At: Woll’s house
Present: Alison Teal (Chair), Ruth Hubbard, Paul Selby (Minutes), Isabel O’Leary, Woll Newall, Andrew Kondakor, Sue Kondakor, Fran Kime, Helen McIlroy, Wendy Hawksley
Observers: (None)
Apologies: Mark James, Anne Barr, Tina Sampson-Smith
Minutes: The minutes of the last committee meeting (06/01/26) were agreed as a true and accurate record.
Matters arising
- HM had forgotten to contact the Woodland Trust. ACTION: HM will pursue
- AT has agreed with the Council about the need for a QR code to explain the plaque. ACTION: AT and WN will work together to create the QR code and an associated webpage on the new STAG website.
- AT still hasn’t received a reply from our proposed Trustee. However, HM had been in contact, and the individual would welcome another email from AT. There was a discussion about the specific nature of what AT would propose to the individual, and ACTION: AT agreed to try again.
- PS has resolved the issue of the deficit showing in John Miller’s Western Road street tree crowdfunder. PS has personally donated the remaining £70 on behalf of STAG to John Miller, and ACTION: WN is due to refund PS from STAG funds. John Miller has confirmed that the two trees will be planted before 31/03/26
- Other than some minor issues that SK is suffering with Google Groups, all new cooptees have now been added to all EC communication channels.
Items on the Agenda
Item 1
IO gave an update on her work to find suitable locations for STAG-financed street tree planting in low tree equity areas, and towards the date of 31st March 2026 for submitting locations and species choices to Amey, via PS.
Good progress has been made, but with six weeks to go, she is waiting for responses from a number of different contacts from the various community groups and individuals in the three proposed planting areas.
PS offered his full support to IO as she moves through the next 6 weeks, and IO clarified a few points with PS.
There was agreement to explicitly record in the minutes why we were avoiding the Trees for Streets process, given the nightmares of slow responses and non-responses various people have suffered. Therefore, ordering via the efficient process PS has with Amey for NESST funded street trees seems the sensible option for quick delivery.
IO raised a separate proposal about whether we should use some of the General Funds to fund 6 trees in memorial to deceased Sheffield street tree campaigners. Following a short discussion, this proposal was rejected. Instead, it was agreed that we should launch a Crowdfunder later in the year to raise specific new funds for this great idea.
Item 2
Should we use the majority of the remaining money in the General Fund for additional street tree planting?
There was again good and healthy debate about this, following the agreement in principle at the previous EC meeting.
It was agreed by the EC that £3,000 would be held back for wider STAG expenditure, but that all other STAG General Funds would be made available to IO to fund street trees (to be planted in Winter 26/27), in as many of the additional locations she had researched in the low tree equity areas she is already working in.
The EC also decided that the agreement above would be subject to a confirmatory vote from the wider membership.
ACTION – PS will draft the text for the Proposal and vote and share with EC members to confirm
Item 3
STAG Public Facebook Group non-handover. PS and RH talked through the formal legal advice obtained and received for STAG by the Committee (PS is the legal ‘client’ trustee acting on behalf of and agreed by the Committee – as an unincorporated association STAG cannot contract for/commission work in its own name).
The Committee noted, as expected, that the legal advice confirms that each elected STAG Committee is responsible for owning and holding the public STAG Facebook Group, as trustees on behalf of STAG as a whole, and that this is based on strong evidence that is a matter of STAG formal records (notably Steering Group minutes in 2017 confirming its management/administrative arrangements for the public Fb group; as well as the first Elected Committee Meeting minutes in May 2021 documenting formal transfer of the public Facebook Group to the Committee).
The Committee noted the existence of no known alternative evidence that might change this. (I.e. there is no evidence of ownership of STAG’s most valuable asset being transferred to private individuals, or that the current unauthorised admins ever objected when they were Committee members and they themselves repeatedly told members that the Facebook Group is a STAG asset.)
It was also noted the current unauthorised administrators have belatedly responded (three days ago) to letters sent four weeks earlier, in the first week of January. Their letter cites no evidence (e.g. of transfer of ownership), but includes a proposal that would now transfer ownership to their private/personal control.
PS/RH were concerned that this fails to grasp the gravity of the situation and reminded new EC members that the Committee has never sought to stop the public Facebook Group from being run as it is, only that the Committee is required to hold it in trust on behalf of STAG. The administrators, since last summer, have not agreed to meeting the Committee for any discussion or mediation, nor in relation to any interim compromise solution proposed by the Committee.
Following discussion, it was therefore agreed:
- To rapidly provide 2 or 3 dates for a meeting with the administrators (four committee members volunteered for this) to take place as soon as possible.
- To ask the solicitor to prepare a clear summary confirming and laying out the legal position and basis on which it rests, and that will be sent to the administrators (the full legal advice cannot be directly shared as this compromises client/solicitor legal privilege). It was agreed this is not about making threats but for clarity and seriousness about the position the unauthorised administrators have taken up. This letter will be requested pro bono; if it will cost this will first come back to the Committee.
- STAG’s membership body will be the most important if the asset remains untransferred to STAG’s legal ownership. The prospect of an Emergency General Meeting in coming weeks was discussed (though its potential necessity is regretted by the Committee with so much positive STAG work currently proceeding, as well as upcoming AGM). This, however, may be necessary given the overall authority of the membership body and necessity/significance of potential decisions.
- The seriousness of the failed handover of STAG’s main asset to the current Committee remains deeply regrettable and detrimental/destructive to STAG as a whole even as systems and basic functioning have been put on a much sounder footing, including the amount of effort and time Committee members have been legally required to spend on this.
[Note: it was clarified and agreed subsequent to the meeting that the summary letter from the solicitor should be requested to be suitable for sharing with all STAG members as they would want and need clear and authoritative information about the legal position, should they need to be called upon to make decisions about the future, as seems likely at the moment. The actions agreed are fully aligned with the solicitor’s ‘next steps’ advice.]
ACTION: PS will lead on taking this forward.
Item 4
Following the meeting PS and WN had had with Fran Halsall to discuss ownership of the old STAG website and the important archive it contains, WN had sent Fran a written proposal, two days previously, which reflected what we’d agreed verbally. They await Fran’s response, but anticipate it being positive when it comes.
Item 5
WN had nothing to add about the interactive website, and it was agreed to postpone this good idea indefinitely, given the various higher priorities.
Item 6
RH gave an update on progress with the Constitutional Review. The high level proposal had been signed off by members at the General Meeting the week earlier, and Julian Baker had offered support as a member outside of the EC.
ACTION: RH aims to share a first draft of the new Constitution with EC members and Julian within the next week.
Item 7
Sheffield Street Tree Partnership Group update. IO and HM reported that the next meeting of this group was the following week, and that it would be discussing proposals about revising the Sheffield Street Tree Strategy. These proposals were set out in a document that was based on discussions at the SSTP awayday in Autumn 2025.
There was a discussion about why the Strategy was being reviewed, given it was seen as exemplar across the UK. It was agreed that the Strategy didn’t seem to be the problem, but instead the apparent lack of measurable delivery.
ACTION: IO agreed to share the proposals with EC members (via WN), so that EC members could provide questions and comments that IO and HM could take to the meeting next week.
Item 8
Preparation for the AGM, and any activities needed before then.
With the date of 20th April agreed for the AGM at the previous EC meeting, it was again confirmed by RH that, given the Constitution, Nominations for becoming an Elected Committee member would need to open on 2nd March for a period of six weeks, followed by a week of voting, and the results being announced at the AGM itself.
ACTION: HM agreed to organise the venue.
ACTION: WN agreed to organise the voting arrangements. It will be supervised by a Committee member who is not standing for re-election and an independent ordinary member has volunteered to validate the results.
ACTION: AT agreed to prepare the AGM agenda.
RH reminded EC members with named roles (eg Co-Chair, Treasurer etc) that they were constitutionally obliged to provide written reports in advance of the AGM, so they needed to begin drafting them for other EC members to agree.
ACTION– Alison+Helen, Woll, Isabel+Helen to begin drafting their formal written reports.
Item 9
Plaque unveiling. There had been some confusion between AT and Dave Dilner, with Dave having offered to coordinate a Press Release and be the named lead for media queries.
HM clarified that while Dave had offered to do this, the Press Release was mainly going to be an invite to the unveiling. EC members said there was no problem with this, and it was signed off.
EC members also agreed that we should draft a proper Press Release to be handed out to attendees on the day, and to publish shortly afterwards.
WH was thanked for the social media graphic she had designed and posted two days earlier to advertise the date of the unveiling. She has other versions of the date advert which she plans to release in the run up to the date, to try to maximise campaigner attendance.
Item 10
Newsletter. IO gathered ideas for articles in the February edition.
PS checked that other EC members were content with the positive progress being made with the Core Investment Period trees, and the update he’d posted on various Facebook groups a few days earlier. All EC members confirmed that they were.