The below minutes were taken live during the Autumn Members’ Meeting.

07/10/2025

Kanaris lecture theatre Manchester Museum

In attendance:

• In person: Northern lily (Victoria), Mama Health (Eunice), Ziwo (Tendayi), DIPACT (Mahboobeh, Caroline), Our Agency (John, Matt), RAPAR (Rhetta,  Alimamy), Sawn (Rose), Northern Heart and Soul (Angela), Elevate Young Minds (Edenamiuki), De Butterflies (Folashade), Social Change Nest (Catherine, Ynaitta), Indiv (afshan, Shamshad, Viv, Vi), Global Arts (Angela)

 

• On zoom: Caring and Sharing (Nicky), Northern Heart Soul (Gill), CeeBee Gold (Bola Olayemi,) Prosper Life Initiative (Barbara), Individual (Carrina), Afrocats (Bara’ah), Idaraya Life CIC Wigan (Ayisatu), Jengba (Marie), Ehinor (Wonderfully Made Women) 

 

Around the room: shamshad had bought a coconut – perhaps something we can collectively do something with – i.e. cracking it, and some things for us to be tactile with around the room. 

 

Today we will be looking at two main things:

• How we make decisions (next steps and resources) – we will be following up on decisions that didn’t get a unanimous yes. A couple of things we missed last time. 
• Circles and proposals that have come in – and having a chance to discuss these. 

Reminder that the process we agreed on: the in person meetings are for us to discuss things but not make decisions in the meeting itself as not everyone can make it. 

 

4-5 people only here for the morning. We will take a vote on what we do first in the day. Logic wise, we thought we should do process stuff first and then do proposals. We voted. 

1. a) we start with process stuff. 9 
2. b) circles and proposals. 3 

 

Process – we are looking for recommendations on what needs to change 

A9 – do we want to have a minimum number of people voting. 

Out of 44 members:

– 24 members attended the Summer meeting

– 32 members voted – not everyone voted on everything. 

– 20 members both attended the summer meeting AND voted.

– 12 members voted but did not attend the summer meeting, I didn’t keep track of who sent apologies or not.

– 4 members attended the summer meeting but didn’t vote (2 of those reported tech issues).

– 3 left the network (Rebecca Never Becky, Geeks for Social Change, A Brilliant Thing), with 1 (Rebecca) saying she might be interested in coming back in 2026.

– We’re expecting at least 23 members at the Autumn meeting

 

On the voting system itself: a suggestion is that maybe a working circle could be set up if people want to explore alternative tech options

 

At the moment – it is 100% we have no quorum. So if only 2 people vote and they both say yes then the decision goes through. 

• In order to be democratic we should have a quorum 
• Decide on the membership – indiv v organisation what is the weighting 
• Having only 2 voting in a membership of 45 is a problem
• Having a quorum can be box ticking – and the same people vote all the time. 
• We still need everyone to come along on the decision. Even if only 2 or 22 vote. 
• Transition team will contact everyone either way to encourage voting – help with tech issues or do an in person thing / over the phone to help with voting  
• Time scales/when the voting should be done. Set a deadline with a reminder. – what we did this time. 
• We aim for 100% and whoever votes is enough or we have a percentage minimum
• We don’t have a quorum at the moment. At the last voting not everyone voted on every question
• Are we over complicating things? Do we need this level of detail? There’s only so much the TT can do to encourage people to vote. We’re all adults and capable of voting or not voting. If you don’t vote that’s also showing an action. 
• The link should be more prominent and easier to find and do the vote. If we can make it easier then we should get more votes. If we have a minimum of 50% of members that have voted then we should go ahead. 
• The link to the voting is online (but on a different link) as our website doesn’t allow for a password on the page itself. 
• Decision making is difficult itself. If we have more time then perhaps we’ll have more people voting. 
• i wonder if we can go with it for x months and learn into it together and do some reflective practice / pattern spotting along the way e.g. a learning from our experience online last time might be that there were too many questions for us to vote on so let’s keep it to a max of 5 things to vote on, at one time.

Leave it as it is and if we don’t get votes then we reflect back to the group what percentage have voted – and check in that that amount is enough. 

 

A9 Recommendations: 

• if we have 50% voter turnout (still need 100% consensus) then we can move ahead on that question.
• if we have 25% voter turnout (still need 100% consensus) then we can move ahead on that question.

• Continue how we have been doing: for a particular amount of votes… (i wonder if we can go with it for x months and learn into it together and do some reflective practice / pattern spotting along the way e.g. a learning from our experience online last time might be that there were too many questions for us to vote on so let’s keep it to a max of 5 things to vote on, at one time.)

 

A11. After the vote, the transition team will contact people who didn’t get the decision they wanted to ask what would it take to come along.

• TT have been doing this anyway as good practice. We will continue. 
• Opens up the question of the responsibility of what has happened in the room (on who isn’t in the room). 
• We can say if it’s at least 25% convergence we can go to the people that lost the vote and ask them.
• We aren’t asking people why did you vote no – but we are noticing you voted differently 
• if people lost a vote then it is a really beautiful way of checking in with folk and making sure people feel heard. even if they can’t change the voting outcome. just need to be super clear that the majority vote will be going ahead…
• Question around how practical this is for the longer term – with these processes? We need to ensure it is simplified – we might not have this transition team with this skill set. 
• This is a newer way of thinking/voting for a lot of us. – it is a good reminder of what this ‘coming along’ process is about. We don’t want it to turn into every other type of institution/org that exists. We are trying to be something new/alternative. 
• The reason for the check in is – if the vote goes ahead and it causes harm then the membership should be aware of it. 
• Different on ‘why you voted this way’ v ‘what it would take for you to come along’. 
• Doing DD when we’re not all in a room is difficult.
• feel uncomfortable with just going ahead with this vote when there is a difference in the vote. 
• language/semantics. If people have voted and the majority say yes. The people who didn’t vote from it (its not that they can sway the vote) it is still the majority vote that will do ahead. But the TT will check in with people to make sure they are heard. 

A11 Recommendation: we can reword the question and go out to vote again. 

 

B2 and B3 – decisions

B2. The following decisions will be made by all members: Funding proposals over £1000 / Buying equipment, materials and venue (over £1000) / Any payment for roles and work needed (that’s not already approved) / Decision on which venue we use (from available shortlist) / Prioritising what goes onto the agenda for members meetings / Anything else we haven’t agreed to delegate

B3. All members should be informed of the following, and can choose to step in: Meeting funders / Finding non-financial partnerships / Applying for funding (from outside of GMSC) / Speaking at events on GMSC behalf

 

Suggestion is to put B2 B3 out to vote again as separate questions. 

 

D3 decision:

D3. All members will be invited to vote in advance to rank the agenda items by priority, using an online system (to be developed).

• What we did this meeting was to prioritise the agenda in the meeting before we start. 
• Can we have trust rather then voting again before the meeting feels like there is to much voting where it isn’t necessary. 

recommendation: We can have an AOB in the meeting. So that members can bring things to the group.
If there is more to do in the meeting than there is time for, the members that can attend can decide on the day.

 

E3. How do members keep in touch with each other?

A google sheet with everyone’s email/number. 

• For gdpr we can’t force people to share details. Are we saying that if you don’t share details then you aren’t a member?
• Some people dont have an info@ or a business phone number it might be personal and you might not want to share that. 
• We need to be able to contact each other if we are going to be working with them in collaboration. In order to aid communication. 
• It’s possible to create systems in the website to have conversations without sharing their details. 
• can we not share info with members without it being public and at risk of security threat?

E3 Recommendation: we will ask all members for an email/number add it to a list that all members will have access to and can choose to share one or the other. Then we can problem solve the people who don’t want their info shared with others. 

 

E4. How do members stay informed about GM SC?

• TT did dropins and no-one came. Is this wasting time/energy?
• People can contact to say they want to attend the drop in. – context: at least one person said yes to attending drop in but didn’t attend. 
• It should be our responsibility to catch up on the things we’ve missed. 

E4 Recommendation: We can try this time – here is the minutes, if you need help/support get in touch.  

 

E5. Can members write blog posts about GM SC?

• Not everyone can have access to the site so a comms team/person/circle should check. 
• We have two different options: 
  • All members can write blog posts to provide updates about GM SC working groups to be shared on the website. 
  • Members can suggest blog posts (including podcast or videos) that they have or will write themselves but a designated team (transition team for example) will check that the content aligns with GM SC vision, mission and red lines before publishing it.
• Context: no blog has come in to be published yet
• We shouldn’t be gatekeepers of the knowledge/perspective
• Blog posts needs to be clear its coming from the organisation/indiv and is not about GMSC or from GMSC perspective
• We need a boundary/understanding of what sort of stuff we want to be posting about anyway. E.g. if you’re speaking about gmsc or the work we’re doing or your org in doing within that space then we can put it out. And then a blog about a research study that isn’t relevant doesn’t get posted. 
• Is it exclusive posting – so if you’re posting on GMSC then it’s only on GMSC exclusively? That way the origin of the post is GMSC and not another link. 
• We can repost stuff on newsletter/instagram our socials. 
• Can people just put a blog out?

E5 recommendation: Any/All members can write blog posts to provide updates about GM SC or related to GMSC working groups to be shared on the website.

TT ask person if they feel it aligns/raises concerns (feels it doesn’t align with vision/mission/redline). 

Potential ACTION: is there is a meeting/circle around blog/comms? 

 

Additional question we missed last time. 

The meeting recommends: There should be 2 named people from each organisation – rather than just sending any two so there is consistency. 

• Some folks aren’t available, and may need to send others on their behalf
• It can be difficult to build relationships if we continue to get different people attending each meeting. 
• we have a core group of 4 people in each org so its 2 from those core group?
• Any person from the org can attend the circles. 
• Its nice to see different people from different organisations. 
• That could be quite exclusive as organisations can be transient
• Caring about freedom and fluidity and also caring about connections and relationship 
• Alot of people when we contacted them to ask if they’re ok as they didn’t attend – folks said they were busy (resource stretched). 
• Perhaps do bring somebody new along so they can experience. Doesn’t matter who they are in the org – rather than only have senior directors in the room. 
• Is its responsibility of members to keep folks in their orgs up to date. So we should be able to bring in other people into the space as it’s good to meet new people. 

Recommendation: put it to a vote. Should it be different each time. Or should it be the same 2 members that attend each meeting. 

We will not put it forward to the vote for now and members can bring any 2 people of their choice to the Meetings

 

Can we be in an eco system where rules/processes emerge? 

• Feeling free enough to move and have generative conversations where we don’t feel like we in a council meeting, but also having some structure. 

 

• Potential ACTION: send out info about DD and upcoming workshops 

 

PROPOSALS / CIRCLES:

Proposals are here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Oo4SW3fW9_RtwoIVPMk7LUpT5UsOA0Sy

 

Budget: 

£540,000 left for GM SC to decide on 

£651,000 left for Islands of sanctuary to decide on

£65,000 left in transition phase budget 

 

Process for proposals: reminder. Discussion in members, meeting has a recommendation (raise concerns/ideas ‘yes and’) based on the proposal. It goes out to vote to the whole membership. If it gets agreed via voting it goes ahead. If there is not a consensus then we bring back to the membership for discussion and see if an alternative can br proposed. 

Any 3 people from different organisations can come together to start a circle 

 

Today: we have folks that can present their proposals to the group. We can have a discussion, ask questions etc. and then have a conversation about any recommendation we want to put forward to the membership. THEN it goes to vote to whole membership. 

 

On the process about proposals:

• Concern about a group of people in the space having a discussion and doing lots of work and then that recommendation going out to the whole membership (including those who haven’t attended or been to the meeting) to vote. 
• Reminder: if you have to attend a minimum of 2 out of 4 in order to be a member 
• I think it’s important that there is clarity on what the levels of engagement is expected in terms of activities versus journeying alongside what is emerging in GMSC.
• Is the process the wrong way round – should it go out to vote first, and then make a decision collectively. 
• The process as it stands came from in the room as a recommendation that then went out to vote to all members. And the process above has been approved. The rest will go out as recommendations to members. 
• We can send out information to all members to ensure they are able to make an informed decision – 
• Deciding in the room can make it too political
• Voting when you haven’t attended: – it isn’t fair. What are you voting on? 
• attending the meetings cost – so we need to make a decision on what we are doing in this space and if people are paid or not to attend. Context: each org can draw down on max of £50 for expenses/childcare/covering costs etc. 
  • Should be difference in people attending in person or online. 
• 44 members into £200 into 4 meetings per year. = £35,200 this is alot of money. When people show up in a space (paid) they show up differently. We should be able to resource our own time. 
• Some orgs are new and need capacity. It takes time. 
• small language framing: rather than kicked out is it more like being a friend of rather than an active member? partly because people are working out (including me!) what being a member means and if i am free to, am able to., want to…
• We can put a recommendation in now to the whole membership. OR we need time and someone needs to put a proposal in. 
• isn’t this a good example of reminding people of decisions that have been made before and committing to that even if its for a little while. A decision between everyone was made that came up with the £50 expenses. why change it now when people haven’t even drawn down the expenses
• Decision was made as a collective – feels like we’re undermining the decision. Can we stick to it for a few months. 
• How do we keep the flow of information within orgs and across people. 
• A question about the proposals in general almost. I’d like to support with bridging spaces with the infrastructural organisations I work with right now. IS there allowance for that? is that appropriate? does that support our purpose? 
• Some were going to put in proposals for budget. But didn’t because didn’t realise we could. 

 

Proposal to get voted on: 

1. Stay as £50 (max of £8,800 per year)
2. instead of £50 per organisation: for zoom £200/ in person all day £400 (max of £70,400 per year)
3. instead of £50 its £200 flat per organisation  (max of £35200 per year)

 

Suggestion for a proposal: to distribute the cash equally between membership orgs/indiv. And then people that want to put the money together can. £540,000 – divided by 44 = appox. £12,270

• Question around weighing of members that are orgs and members that are individuals. 

 

Out of 44 members:

– 24 members attended the Summer meeting

– 32 members voted – not everyone voted on everything. 

– 20 members both attended the summer meeting AND voted.

– 12 members voted but did not attend the summer meeting, I didn’t keep track of who sent apologies or not.

– 4 members attended the summer meeting but didn’t vote (2 of those reported tech issues).

– 3 left the network (Rebecca Never Becky, Geeks for Social Change, A Brilliant Thing), with 1 (Rebecca) saying she might be interested in coming back in 2026.

– We’re expecting at least 23 members at the Autumn meeting

 

Circles: – for information and if there are objections or additions to them

• Specific response to far right attacks on migrants in hotels. DIPACT, RAPAR, Global Arts Manchester 
• Direct action against fascism. Womens voices, afshan, vi plus others. 
• Potentially one around accessibility 
• Suggestion for a circle: survival and solidary infrastructure (skills sharing workshop based) – will go ahead as a circle as we have reached minimum of 3 members/orgs

 

Proposals that have come in so far: – we will hear from each one.

• Cultivating change – (victoria, northern lily). Wants to scale up and work in collab with other GMSC orgs. – resource asked for £65,00 [LINK] 
  • Question around how others engage – there isn’t a budget for them at this moment. 
  • What is the invitation to the GMSC members. To perhaps become a circle 
  • Creating a prototype that can be replicated elsewhere/sharing information about skills development around food and horticultural practices. Didn’t want to ask for a lot of resources so kept it smaller. 
•  Response to far right attacks on migrants in hotels. (RAPAR, DIPACT, Global Arts Manchester) – participatory approaches, inductive collab process between the three orgs.wellbeing focussed  – resource asked for £60,000  [LINK]  – new link to be sent from Rhetta
  • There is a circle aswell as a proposal. 
• Women’s voices campaign (in Three phases) – (nadia women’s voices) community led campaign. Challenging co-option. resource asked for £43,00 [LINK] 
• Code of conduct – focussing on healing and repairing aspect – no resource asked.  [LINK] 

 

Questions about proposals in general;

• When it comes to projects about race/facism – the projects proposed so far might bring us back to the same space in a few years
• How do you build solidarity amongst people that are white. Its not either or thing. We can do both? – what is the strategy? We can still do something about keeping the people that need it safe. 
• Possible proposal from me will be build on the listening spaces I had considered (specifically around the people who think reform and being far right is there only alternative but don’t consider themselves racist) but as I am not an active member, truly didn’t think it my place to propose anything as I don’t have capacity to deliver it. Just thinking out loud.
• what’s alive for me now is that we seem to be back to doing traditional grant making rather than tending to the whole network. i don’t feel comfortable making decisions about funding of proposals that only benefit a few organisations. i would rather see circles forming around food and circles around refugees and people seeking asylum. and a circle on campaigning / narratives. same could be said for economic justice.and people join circles they have energy for, the circles could have some budget but then the circles could go get match funding etc. i thought this was more than ongoing organisational budgets.
• I also wonder if there is space to suggest what work we feel need to be done without having the resource to deliver ( people, space etc). much like the suggestion list that was shown earlier today.
• Anti-racism proposals – very aware of what diff infrastructural orgs are doing (ayisatu) do we want to link with them  (e.g. platinum group). – to share the info in the group and put a proposal in for the group to decide if GMSC as an org connects with them, OR indiv orgs can connect with them themselves. But information sharing is good. 
• Having thematic circles can help contain the decision making. if we decided a big group decision regarding the big decision of themes but how those are satisfied will be with the Circles within that.

 

A question about the proposals in general almost. I’d like to support with bridging spaces with the infrastructural organisations I work with right now. IS there allowance for that? is that appropriate? does that support our purpose? 

 

Cross collab island of sanctuary update:

• Islands of sanctuary were the organisation were doing the deep place based systems change. 
• april/may of 2025- budget given (651,000) to collab between, Mama/sawn, wigan northern heart soul, rekindle, middleton co-op. – 
• The group spent some time working out if they should be stewarding it and what it means etc 
• Out of 651,000 – each org would take £125,000 (500k). That leave £151,000 for other things to emerge. 
• The next meeting is in November. 

 

Agenda item for next Members’ Meeting:

members who want to come back in.