Business Continuity Institute South East of England Forum

Management Committee

2pm, 4th May 2016

Grange Tower Bridge Hotel, 45 Prescot Street, London E1 8GP

Minutes

Attendees

Mark Suttle, Chair

Richard Verrinder, Vice Chair

Brian Kinch, Secretary

Jim Barrow, Committee Member

Adrian Jolly, Committee Member

Apologies

Russ Timpson, Committee Member

Chris Aldred, Committee Member

David West, Membership Support Manager, BCI (ex-officio)

Absences

None

Welcome and refreshments

MS welcomed everyone and thanked BK for organising the meeting and supplying refreshments. In light of the fact that it had proven very difficult to arrange a time whereby the Committee could be quorate, MS indicated that this meeting would be taken as an “exceptional” one – focusing principally on the forthcoming July cyber event, and issues surrounding the proposed division and reclassification of the BCI South East Forum – and that a number of the other, more traditional agenda item matters, would be carried over until the next Committee meeting that is now being targeted for early June.

Action 01/040516 – BK to repurpose previous draft agenda for this meeting to a revised date in early June

Review and Approval of Minutes of Last Meeting, 18 March 2016

With a couple of minor amends either noted on the Agenda for this meeting, vis:

- The day of the meeting (18th) is now included in the header

or raised direct by JB, vis:

- End of first paragraph on page 4, the word “offer” should read “provide”

the previous minutes were unanimously approved.

Update on Actions from Last Meeting, 18 March 2016

Carried forward to the June meeting, per action 01/040516, above

Matters Arising

JB noted that the equality/diversity statement and disclaimer on the responsibility for attendance level at vendor-attended events, referenced on page 8 of the previous minutes against action 17/180316, had not been included as intended.

Action 02/040516 – BK to ensure this is redressed in the “Update on Actions” for the June meeting.

Action 03/040516 – MS to ensure this is redressed in a Terms of Reference revision

JB further noted that, if the Terms of Referenced are being revised then he would also suggest:

o In the “Purpose”, “This Terms of Reference sets….” should read “These Terms of Reference set….”

o In the “Catchment Area”, “….is limited to….” would be better stated as “covers”o In the “Forum Objectives” the words “globally” and “locally and abroad” appear

incongruous for a UK regional Forumo There is a typo in the last bullet of “Management Committee” in that “set” should

read “step”

Action 04/040516 – MS to consider these issues as well in the Terms of Reference revision

RV sought counsel regarding progress against action 12/180316 in that Eren Aslan had now indicated that although ARM would happily host a meeting for the Forum in Cambridge there was no longer any resource available to reach out to Local Resilience Forums or to provide speakers, and therefore the expected small business population would not be targeted as hoped.RV offered to approach his equivalents in Cambridge (plus also Norfolk and Suffolk) to gauge level of interest for an event in the area in October. This was agreed

Action 05/040516 – RV to seek to gauge level of interest for a small businesses event in Cambridge in October and to have feedback in time for the planned June Committee meeting (to allow a go/no-go on planning)

Forum Web Page

In light of the proposed forthcoming changes to the constitution and the name of the Forum(s), discussion on the web page has been deferred for now.

Terms of Reference Finalisation/Ratification

In light of actions 02, 03 and 04/040516, above, the TOR finalisation/ratification will be carried forward to the proposed June meeting, per action 01/040516 above.

London Forum: Shared Plans

The latest flyer for 19th May event had been kindly provided by DW and it was clear that the planning for the London Forum cyber event was sufficiently discrete from our own Forum’s plans.

Several of the Committee indicated the BCISEE Forum promotional e-mail had now been sent out but BK indicated he had not received it, but had received the earlier London Forum one. AJ kindly forwarded a copy of the mailer whilst the Committee were together

Action 06/040516 – MS to check with DW that no segregation of potential attendees (based upon the newly proposed Forum constituents) had already occurred prior to despatching the BCISEE flyer.

Future Committee and Forum Meeting Plans BK indicated that the forthcoming dates for the diary were now:

o Tba June 2016 – per action 01/040516, as above. This is likely to include Pete Wood in light of his presence and involvement in the July cyber event, so that he can meet the Committee in advance, and make any last minute changes to his presentation/format

o July 15th 2016 (3rd Friday in July) – Cyber event, LondonBK advised that the main reason for today’s meeting being held at the Grange Hotel is that it is one of two possible venues being considered for the July event. BK stressed that the current day delegate rate quoted (£70) is probably some £20 higher than DW and the BCI generally would be prepared to underwrite, but nonetheless there may be a chance for renegotiation of tariff if we wanted to go ahead there and, regardless, it was an excellent example of the sort of facilities and layout that a modern hotel would offer.

BK indicated that the other possible option (ETC near Liverpool Street) also looked very favourable in terms of details available on-line, and is within budget at a day delegate rate of £50, but as a business venue it may be less suitable to accommodate the intended networking after the event, and an alternate of decamping to a “nearby pub” in the City late on a Friday afternoon may not be appropriate.

BK showed the Committee the various facilities available at the Grange and this was received positively by the Committee.AJ then took the Committee through the latest agenda for the July event. Six key elements were noted:

1. BK has yet to formally secure the “Tripartite” representative, but there are a number of potential options including a Government Minister. All BK has cautioned is that, if it is someone from Government, we may have to be prepared to be more flexible on agenda timing and to have a contingency in case of last minute cancellation. This was acknowledged by the CommitteeAction 07/040516 – BK to lock down Tripartite representative arrangements before the proposed June meeting (see action 01/040516, above)

2. “Top 5 vulnerabilities and Top 5 responses”, whilst eminently suitable for a large audience, may actually be less beneficial than a scenario/case study for a smaller audience, especially as RV put it, if split into teams with good facilitators per table. This was acknowledged and the recommendation made that the final format be locked down at the proposed June meeting once the likely numbers of attendees have been gauged by then.Action 08/040516 – BK to add this to the agenda of the proposed June meeting to agree

3. The title for the Jan Collie presentation has still to be secured.Action 09/040516 – AJ to chase Jan (or via Pete Wood) for that title

4. JB indicated that the afternoon session had no break and three hours without a break seemed unwieldy. The Committee agreed.Action 10/040516 – AJ to rewrite the agenda to include a 15 minute break before Neil Stinchcombe, and reduce the time allocated to MS for wrap-up/summary at the end of the day

5. MS suggested the “Panel Session” needed a coordinator/chair, and AJ has agreed to do this.

6. The Committee agreed that the precise venue will need to be locked down once interest and registration numbers have been gauged and are targeting the proposed June meeting for making that decision. It may even be that we look to run the June meeting at the ETC by way of “business venue” comparativeAction 11/040516 – BK to take these matters into consideration when constructing the agenda for the proposed June meeting

MS thanked AJ and BK for the progress on what looks to be a very informative and exciting event.

o October 21st 2016 (3rd Friday in October) – Possible ARM/First Recovery event, Cambridge (but see action 04/040516, above). BK stressed the importance of all Committee members fulfilling previous action 24/180316 (past meeting minutes) in this regard

o December 16th 2016 (3rd Friday in December) – Forum AGM followed by Committee Christmas Lunch, location to be decided

o March 17th 2017 (3rd Friday in March) – Product recall process, location tba. BK has advised RT has kindly agreed to speak to this

Reclassification of the BCISEE Forum: Retained & Devolved Status

The Committee were pleased to acknowledge the excellent progress made by DW in securing an impressive series of volunteers to assist RT in setting up a new Forum for the part of the BCISEE Forum region south of London.

MS indicated that, from communications received thus far and from informal Committee evaluation, there were 3 main issues to discuss and resolve in responding to DW:

1. What we all think to the revised catchment areas?2. What the new Committee name(s) should be?3. Where the Committee(s) should meet?

MS provided the current BCISEE Forum map, and the new map proposed for the retained, devolved and London Forums, as supplied by DW. These are both attached herewith.

Original

Proposed

Initial Committee reaction is that the revised proposal represents a more significant change than expected both for the retained and for the devolved Forum, and a dislike for the suggested new monikers (“East” for retained, and “South East” for devolved).

The proposal suggests “East” should now include the PE post code district, and “South East” should now include the GU and PO post code districts. And SL, HP, AL, WD, HA, and UB post code districts seem to have been removed from either jurisdiction.

It is unclear to the Committee whether the suggested inclusions represent post code areas that are currently in “no man’s land” and not represented by any other BCI Forum? If they are then it may indeed make sense to attach these “near neighbour” post code districts to one or other of the new resultant Forums. But if the districts are currently represented by other Forums then there ought, in the Committee’s view, to be an open and collaborative discussion with the other Forums affected before any firm decisions are made.

It is also unclear to the Committee who would be picking up the postal districts that were no longer included, so that those who were formerly represented by a Forum did not find themselves not outside of catchment, nor find themselves allocated to another Forum without either the individuals or the Forums concerned being consulted.

Action 12/040516 – MS to ascertain from DW what the rationale is for the changing postal code inclusions and exclusions and whether there is a broader impact on other Forums too, and if so how covered?

BK suggested that it would be worth asking how the resultant, proposed jurisdictions are constituted in terms of numbers and grades as this should govern things like local Committee strategy and governance. He is aware, from the days that he was issuing communications to the catchment area direct 2-3 years ago that numbers totalled in the 2-3k, so it would be good to know what the split now would be. The Committee agreed that would be a useful metric.

Action 13/040516 – MS to query the numbers and grades split in the current proposal with DW

BK further suggested that, in light of the fact that the proposed map seemed to represent the need – in the BCI’s/DW’s eyes – for a more fundamental review of BCI Forum coverage, that maybe now was the time to suggest to the BCI generally an active look at the devolution of the Forum structure into a single UK Chapter. This would bring the UK into line with the rest of the world and would ensure, in the interests of inclusion, that every prospective and current UK member would automatically be covered by a single Chapter and not subject to the vagaries of the locations of existing Forums. Organisation of events could, BK contended, still be coordinated in local UK geographies by the Forum representatives, but there would be only one overarching Chapter and Management Committee. The Committee agreed that this suggested reform is probably worthy of airing.

Action 14/040516 – MS to draft a discussion presentation/document highlighting the SWOT analysis of current UK Forum structure and the advantages/disadvantages of transitioning to a single UK Chapter, supported by local representatives

Regarding the naming of the retained and devolved Forums, RV indicated that – sensibly – the split of the South East Forum into two separate areas (one in the East of the region and one in the South of the region) should lead to one being called “East” (retained) and one being called “South” (devolved).

The Committee recognised, however, that even this would lead to some degree of incongruity insofar as there are certain areas that would naturally, and rightly, consider themselves geographically as more “South East” than simply “South” (e.g. ME and CT); more “South East” than “East” (e.g. SS and RM); or more “South” than “South East” (e.g. PO and BN). There would also be other post code districts outside of the proposed jurisdictions that might see themselves as “East” or “South” as well.

BK summarised that a “points of the compass” moniker is unlikely to prove especially definitive and contended that, if the sub-division is intended to create greater clarity it really needed to be reflected in the overall names.

BK further suggested, in light of his personal and business experience with Lloyds TSB over the years, that in the interests of minimising confusion and for good governance, a complete change of name for both the retained and devolved Forums would make sense. BK summarised that the two separate entities “Lloyds” and “TSB” merged to become “Lloyds TSB” – and to this day there are still staff and customers who talk about whether their heritage is “green” (Lloyds) or “blue” (TSB) – and then changed to become “Lloyds Banking Group” when they acquired HBOS; however when the EU indicated that the resultant organisation needed to split for reasons of size, the retained and devolved entities once more became “Lloyds” and “TSB”, but not necessarily to the same split and

allocation as had formerly been the case! JB concurred and indicated that, as a lifelong Lloyds customer, had suddenly found himself banking with TSB because of the imposed sub-division.

In short, BK indicated that calling either the retained or devolved Forum “South East” would, in his view, be poor practice and potentially very confusing. The Committee agreed.

Action 15/040516 – MS will liaise with both DW and RT to try to determine a different naming convention which will avoid some of the inevitable pitfalls of retention of the “South East” name or the use of a “point of compass” moniker which may prove confusing

The Committee noted that proposals for the London, retained and devolved Forums included a reference to promotion (of events) being permissible across Forum borders but the hosting of meetings to be contained only within one’s own geography. The promotion of events to all was warmly welcomed and, indeed, AJ suggested that perhaps the Forum Terms of Reference (all BCI Forums) should simply indicate that geographic restrictions apply only to members of the Management Committee (i.e. the Committee for each Forum have to live or work in that area), and not to attendees who are welcome from anywhere.

JB went further in saying that perhaps all Forum events (regardless of geography) should simply be branded as BCI events, and not subject to the imposition of the Forum name, and therefore open to all. The Committee agreed.

Action 16/040516 – MS to raise this suggestion with DW

However the intended restriction on meeting location was actively disliked by the Committee, not least in that the topology of both the retained and the devolved Forums would mean, in order to travel to the extremities of each region, frequently travelling into and out of London. And therefore in some (but clearly not all) instances the most sensible location to optimise travel for all within the region might be to hold an event in or near the capital. This is a matter of simple logistics.

Additionally, though the Forum would like to have the flexibility to meet where-so-ever they choose if it makes sense to do so. A previous very beneficial Forum event had been held at the Thames Barrier, for example, in that the raising of the Barrier could have significant impact on the South East Region. Or there might be a desire amongst our members to have an “away day” looking at, say, the Eden project in Cornwall or the petro-chemical industry in Aberdeen, and would not expect to have to seek dispensation to do so.

Equally the Committee consider that we would have no problem with another Forum or Chapter holding occasional meetings within our own region if this is suitable and of interest.

Action 16/040516 – MS will feed back this viewpoint to DW, especially in light of the new era of cooperation and collaboration with the London Forum, and to suggest that the option of still having a meeting in one another’s jurisdiction is not excluded.

Any Other Business

BK referenced the excellent poster materials for the BC Awareness Week (BCAW), 16 th – 20th May 2016, and asked whether anyone on the Committee felt we should be doing more as a Forum surrounding that week. The sense was that, as BK had already started, to perhaps use the posters or

reference to BCAW in promoting the July cyber event to our own contacts, but that there was nothing else specifically planned.

Action 17/040516 – ALL to promote the July cyber event (http://peatix.com/event/165252) to our various contacts

BK indicated that DW had suggested the convention might be for the Committee to be allocated free attendance at the July cyber event, but that he was not overly comfortable with that. The Committee agreed and everyone indicated that they would be willing to “pay their own way” unless they were specifically tied up with doing administrative tasks on the day of the event, or were a main presenter (it was agreed that presenters should not be expected to pay as they are already giving up time, effort and materials for free).

Action 18/040516 – ALL to register for the July event

Action 19/040516 – MS to include the payment convention within the Committee Terms of Reference revision

Being no further business the meeting was drawn to a close at 445pm with MS thanking everyone for attendance and contributions.