To approve the minutes of the 2006 AGM
There were no questions.

Matters arising
First to speak was Paul Tully (Y40) who spoke on whether DaC rules allowed us to operate our Concierge system and disagreed with the Chairman’s assessment of the situation given at the previous AGM. Paul believed that the system serviced the private hire community, which he claims went against the rules.

Chairman’s Report on the financial statements for year ending 31 August 2007
First to question the Chairman was Stanley Roth (Y53). He asked about Brian’s comments on making the BoM more professional and queried whether he was suggesting a parliamentary system where we would have more civil servants, but still vote for the Board?
   The Chairman replied that the answer was yes. He added that this was his personal view and had been for some time and that the Board and members all know that he held that view. He believed future Boards should take a more strategic view, deciding what the future role of the Society was and how we could take it forward, but that you then needed a top layer of professionals who would ensure that policy was carried out on a day-to-day basis. He added that DaC was continuing to grow and that having passed the £50million PA income, we had ventured from being a medium-sized company into a large one. He also said that we would still need a Board, but unlike the way we currently have one and that we would need people who are trained for specific jobs and that these people should be interviewed and employed on merit. Stanley then asked whether that meant that Board members would spend less time in the office? Brian said yes, but that it should be remembered that in the 12-year lifetime of this BoM they had taken the Society from an income of £18million to its current £53.25million, so he was in no way suggesting that the Board should be disbanded, only that we had to move over to an even more professional platform.
   Paul Tully (Y40) then returned to the rostrum and quoted from the Chairman’s Report where he wrote of moving ahead or standing still. Paul said that he did not envisage the Board just allowing the world to pass it by and that as a Friendly Society, we have always coped well and had done so up to the present day. He spoke of the demise of Enron, the American energy company, which also took the respected accounting firm Arthur Anderson with it and compared that to the successful continuation of DaC under its present guise. He said that we needed to enlist from within our membership as we had always done, but added that we should do so with a more forward-thinking outlook. Paul’s view was that as cab drivers, the BoM knew the job and that as elected representatives, if they were not up to the job then they should stand down. He ended by congratulating the current Board for continuing the legacy of a successful DaC through what has not always been an easy road, yet had still "taken us to the next level."
   Brian thanked Paul and said that although they disagreed on how it should be done, both wanted the same success for the Society. He also spoke of the period in the early nineties when DaC almost ceased to exist. He added that in the end, if there was a strong anti-feeling against his ideas for the future, then the Society would probably retain the status quo. However, should there be no hard feelings against, the Society would probably begin to employ professionals as no rule changes were needed to begin that process. He reminded those present that it was as late as 1996 that we used to have a Treasurer until we took on an accountant in order to deal with the Society’s day-to-day running. "We have a professional IT man and HR department. It’s just progress," Brian said and the way he believed we had to go.
   Next up was John Edwardes (H05) who said that he agreed 100% with Paul Tully. He said that his future time left with DaC wasn’t that long. He spoke of the war’s end and how Britain had so much of the world’s car manufacturers and asked how many were still left? He added that so much of our manufacturing base had now gone and compared it to DaC, which in his words "…had been bloody successful – and I don’t feel like changing it!"
   Brian Rice replied that one of the reasons DaC had been so successful is because they had not been afraid to bring in changes and added that he remembered the days when if DaC had to introduce new terminals or to move to a new building, they first had to call an EGM! Now, he said that thanks to strong leadership and management, the Society had moved away from all that and he wanted to see that maintained in the future, which was the only reason he was suggesting change. He finished his response by saying that following publication of the report, not one member had called to complain about his suggestion. "Members aren’t afraid to phone or email me when they disagree strongly with something, so I must assume that they are not totally against it," he added.
   Laurence Kelvin (W88) was next up. He asked about the chain of command if we began to employ more professionals and wondered who would answer to whom? He gave Sales as an example. Brian Rice responded by saying that in actual fact there had been no one in charge of Sales since last February and that he had been doing the job. The problem was that because DaC has been so successful, as soon as we got someone to head Sales, someone comes along and "pinches" them! He added that it could be that no one from the BoM would be associated with that position, but would actually instruct whomever did the job which direction we’d like to go. The Board might suggest targeting a particular group and whoever was doing the job would report directly to the BoM. Laurence came back and gave another example as in if someone was brought in and wanted to change door logos, would they have the authority to go ahead? Brian again responded that it would be a Board decision. Laurence came back a third time and praised Brian’s leadership. He claimed that he was very underpaid for what he did and queried whether if professionals came in, they would have to be paid market rates and would then be earning far more than the boss – ie the Chairman? Brian said it depended on whom you employed, adding that even now on an hourly basis, he wasn’t the highest paid member at DaC House. He said that no one could know what the future would bring but that if his suggestion were to come about, the BoM could turn round and say that the Chairman should only work one day a week or on the other hand could say that he could apply for the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
   Laurence then asked whether current Board members would be able to apply for any of the positions advertised for incoming professionals? Brian’s answer was that it could happen and there were some BMs who are very proficient at what they do, but added that some drivers tended to hang onto his every word and would call that jobs for the boys. But that wasn’t the case and it would be the best man getting the job. Brian went over his suggestion again and said that several of the BoM were already part-time with Mike Son and Allen Togwell doing 3 days a week, while Allan Evans and Tom Whitbread did four days. Keith Cain running the Call Centre and Brian as Chairman were on five days. "So," said Brian, "to some extent we have already introduced the idea." He went on to say that he felt it should now be taken to the next stage and called it advancement and ended by saying that the suggestions were his views of how things should go in the future, but that the final decision would not be his alone.
   In response to a Laurence point on costs, he said that he felt we needed 2 or 3 good people brought in and that could cost around £250,000 a year but against that you would be making savings with some BMs not having such a ‘hands on’ approach and needing fewer hours. Good people do come at a cost, said Brian, but for a company as successful as DaC has become, that amount wasn’t such a lot. Brian then pointed to the Chairman’s Report showing increased cost for new staff and said that many new staff had already been employed this year and that it represented an 11% increase, but then qualified that by putting it against DaC’s 34% growth over the past 2 years and said that if we wanted to maintain our growth, then it couldn’t be done without more good staff. Laurence then spoke of chaos in the NHS, as an example, when an extra tier of management were brought in. Brian said that he didn’t consider that would apply to DaC and that provided you got the right people in first time, we should have no problems in that respect.
 

 

ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE 2007 DAC AGM

Photos: Ray Sorene (A53)

   Trevor Denton (Y18) was next up to question Brian. He reiterated Laurence’s point on costs and said that if we could get the extra people we required for £250,000 we’d have done well, but went on to ask about current BMs applying for positions that they were already currently doing anyway? Brian said that the point was good and added that if he were the owner of DaC, he would be concerned and called the structure of the Society ‘flaky’, depending too much on certain individuals. He said that there were no contracts or terms of employment and BMs who ran the business were employed on an hourly basis. That’s wrong, said Brian. They could get up from this
AGM and we’d have no tie on them whatsoever. In a £52million business, you need to tie people down and should they leave, you need to make sure they cannot work in this industry for at least a two-year period. If you got rid of them, it could cost you ‘garden leave’ but his view was that it could not be allowed to continue like this.
   Trevor came back saying that our turnover wasn’t bad for a ‘flaky’ company, but Brian responded that he was indeed proud of our achievements but other than the Secretary (Howard Pears), not one member of the BoM was tied down by a contract and that was a danger to DaC.
   Allen Togwell then entered the debate by saying there was a lot of experience within the BoM but that it was possible that the entire Board could come off in one fell swoop and could be replaced by six "radicals." Brian Rice added that should the BoM go to more of an advisory capacity with professionals being brought in, that type of event would be far less likely because any new people of that calibre would be tied down by a contract.
   Russell Poluck MBE (T55) then asked whether an emergency proposition could be put to members present asking that contracts be issued to BMs? The Chairman replied that wasn’t possible because all members would have to vote on it and not just those present.
   John Rubini (F55) was next and spoke of Concierge. He wanted confirmation that it would only be put into accounts who agreed to have Concierge only and who did not use any PH companies that weren’t on the system. Brian said that in most cases that still applied. The exceptions were where directors from some accounts had made their own arrangements. Perhaps they lived out of town, he said, but went on to confirm that the vast majority of Concierge users had it as it was originally set up.
   Changing subjects, John then asked about any possible restructuring and the re-advertising of posts within DaC, hinting that the current BoM might get the available positions. Brian said that the BoM got on very well and despite rumours to the contrary, there were no splits on the BoM and in response to a further point from John about private sector pay rates, gave his view that any increase in cost should the BoM go to a 3-man Board of professionals, would cost the Society very little because of the money saved.
   Pat Keefe (G01) asked whether if any current BMs applied for a new position, would they then have to give up their membership of the Society pointing out that members would have loyalty to DaC, whereas employed persons would not necessarily have the same emotion?
   Brian Rice admitted that he hadn’t thought of that question, but as a first thought couldn’t see why they should have to. Pat then asked whether BMs whose days were dramatically cut would then go back to driving cabs? Brian said that in all probability they would. Pat added that we had lost our last two Sales execs which showed how little loyalty employed personnel had. Brian said that because we were so successful, other companies looked at our staff and that the two he referred to had left after being offered much better salaries. He did add though that since losing the last Sales exec last February, it hadn’t made one jot of a difference as we hadn’t lost any of our large accounts. Pat ended by going back to an answer Brian had given Paul Tully regarding Concierge and private hire companies, but Brian reiterated the answer he had given earlier and said that Pat had misunderstood it. Brian was concerned that some of the providers of Concierge-like ground transportation systems were trying to sell them to our accounts on the strength that these software houses were totally unaffiliated to any taxi or private hire company, leaving the account to choose whomever they wanted – something that would cause damage to DaC. Pat finished by mentioning T-accounts and felt we were ‘sweeping up.’ He asked why we couldn’t raise the minimum fares on those trips? Brian pointed out that the average T-trip was now £36 with some weekend trips having a £66 average. "That’s hardly rubbish," said the Chairman, "but in the end it’s up to the drivers."
   Sid Nathan (K88) was next up to his usual cheer after informing some drivers to be quiet while he was talking! He then went onto his point that DaC did not need any outsiders to help run our business. "With a £52million turnover, we are doing very well with our current Board," he said to a round of applause, "we don’t need anyone else!"
   Brian responded that what Sid was missing was that as Allen Togwell had reiterated earlier, our business was vulnerable because the Board could just get up and leave as there was nothing to tie them to the company. Sid then suggested that every BM have a deputy who could take over should the BM leave. When Brian said that would double our overheads, Sid corrected him to loud laughter by saying that they wouldn’t actually be employed as such, but would be on standby "…as though they were waiting on the Finsbury Square rank!" He said that if a BM left, his deputy would be called into action. Brian thanked Sid and promised (possibly with his tongue in his cheek) to make a note of his suggestion!
   Trevor Denton (Y18) made his second visit to the rostrum and asked about job interviews and how a fair decision could be made about who gets what if the current BoM were involved in the process? Brian said that any interviews would be completely impartial and spoke about how our HR manager was interviewed as an example. None of the BoM other than Howard Pears and the Chairman was involved. Questions on the Chairman’s Report ended at midday.

Rule Changes
There were 3 rule changes put forward.
   1. To change our address from Brunswick Place to East Road (Proposed by BoM).
   2. HM Customs & Revenue would accept our tax status as a mutual trading society in return for a change of wording in the rule on dissolution (Rule 26). This means that in the case of any dissolution of the Society, members and not shareholders would share any capital left. As the two are the same in our case, it made no difference (Proposed by BoM).
   3. Mike McGlynn (F60) proposed that any DaC member who had been with the Society for two years or more should receive full Society membership and any benefits that could bring (as in should the Society ever be sold and members received a share out). Mike said that we were doing very well and even though he had no problem with the Board’s possible changes in management structure, he still preferred to stay as a Mutual. However he didn’t consider it was fair for drivers to come to DaC, work hard but not be treated the same as other members. So he proposed that so long as you had been with the Society for at least two years, you would be an equal member. He added that he would rather any share-out be according to length of service, but the Chairman had told him all payments had to be equal, otherwise DaC could be open to a legal challenge.
   Paul Shorter (H88) said that the Board’s comment on amounts should we ever be sold was not the only thing to consider. Fairness to members was just as important.
   Russell Poluck (T55) made the point that younger drivers didn’t seem interested and asked for a show of hands to see how many of the 82 (approx) present had been with the Society for less than two years? Just six raised their hands.
   A very nervous Gary Cowderoy (N17) said he was new to DaC, but had been with ComCab for 9 years

 previously. He said that when you came to DaC, you very soon realised that you were part of something different compared to the others. He felt that the way forward was to look at our history, move forward to the digital world, but to understand that most of those that come here did so because of DaC’s reputation and not for any possible payout. He said we should protect what we had and carry it forward to the future. Gary’s nerves dissipated when he was given a round of applause and a "well done" from the Chairman!
   Trevor Denton (Y18) then spoke on the number of extra members on DaC since 2004 and said that the issue had to be settled one way or another. He said if not he would put forward a rule change next year giving all those who had joined since 2004 the right to speak on the subject, but not get any financial gain. He said those members would have an unbiased view.
   The Chairman responded that surely if these drivers could vote but not gain any financial reward, they would probably vote no. He added that the BoM had no problem with the rule change if that is what members wanted.
   Malcolm Levant (F24) felt that the rule change would fall, but should be on the next AGM agenda as a 2-year watershed removing any fixed dates and just have it as members not on DaC for 2 years would not be eligible for any benefits of that nature.
   The Chairman responded that was what Mike was proposing.
   Mike McGlynn then summed up.

Propositions
Keith D’urso (M57) - known better to DaC drivers as Santa Claus when he dresses up to collect money for charity - put forward the only proposition. If successful, it would amend the ‘going home’ facility to allow evening / night drivers to book into a city zone (EC1 – EC5) or E140, rather than as before when you could only ‘bid’ for a trip in these zones. He claimed the current facility was unworkable and said his idea was to book in but for the trip still to be AD. All you’d know was that it was going to your home zone or to a back up. You couldn’t pick or choose.
   Bill Chatterway (A43) spoke against and said when he went home, there were more cabs than jobs in those zones. Brian Rice said the Board were against it because they felt the perception would be from those drivers still working that all the good jobs will be going to those at the point of a rank waiting for their trip. He understood Keith’s point about it being AD, but reiterated that drivers would see several cabs on the point and would feel that any good jobs would go to those drivers.
   Keith D’urso came back and said that he had 40 night drivers signing the petition and not one had voiced concern or said they would not book into EC5 or E140. Brian responded that he understood Keith’s point, but that it was up to the membership as a whole and not just the 40.

Any Other Business
Sid Nathan (K88) was first up and wanted to know why we had no voice channel? Brian explained that in order to try and improve signals at a time when turnover was up 34% in just two years, DaC decided to use that channel, which wasn’t really used much, and convert it into a data channel. He added that it was working reasonably well, but was delighted to tell those present that we had just received another 3 High Frequency VHF channels from Ofcom. He then explained about the radios (information is in the Chairman’s column on page 4). Sid asked about emergency facilities and Brian explained how the panic button now worked. Instead of blocking out everything as before, now one dispatcher will automatically get the coordinates of the driver in trouble, whilst the other would attempt to make contact and if a problem was confirmed, the GPS coordinates would be put out over the air. He added that if the extra 3 channels worked as well as was hoped, the situation regarding voice might be looked at again. Sid then raised the point of the possible rule change that was stopped and which would have enabled a compulsory stoppage of £5 from every driver towards helping a sick or dying member and wanted to know why it was stopped? Brian said the BoM were not against it, but a compulsory collection was illegal. There is no problem with someone making a voluntary collection and going round with the hat, added the Chairman, but it just was not legal to make it compulsory.
   Ray Sorene (A53) queried what he claimed were a spate of incorrect details given on terminals since moving to East Road and the increase in telephonist numbers.
   Brian admitted that we had an increase in staff and that until more experienced, they might be more prone to errors. He asked Call Centre Manager Keith Cain to respond. Keith also agreed that it was happening, but said that it was always difficult when you employed new staff. He said that drivers should remember that those taking calls did not have our knowledge of London and they might not even know the postal code for Oxford Street. Keith explained that every call taker was given one month training in the call centre. He added that listening to calls and writing down details was a skill and some take longer than others to learn it. He said that anyone needing to write down details of a phone message with 100% accuracy would realise that it wasn’t easy. It would be great, Keith added, if all the telephonists we employed had previous experience of this job, but that wasn’t always possible. He also said that the number of passengers ordering cabs online and therefore filling in their own details had increased (between 1500 to 2000 each day). They are also trained, but still don’t always fill in correct details. Our controllers do try to watch for errors but you can’t spot every one. Keith ended by saying that 3 or 4 of the latest batch taken on failed to meet the training criteria and were not taken on, so we don’t just take anybody, he said, and just hope for the best.
   David Kupler (Y74) was next up and asked Mike Tovey if we could spend the interest on our £3.1million in the bank on anything we wanted such as donations to sick or dying members, leaving less for the taxman?
   Mike Tovey responded that what David was proposing would have a negligible effect on tax and that we had some good tax losses "in store" that we could use in the future. He added that the tax on the interest was fairly low and that giving donations would make little difference to the tax. Brian added that the HMRC would deduct the tax on interest at source and we could then do what we wanted with the rest.
   Paul Jenner (L17) asked what procedures were in place in case of a total system crash linking the question to the loss of the voice channel?
   Brian’s honest answer was that if the system totally crashed, we would be unable to do anything and trying to get it out on a single voice channel would be impossible. He spoke of the one time in the last 18 years where we had to temporarily go to voice dispatching. It had been at 3 in the morning with around 25 jobs to cover and it had been a complete disaster! However, whilst our competitors were going over to the public GPRS network, we are working on 8 aerial sites, which gives us a chance.
   Paul then asked about increasing the run-ins. Brian said that we deserved it but that we would be increasing prices by around 5% in April anyway and that increasing run-ins would make our position very difficult with customers currently looking to cut costs. They are already asking why our increase was double the rate of inflation and added that we didn’t want them to perceive us as being greedy.
   Russell Poluck (T55) asked whether there was any news on new screens for the cabs? Brian said that the screen resolution now was so much better now than when we had ours, but signals had to take priority. Once that has been sorted, we know exactly what we want and the resolution would be excellent. Russell asked one other question about destinations and the way we can get incorrect information. He wanted to know whether we could improve that facility with a software change? To an audible gasp from the floor, Brian replied that the new terminals would come complete with satnav fitted.
   John Rubini (F55) made another visit to the rostrum and asked Mike Tovey about the attempt to change status to a PLC and whether the decision not to convert had a detrimental effect on the Society? Mike said he didn’t know the answer, but in order to give a view would have to go into an area he didn’t believe was his authority. John followed up by asking Brian whether there had been any recent interest from anywhere in buying Dial-a-Cab? Brian said there had been none at all.
   John Fisher (C45) ended the day’s proceedings to give the Editor’s typing finger a rest by asking about a trip he had recently done where, on page 2, it stated that all airports were to go in cars. He named the account and asked if it was true. Brian said that is was as indeed it also was with three other large accounts. Brian gave an example airport fare from Docklands of £46 to Heathrow in a car. We can’t compete against that, said the Chairman, and ended by saying that it was purely down to cost.
   Brian Rice brought the meeting to a close by telling those present:
   "This was my 12th year as Chairman and the 13th meeting I have taken and I must say that this one was the most attentive, civilised and respectful membership of all the meetings and it was so nice to have drivers get up and ask sensible questions without setting out to try and catch anyone.

The voting results:
To approve the minutes of the 2006 AGM – For 98.6% Against 1.4%
To approve the Annual Report –For 98.5% Against 1.5%
To reappoint Chantrey Vellacott – For 97.5% Against 2.5%
To amend rule 2 (registered office) – For 96.5% Against 3.5%
To amend rule 26 (dissolution) – For 91.3% Against 8.7%
To amend rule 4b (Terms of admission, M.McGlynn) – For 53.2% Against 46.8%
To amend going home facility proposition K.D’urso) – For 36.9% Against 63.1%