Meeting: FHWB/Greater Together Merger Consultation

Date: 18th July 2017

Venue: Kings Court

In Attendance: Neil Coulson (NC), Angela Allen (AA), Dave Edmundson (DE), Debra Terras (DT), Claire Bennett, Sarah Swindley, Stewart Lucas, Sue Cotton, Catherine Bentley, Kishwar Mahmood, Angela Melling, Ed Saville, Mohammed Sidat, Paul Ireland, Stephen Jones, Amanda Meachin, Diane Price, Darren Burton, Adrian Leather, Shigufta Khan, Sam Morris, Lewis Turner

Agenda
Item / Comment: / Action
1. / Welcome
  • Introduction and overview of the day given by Neil Coulson
  • Welcome and position statements given by both Greater Together Consortium (DT) and Families Health and Wellbeing Consortium (DE).

2. / Consortium Landscape
  • A national perspective was given on the Consortium landscape (NC)

3. / Consultation with Commissioners
  • NC has undertaken some consultation with key commissioners – the outcome of which supported a merger of the two organisations

3. / Merger Process
  • Task Group – consisting of two senior members of staff, 2 Board members and the two chairs.
o  Due diligence to be undertaken by both organisations.
o  Draft business plan/ balanced score card.
o  Agree the route of the merger.
o  Inform the Charity Commission.
o  E.G.M’s to be held for all member organisations.
o  Staffing structure
o  Transition plans
o  Governance and membership
o  Brand identity and marketing strategy
  • All subject to resource element but could potentially be achieved in a six month period.

4. / Question and Answer Session with Attendees
5. / Workshop Discussions
  • Pros:
Benefits and opportunities will remain the same
Cost savings
Clarity for commissioners - 1 organisation to deal with/1 front door
Clarity for members
Less confusion
Greater numbers will lead to greater access to bigger contracts
Infrastructure sustainability
Geographical expertise 'evened out' (currently FHWBC - Pennine mainly, while GT is mainly Blackpool and Central - merge together -> better spread)
Better strategic positioning
Streamlining functions
Larger footprint
Merging of skills
One voice
Increase experience
Strengthen offer across Lancashire
Pull together resources and backroom staff
Consortia not competing against one another
Bigger player
Stronger competitive position - can challenge the primes
Only real option for long term development
Don't have to decide which bid to be part of (unlike currently, as member of 2 separate consortia)
  • Cons:
Not sure of impact for small organisations - joining both consortia was designed to increase our stability - hope this can be retained and our voice not lost
Potential loss of track record
Governance will be different - needs clarity
Just need to know about the governance and management structure
Management of contracts is done differently by 2 consortia - need to decide which way
What happens to existing contracts?
More groups bidding into the same pot - increased chance of securing smaller allocation or of not securing any funding at all (increased internal competition)
Danger of splitting money too many ways, which then makes it difficult to employ staff
Could be messy - 'operational v strategy'
Could be damage along the way
Individual organisations getting lost within larger structure
Loss of expertise
Possible loss of members
Single large consortium could dominate the market - therefore needs clear governance arrangements
Agreeing to a merger without ensuring that the 'offer' is right - this would create confusion and add no value
New factions starting up
  • N.B. Need “innovation” process
  • What the merger will look like will be predicated by agreeing the business plan.

6. / Questionnaire
  • Those in attendance completed the questionnaire - 14 in favour of the 2 consortia engaging in more detailed merger negotiations
3 indicated that they were neutral
  • Circulation to attendees and prompt members so as to get a good response rate.
  • KM and AA to ensure this is highlighted when circulated to those who have not been in attendance.
/ KM AA