Present: Garth Dales (Chair, BMC Scientific Committee), Nick Woodhouse (Treasurer, LMS), Peter Cooper (Executive Secretary, LMS)
The accounts were still not resolved. The LMS and EdMS, as honorary auditors, could not get the information they wanted. But it was debatable how far the BMCs, or Scientific Committee, should have audits beyond the procedures of the institution hosting the BMC (see below). The LMS, in its role of providing a grant for a BMC, sought only information that confirmed its grant had been used properly.
To avoid the possible assumption of a VATable service, the Scientific Committee must not be 'contracting' the host institution or Organising Committee to run the BMC. The BMC Organising Committee must be independent, self-managed and responsible for the financial management of the BMC (including audit to the levels required by the host institution).
The Scientific Committee could not accept responsibility (and possible financial liability) for BMCs. Setting itself up as an independent, charitable body could make matters worse; it should be just an advisory body representing the maths community, aiming to ensure continuity of the BMC, and for recommending speakers and topics to retain a comprehensive coverage of mathematics over time.
The Scientific Committee acted to discuss informally with potential hosts and to offer the AGM (the maths community) advice on proposals from organisations to host BMCS. It had no legal standing or responsibility with regard to the selection or the chosen host. The AGM decided whether and which proposal to accord the title 'BMC'.
The money originally held by the EdMS on behalf of the BMC had, with the agreement of the Glasgow AGM, been given to the LMS in exchange for assurances on the continuing support by the LMS for future BMCs. Those assurances still remained.
There was, therefore, no 'buffer' to absorb slight losses or surpluses from BMCs.
Recognising the longer planning horizon of BMCs, the LMS had agreed to consider requests for grants for BMCs up to three years ahead and to allow BMC organisers to call on elements of the grants outside its normal three month rule.
The LMS could not guarantee to make a grant - that was always a judgement of the quality of the application. Nor could the LMS make a commitment to underwrite a BMC or give other guarantees. It would, however, accept a moral responsibility to fund BMCs more generously than other conferences, and to look sympathetically on a request from a BMC that had made a loss for reasons outside the reasonable control of the Organising Committee or host institution.
It was proving difficult to establish a continuing, working relationship with the BAMC as it appeared no equivalent to the BMC Scientific Committee existed.
The LMS agreed to help to broker a meeting, and engage with the IMA, to bring together those responsible for the BMCs and BAMCs. That might take place in January 2004, to look at the 2005 joint meeting, alongside the BMC meeting on 22 January 2004.