Notting Hill Carnival Strategic Review - Intelligent Space

The Coopers & Lybrand Report (1988)
3.5 The first ever review of the management structure of Carnival was carried out by the
management accountancy firm Coopers & Lybrand in 1988. At that time the Notting Hill
Carnival and Arts Committee Ltd (CAC), a company established in 1984, was the Carnival
organiser. Prior to this, the Carnival had been run by a voluntary organisation with a
management committee. CAC had a board of directors who were duly elected by the
membership of the organisation. The report made a number of critical observations in relation
to the structure of CAC, most notably:
3.5.1 The absence of a full complement of staff had placed the board of directors in a
peculiar executive role, resulting in diffused and unclear lines of responsibility with
no formal reporting relationship between the staff and the board. The report found
that board members were actively participating in the day-to-day management of the
company in the run-up to the Carnival.
3.5.2 Board membership, although made up of dedicated individuals had not been
structured to take on board specialists with specific skills that would assist the
organisation to formulate policy or strategy. There appeared to be no evidence of
board members being selected on the basis of the relevant skills they could offer as
well as their commitment to serve in a voluntary capacity.
3.5.3 The carnival constituency appeared to have no formal representation on the board.
3.6 Interviews with key stakeholders revealed that many doubted the CAC board’s ability to
manage the organisation. Reasons given related to professional capabilities, historical
relationships with funding organisations, unsatisfactory board appointments and restrictions
on community involvement in the planning process. In addition, the CAC board had, in the
preceding two years, received qualified accounts pointing to an absence of proper and
effective financial and accounting policies and procedures. The organisation had never
employed more than three members of staff who, in conjunction with the voluntary and full
time participation of the treasurer, secretary and the rest of the board arranged all Carnival
events. Moreover, there were no formal reporting mechanisms by which the board could
monitor the organisation’s financial status, operational activities or policy objectives.
3.7 The Coopers report pointed to Carnival’s changing situation, namely that the event had
evolved from being a small Caribbean event into a “truly Black British” event. The report
argued that as the Carnival continued to grow, the influence of its British environment would
continue to increase also, with a greater participation in the Carnival of a wider, more diverse
cultural and ethnic base. Having developed a character all of its own, the implications of such
growth were identified as being:
3.7.1 the current ‘ownership’ attitude towards the Carnival by the organisers would, the
report argued, have to adjust as community participation increased and a stronger
influence over the event was sought.
3.7.2 the membership of the Carnival organisation would have to increase to accommodate
this wider participation. The report argued that the organisation would have to
recognise and accept this as a necessary process in the growth of any community
group.
124