Minutes of the cpd25 Steering Group
2pm, Chalk Suite, University of Westminster

In attendance: Mary Nixon (Chair), David Gee, Janet Smith, Michelle Wake, Judith Cattermole, Suzy Ball (Administrator)

1. Apologies: Carole Pickaver

2. Minutes of previous meeting: Accepted as an accurate record.

3. Financial Update: Suzy gave the group an update on the cpd25 finances thus far. Based on the events to date there is a projected surplus of approx £2000, in addition to the surplus carried over from previous years. A brief summary of the events that have made or lost money this year was also given.

4. Chairs Report from M25 Planning Meeting.

Various matters that impact upon the work of cpd25 were discussed at the meeting in March. Currently members pay three separate annual subscriptions to M25, inform25 and cpd25. As they are all mandatory, and the separate invoices often lead to confusion for members, it is hoped to amalgamate these payments as part of the planned harmonising of the banking system during the next financial year. As part of the debate concerning the consortium’s finances it was agreed that cpd25 should aim to make a 20% surplus over during 08/09. The group debated the impact of the need to make a surplus. It was felt that cpd25 could still plan to run events that do not break even but that these would need to be off-set by running events that make a slight profit. It was argued that retaining the good value of cpd25 events was very important and noted that the existing surplus in the cpd25 account is needed as a source of cash flow to enable us to put on events.

The Marketing and Communications Working Group are looking at the three brands that make up the consortium. A name change may occur along with a new homepage on the website.

The Task and Finish Working Group want to organise 2-3 events each year for the Director’s audience. Group members are to arrange themes, speakers, aims etc and Suzy will arrange venues. The Quality group may also wish to work in a similar vein. Mary will contact the M25 Directors to ask for event ideas to feed into the planning day.

The cpd25 work exchange scheme was also discussed. Judith and David agreed to meet to discuss how to improve and evolve the scheme.

5. Reports from Task Group Chairs

Noted: Reports from each task group were previously circulated via email.

David reported that the Career Development Task Group had recently had a brainstorming session and would like to alter their name in order to more closely match the remit of the group. It is also planned to alter the chartership series brand when organising the 08/09 programme.

Michelle informed the group of the changes in membership experienced by the Quality Standards and Legal Frameworks Task Group. Events previously planned for this year are now likely to run slightly later than planned or in a new form.

Suzy outlined the progress made by the Operations Management Task Group, based on the minutes of their February meeting. It was felt that the group need to focus their events more in line with their remit in 08/09.

Judith suggested that the Personal Effectiveness & Management Task Group could accommodate an additional member. All events planned for this year have now been organised.

Janet added that the User Resources and Services Task Group are now also planning their events for 08/09 and that the future programme will include the Inform25 roadshows and a systems librarian focussed event.

6. Discussion paper:

Noted: Written responses from the task groups were submitted via email.

Mary pointed out that the responses to the discussion paper ‘cpd25 in a Changing World’ had similar themes and said that the Task groups’ replies helped inform the debate at a recent M25 Steering Group meeting.

Audiences:  Mary suggested that events should have a clear audience in mind and that the intended audience should form part of the event description used for advertising.  NoWAL have devised a list of competencies that task group chairs may find useful to examine. The task group chairs present outlined the audiences currently provided for by the events put on by their groups and expressed the opinion that their remits were clear. Michelle thought that there was some potential overlap between the work of the Quality Standards group and the other groups in some instances. The Steering Group also expressed a need for the Operations Management Task Group to clarify their remit with a view to increasing their focus on ‘back room’ staff and related policy and procedures. Mary will contact Carole.

Timeliness: All task groups had reached a consensus that it takes a long time to plan the programme each year. The M25 working groups need to be aware of the planning cycle and long lead time involved.

Workload: All task groups felt that their groups were right size. This allows responsibility for an event to be shared between new and older group members. The costing model for working out the fee for events should be included in the new task group members packs.

Next Meeting: 15th July 2008, 10.30am, Room TBC, University of Westminster