 was given to the forum, specifically for the resource centre, when it was established in 1983 by the Canterbury United Council.

Although the centre is run by the forum through its resource centre committee, the United Council handles the financial administration of the centre. Staff at the centre are employed under Labour Department schemes. The centre’s aim is to help unemployed people create jobs for themselves.

Representatives from

trusts and co-operatives at the annual meeting of the forum last night spoke of the necessity of safeguarding the forum's political independence. The forum convener, Ray Kamo, warned of the need for a tighter membership to avoid any “take-over bids” by outside persons. Under the present loose membership arrangement anyone could come to a forum meeting, say he or she represented a trust and be entitled to vote, he said.

There was nothing to stop those people taking control of the forum and thus control of the resource centre.

After discussion on the ability of groups to pay a set subscription to become members of the forum, the meeting decided on a sub-

scription by donation for individuals and groups. Rates of $5 and $lO respectively were suggested. The approval of members of the forum was left to the forum’s executive. A donation would not guarantee membership, and business organisations making donations would not become members.

Administrative independence from the United Council was also suggested by one forum member. There were advantages and disadvantages to administrative independence from the council, said the Resource Centre co-ordinator, Terry Hill.

The advantage was the backing of the council in the eyes of the public and the credibility added to the centre. The disadvantage was the delay in financial

paperwork because the council’s accounting system was directed at a local body set-up rather than that of the centre. Mr Hill said after the meeting that the centre ran independently, politically, of the United Council.

That independence had to be safeguarded, he said. Forum members also questioned the continuation of the Labour Departmentsponsored workers at the centre. Funding for the six full-time workers would run out during the next few months, said Mr Hill. Some of the positions were renewable.

The continued existence of the centre was in no doubt, but the centre might not be able to do all it wanted to in helping the unemployed, he said.