ar
“UR USE OF NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OFFICERS ONLY
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUBPOSTMASTERS
REPORT OF A
MEETING OF THE
NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
held on
21 - 23 June 2004 I
at
THE GRIMSTOCK COUNTRY HOUSE HOTEL
WARWICKSHIRE
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
+ © National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
9 Report of a Meeting of the
ve National Executive Council
held on Monday, 21 June - Wednesday 23 June 2004
at the Grimstock Country House Hotel, Warwickshire
Those present: Mr Cyril Jones
Mr Mark Baker
Mrs Irene Bethell
National President and Chairman
Mrs Kam Matharu
Mr David Milner
Mr Alan Butlin Mr John Morris
Mr Mike Darvill Mr John Peberdy
Mr Norman Ferguson Mrs Sally Reeves
Mr Phil Howorth Mr Geoff Simpson
Mrs Trish Jenkins Mr George Thomson
Mr Mervyn Jones
In attendance Mr Colin Baker
Mr Kevin Davis
Mr John Willshaw
General Secretary
Senior Assistant General Secretary
Mrs Marilyn Stoddart Assistant General Secretary
THE PRESIDENT welcomed everyone to the first major Executive Council meeting of the
year, and specifically welcomed the new Executive Officers. He then outlined his vision
that the meetings should be to discuss the future of the organisation, not to look back at
the past. For the benefit of the new Executive Officers, THE PRESIDENT outlined the
way the meetings are set up and run according to Standing Orders, and suggested that
they should actually read the booklet to get a better understanding of some of the
formalities.
THE PRESIDENT informed the meeting that David Miller and Kevin Gilliland of Post Office
Limited would be coming along to talk, and that this was a very important day for the
history of the Federation. It was crucial that everyone treat the occasion a positive move,
and not attempt to ‘score points’.
The discussion was to be strictly to Chatham House rules, and that nothing mentioned
should be repeated in ANY form outside of the room. Any breach of this agreement would
damage our credibility, and potentially prevent discussions at such an honest level in the j
future. I
Ali REPORTS AND RESOLUTIONS
The Minutes of the Executive Council meeting of 14, 15, 16 and ;
17 March 2004 were signed as a true record. [DECISION
The Resolutions passed at the Executive Council meeting of 14,
15, 16 and 17 March 2004 were signed as a true record.
DECISION,
DECISION
The Minutes of the Executive Council meeting of 9 May 2004 were
signed as a true record.
Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004
Page 2 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential \
The Resolutions passed at the Executive Council meeting of \
9 May 2004 were signed as a true record. DECISIC } I
The Minutes of the Executive Council meeting of 12 May 2004 _ I
were signed as a true record. DECISION) I
The Resolutions passed at the Executive Council meeting of I
12 May 2004 were signed as a true record. DECISION I
Al2 MATTERS ARISING FROM THE REPORTS
There were no matters arising.
AI3. REPORT OF THE NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE
1. Future of the Post Office PO PZ
(a) e-Government Services PO PZ 02
THE GENERAL SECRETARY laid out the background for the i
benefit of new Executive Council members, and went on to report
that the Federation has spent £30,000 so far in legal fees and his
time. BT had invested £2.5 million. As we were turned down for
funding from the Office of the e-Envoy, BT would be selecting the
50 trial sites where they considered they would be most
commercially viable: However, in consultation with Multimedia,
the Federation have actually chosen 32 of the 50 sites. A
document is being prepared for presentation to the Office of the e-
Envoy to explain the project and assist in acquiring funding in the
future. Once it is up and running we will be approaching Local
Authorities and commercial concerns to use the kiosk. It is
planned to hold a launch event at, say, the Space Centre in
Leicester and invite them along to see the equipment. The
commercial element of the kiosk will make it sustainable. The
branding will be SubPostmaster Community Connect, however the _
design of the branding is still being worked on. (ACTION
_~
MR THOMSON asked how long it would be until it rolled out
nationally as members were under pressure from e-Daily. THE
GENERAL SECRETARY reported that the kiosk may not generate
any income during the pilot. At the moment it was not known what
will be paid. e-Daily are unlikely to survive, and payments are not
made as promised. Advice to anyone considering e-Daily is be
very careful not to sign a contract without considering the
conditions carefully, and do not expect to get any money.
MR PEBERDY pointed out that there was a possibility that
SubPostmasters signing a contract could be liable for the leasing
costs of the equipment even if e-Daily pull out.
Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 : Page 3 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
» © National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
Cr MR MORRIS asked if the up to date information regarding the trial
a3 could be put in the SubPostmaster journal so all members were
aware of the current situation.
THE GENERAL SECRETARY reported that the issue hinged on
the Office of the e-Envoy, and that once we had their agreement
we could publish anything we liked. If trial is successful the
nationwide roll out would commence before the 6 months, First
Toll out would include the Executive Officers. Trying to attract
Local Authorities, and other parties. We should not blame BT for
trying to strip down the costs.
MR DARVILL saw this as an opportunity to put a BT Open Zone
into every post office in the country.
THE GENERAL SECRETARY reported that for the trial, BT
wanted the NFSP to pay the £18,000 that the Office of the e- I
Envoy declined to pay to get the trial up and running. We
declined, as we were supplying the outlets. BT have agreed to
pay it all. The next stage will be for ‘twigs’ on the machines to
allow access wirelessly within 20 metres.
MR FERGUSON was disappointed that the trial was not taking
place as originally planned, and felt that BT now had control of the
project.
THE GENERAL SECRETARY responded that it was not ideal, i
“ however until now our only costs had been his time and around
“£30,000 for legal costs. BT had a whole team on the case. They
have 2 people going to every post office to ensure it is capable of
hosting a kiosk. They will install an IDSL line where required, !
provide the equipment free of charge, and undertake negotiations I
with major companies. BT will also provide a call centre 24 hours I
fi per day. We are negotiating with the Office of the e-Envoy and I
the Local Authorities. Multimedia are providing the TV screens
and getting the local advertising. He was confused as to how this
could be viewed as not in favour of the NFSP.
He also pointed out that if we paid the £18,000 we could do what
we wanted, however his judgement was to allow BT to fund the
trial at no cost to the NFSP.
MR MARK BAKER reported that Local Authorities had funds
available and may have been able to contribute to the trial, in turn
possibly attracting funding from the Office of the e-Envoy.
THE GENERAL SECRETARY reported that a document was
currently being prepared to be sent to all Local Authorities. He
needed to allay the myth that Your Guide was a success - it cost
£75 million for 6 months and made no money at all. Any solution
had to be commercially viable. {f this trial did not work, what
would we do with the 50 machines? - as it now stands, BT will
Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 _ ~~ Page 4 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential *
take them back. If we told BT the only way was our way, they
would have told us to find another partner. BT are carrying all the
tisk.
MR THOMPSON reported that he had grave doubts as to whether
the proposed system would ever come to fruition and be
successful. He wanted to spend his time and effort in projects that
will bring in money.
MR PEBERDY reported that Leicestershire Council will almost
certainly want to support the project. Your Guide was never set
up to be commercially viable.
MR MARK BAKER requested clarification on who would be
selecting the offices in the trial area.
THE GENERAL SECRETARY reported that the NFSP would be €
choosing 32 of the 50 trial offices in the area, with BT choosing 18.
Most of the Leicestershire Committee would have one. The whole
project if rolled out will cost around £125 million.
‘Executive Council Meeting
24-23 June 2004 Page 6 of 36
. © National Federation of SubPostmasters
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
Strictly Private & Confidential
Irrelevant
Executive Council Meeting
24-23 June 2004
Page 6 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential *
Irrelevant I
Executive Council Meeting " 24-23 June 2004 Page 7 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© © Nafianat Reclanmbiawn Ade annttnnnbtsnaaannnnnnnnininnnnnnniinieeenaannemntenente
ivate & Confidential
A presentation was made by Dave Miller and Kevin Gilliland of Post :
Office Limited. As this was held under Chatham House rules there is I
no record of either the presentation or discussions within that
session.
There followed a full, frank debate on the subjects raised.
MR THOMSON reported that he was finding it difficult to get new
SubPostmasters to join the Federation. Long term/medium term the
Federation as it was would not last much more than 5 years. We needed
to look at where we are going and restructure for the cost base. Part of
the Executive Council are all for us taking over and running Post Office
Limited. Others would support that if the Federation remained as an
entity. For the future, one way to look at getting 100% membership is if
we could identify one of the functions and take it over, for example the
provision of stores. We would not get our stores from Swindon. If we
could take over the function and charge a fee for providing them, we could
end up with 100% membership.
Executive Council Meeting 24-23 June 2004 " Page 8 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
As an organisation we needed to restructure. We had been marked as a
trade union. He saw himself as a businessman, in it to make money. He i
believed things would make people stay in the business. They were i
making a good living and could get it back. We had to put considerable I
efforts into making sure that members without a future get out of the door
with their dignity intact. I
I
I
I
\
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential I
I
I
I
MRS REEVES was interested to hear what Post Office Limited had to say
and believed they had come to us for help. She felt we should have two
objectives; one being to look at how we help them get the business back
into profit and deliver their business plan, in exchange for channelling
some profit back to our members. We should talk about buying the
business, but that would be a longer term issue.
We needed to work with the Business and not be perceived as a
hindrance. This may mean an educational programme for our members,
going out and explaining it all to the members, explaining the implications €
of the business plan on the individual SubPostmasters’ businesses. We .
had a huge role to play in the immediate future.
MR DARVILL felt that there were people in many offices as a second
career, who used to be in the Army or similar jobs, and had then bought
their post office. He felt we had too many members who are on the wrong
side of 50 (including himselfl) and need to get back to a stage where we
were respected in the High Street. The situation had got worse lately. We
need to get back some of the respect we are lacking. Many of the other
things will then fall into place. We need younger people in the business
rather than those on a second career. He did not feel that the size of our
organisation would allow taking over the Post Office. If we did, many
SubPostmasters would be looking for a new job as we would have to get
rid of many offices.
MR MARK BAKER, after looking at the ramifications of taking over the
company, felt is was a medium to long term avenue we should open up as iq
soon as possible. We should form a task force to undertake a feasibility
study. Problems need dealing with now. We have no guarantees that
help will be forthcoming. He felt we have been treated badly in recent
times which did nothing for their desire to be co-operative with the
business. Members could not see work drifting away quickly enough to
understand how much trouble they are in. ACT is behind programme, but
will be finalised by next year. We need to teach members to earn money
a different way. They need a different mentality to the big stick. They
need to stop treating us unfairly in disciplinary and security matters. If
they want to help us develop a programme, they need to look at some
corporate projects, save money, and put the cash into PRAG to allow it to
go ahead and to engage in talks on new products. He felt we needed to
hear more.
Executive Council Meeting "24-23 June 2004 - “Page 9 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
t j MR BUTLIN thought they were going to talk about PRAG, and pointed out
that no one asked them about it when it should have been asked. He said
they were reluctant to meet prior to the Executive Council meeting, and
the letter we have not received has gone to the Board. Many years ago
we looked at the possibility of a buy out. We went to the City and
discussed the matter with merchant banks. They thought it was hilarious -
and wanted to know why would anyone want to buy into a business that
had no money, loads of debt and no future contracts. They were very
unimpressed.
It would be worth looking at the costs of some of the services that the I
business pay for. It is essential that it is done. The NFSP have nothing to
lose by looking at these things, and may be able to make substantial
savings. On cash delivery, maybe members could go to the banks.
The Federation could not exist too long at it existed now, and it was not
moving fast enough. He felt more meetings should be like this. He felt
Dave Mills did not need a network. He could have leaflets in garages,
shops, etc. He did not feel that Dave Miller went far enough. He
suggested we investigate the cost of the services we get. If we took over
the business, we would end up negotiating with ourselves which would
prove suicide.
MR MERVYN JONES said that it was over 20 years since his first
conference and Post Office Limited talked about trust and how important it
was. 20 years on and he was hearing the same message again. Talking
about partnerships. He felt he did not doubt Dave Miller's sincerity, but he
did doubt Gordon Steele’s and others wish to work with the Federation
long term. Short term it would be a necessity. He saw we had no choice,
He was interested in the self-regulation aspects to encourage our people I
to deliver a service of quality, and felt we should be encouraging people to I
1 deliver on behalf of the business and themselves. He felt strongly that a i
; better retail line would help produce successful SubPostmasters. We i
could help each other through networking sessions and develop the
profitable side of their business,
We should have a symbol group of our own to run in conjunction with Post
Office amalgamating the two concepts that are working on the ground at
the moment and feed it to everyone. He felt Dave Miller was adamant that
a management buy out is on the cards for the future and did not think we
should let that happen without our involvement, and that we must work
with them. We needed to set ourselves up to be in a position when the
time is right and the business turns the corner so we will have a much
reduced network, but a profitable network with people making decent
money. It is important that we are ready to go ahead and act at that time.
We may need to move in association with the management or
independently to buy the business.
‘Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 7 Page 10 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
t
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
Short term he was for a partnership with them. Long term he agreed with
Mr Mark Baker that a working party should be set up with a view to
investigating the possibility and to keep an eye on the situation. He was
not sure exactly how this would work. We would need to look at what we
need to do to deliver in 4 years time. A seat on the Board would be the
first stage. He proposed that from our Executive Council we set up a
working group to investigate and keep an eye on the possibilities of either
in conjunction with the management or on our own of buying the business.
This was seconded by Mrs Jenkins. I
MR HOWORTH was not sure whether Dave Miller wanted us with him or if
he wanted to push us in a particular direction or not.
THE PRESIDENT pointed out that he personally put a motion to
Conference 15 years ago regarding buying the business, and was not
against buying it. He was for buying a business that was already P
successful. He would not want to look at buying the business we have at ¢
the moment.
He would want to look at buying a business that we are going to ensure is
there at the right time for us to buy it. At the moment it is unionised, it is
over subscribed with people, it is using technology that is already
outdated, methods of distribution that are not the best, and methods of
supervising SubPostmasters that are not the best way of doing it. Before
we look at the business, we should look at getting it into a shape to buy it.
We should consider some of the items raised like supplying our own cash,
buying our own stock - and the fundamental implications of these things
for the business. If we buy our own cash or our own stock, where wass
the need for cash handling and distribution? Savings could be made.
Where was the need for a security and audit function if the cash and stock
you are supplying was already yours? Ata stroke you would cut the costs
of the business and the head count. Disband cash handling and iq
distribution which is the most unionised part of the operation. It then starts
to look not so bad.
We are saying how bad Post Office Limited are, but how bad is our side?
How proud would you be of the chain of outlets? The whole thing is about
money. The reason it is bad out in the field is that there is not enough
money to make it better. We must do some preparatory work before we
start to think about it. He was not sure about having someone on the
Board at the moment. They would want some equity before that could
happen. Itis unlikely that Dave Miller would be able to talk to us about it
as he is a Director of the company. When you put some money up front
and do due diligence on the books, you can start talking about it.
We need to keep buying the business on the back burner, but always
knowing that we are the SubPostmasters buying ourselves, and would
have to make harsh decisions about how we dispose of the outlets we do
not want. We would probably not have support from Government to do it.
Executive Council Meeting 24-23 June 2004 ~ Page 41 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
an. We need to look hard at sorting out what savings we can help Post Office
<7 Limited to make, in order to make more money available to us. Dave
Miller said he will change the way our computer operation runs. The small
terminal being shown later is the precursor to. that and it runs almost
automatically.
MR THOMSON said he understood their aspirations to own the business,
and that we need to take an axe to the costs. The Working Group should
look at the shape and future direction of the NFSP. It was not working at
the moment. He wanted to amend the motion to be to form a Working
Group on the future shape and direction of the NFSP to encompass the
previous motion but allow other items as well. Not seconded.
MR PEBERDY encapsulated what he thought we had heard as a plea to I
help the Business. We have to decide if we want to do that in the form I
that we may have to do it. Could entail a number of SubPostmasters who
do not see themselves as retailers being talked to. I
There is the argument that there is not enough money for SubPostmasters
to put their offices into order. He believed he had heard that unless we
supported the Business in getting them to tidy up their offices, they would
be unable to deliver the banks and other business. as clients will go
elsewhere as our offices are scruffy.
At the moment we are being threatened with our contracts unless we do it.
We have to decide if we support that or not. He believed that Dave Miller
was saying that if we wanted the rest of the management team to accept
, US, We need to be in a shape that says we are a forward thinking
organisation, prepared to accept standards and see that standards are the
future. .
Got invited to the 1% Club in the Midlands. Felt like different
SubPostmasters to those who attend branch meetings. They were all
about getting money for themselves by the way they marketed their
offices. They were thinking for themselves how they were going to market
car insurance, slogans, etc. They were sharp and the ones who don't
come to Federation meetings. That is why Dave Mills, who has met those
SubPostmasters, thinks of the Federation as backwoodsmen. All we talk
about is money, all we talk about is opposition, all we talk about is not I
taking the organisation forward.
He liked the idea talked about round the NC table of using one of the
specific functions as a toe in the water. Maybe let SubPostmasters use
someone else to move their alarm, cheaper than Romec. We have to get
SubPostmasters to accept that they are going to pay that cost, but to do
that we would have to take the overhead from the Post Office and put it in
their pockets to do it. He felt he heard a plea from Dave Miller to try one
of these,
Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004. ~ Page 12 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
He felt we really did need our own symbol group to add value. Perhaps
we could use the logistics/distribution arm of stores to enhance it, unless
we piggyback on someone else. Perhaps SubPostmasters would buy
their stamps up front if they got more for it and got a deal from Royal Mail
to stop them going to so many other places. Only go to retailers because
they get money before stamps are sold.
We needed to look at the shape of the Federation for long after we have
left it, for it’s future or all our years’ work will have been in vain.
MR MARK BAKER clarified that the motion was to set up a Working Party
to look into ways of approaching buying into the Business, and that we
needed to do something. He felt managers were getting organised to bid
for the company. We would have to commit some resources and finance
to do so, but if we didn't do it now, it would be too late. It would only be a
Group of enquiry purely to gather facts and report back. We would then
be prepared if someone made a move. We needed to be prepared this
time.
an
THE GENERAL SECRETARY reported that it was already a policy of this
organisation, under Motion 47 of this year. In every respect we have to
decide where we are going to go as an organisation. We have to take the
members with us.
We had other motions saying no training without pay, ballots of members,
etc. and we are in danger of losing touch with the members. We need to :
think about how much of a trade union we are. !
We didn’t have a commercial function, but we introduced one. How
valuable are we as a trade union to our members? We fail to deliver for
them. We need to go back to where we were with a vision of bright stores
on the High Street and raise the bar. We need to look at your businesses
as one business. We need to talk about the Post Office and what we can ¢
do for them. We need to look at dealing with cash handling ourselves.
We need to consider it. We need to decide if we are big enough to go in
and work with Post Office Limited.
If we are going to have Working Groups, we should have working groups
to do work and explore the possibilities that might be there. We need to
look at Romec, never forgetting that we need standards. We need to look
at the private side and do more. We need to look at a symbol group for
the top 2,000 office with our branding alongside the Post Offices. Below
that there could be an affinity group.
Royal Mail vans visit every day and it wouldn't take much to prove they
have the biggest logistics company in the country. However, it is
important that we take the members with us. We should pursue the
motion, and give it to whoever wants to do it, but we also need to work
towards goals for tomorrow and the future.
_ Executive Council Meeting "24-23 June 2004 Pade 13 ef 36
~ © National Federation of SubPostmasters
MR WILLSHAW believed we were being asked to help. The offices doing
Bureau at the moment are being offered a better deal - where do we
stand? Some will want to make an extra 1%. Do we have the right to say
no. Dave Miller needs our help to govern what work is being done. Do we
stop the cherry picking?
MR MILNER felt the 5 year plan view shown by Dave Miller was a red
herring. The what we want and what we need was the main question
being asked, and we were being asked to support their vision for the
future.
David Mills has been to meetings and seen negativity and fear in the
network. He wants support from us to overcome that. Needs to change
pessimism into optimism. We will be charged with collaborating, with not
being realistic with what is happening in the network, it is impacting on
SubPostmasters pockets.
We need to share in communicating the message out with Post Office
Limited, of the change to banking and financial services supplying a
secure future. The prize will be the strengthening of the partnership and a
belief by the senior managers that the Federation can be forward looking.
Perhaps we have spent 4 years working for a vision that is not going to
become a reality. My work for the Federation has had the same vision.
Have always been sure that the network will survive in some form.
Difficult journey. Maybe a joint letter from the Federation and Post Office
Limited based around what was discussed at conference, that the big
brand can be the way forward. Proposed that the General Secretary and
Chairman of the Negotiating Committee meet with David Mills and Dave
Miller to produce a joint letter to go to individual SubPostmasters
reassuring them that the future can be successful. Seconded by Mr
Danvill.
MR BUTLIN clarified that Motion 47 related to an independent report, and
that Mr Mervyn Jones was suggesting an internal working party. He
asked if we had the necessary capacity on the Executive Council to
undertake a report ourselves.
THE PRESIDENT pointed out that before putting a report to an outside
agency, we would put together a Working Party to decide on who we were
approaching and what the terms of reference were. For that reason it
could be the same motion and he believed it was.
MR DARVILL reported that we employed Staffordshire Business School
some years ago who did a superb job on making us think in a different
way about the business and whether we could take it over and run it. He
Suggested we approach someone like them to do the same thing.
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
Strictly Private & Confidential
Executive Council Meetina ~~ 24-23 June 2004
Pane 14 of 38
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
THE GENERAL SECRETARY pointed out that we cannot approach I
something like this with rose coloured spectacles. We need an objective :
report for the Executive Council to consider. We should by all means '
commission an independent report, but he suggested we did not need to I
find another committee of people. We need to commission an I
independent report as instructed by the motion, and while that is I
happening, we need to get on with the business of the day which is to try I
to raise the game. He smells smoke out there and wasn’t sure if Rome I
was burning, but we really needed to get on with something now. I
I
MR MERVYN JONES reported that an independent report would give us
the situation as it was at the time of the report, but he didn’t want to buy it
now, he saw it as an opportunity for the future. The Working Group to
review the subject would be a moving feast as the timing would be critical.
In 18 months time the business may have turned the corner. In 4 years
time they may be making £% billion worth of profit. They are developing a
range of products that he was convinced would turn the business around.
An independent report would say at the moment do not buy the business.
The management are interested in buying it. We cannot let them buy it
without substantial involvement from us. Could maybe have a joint buy
out, He felt it would be wrong to commission a report now. We need a
working group to review things before the business turns the corner. The
trick is to buy it just before it turns the corner.
Some of us had lively post offices. Some of us were doing quite well. We
do need to raise the bar. The ones at the bottom of the heap are
absolutely dire. We need to work in partnership with the Business. There
will be savings if we decide to buy our own cash and stock. Will achieve a
reduction in core expenses to move the business forward. He was all in
favour of working for a short-term partnership. We would have to make
decisions about rural closures, but they would have to be made anyway.
We would need to ensure that savings and money generated from the ¢
savings is put into the pockets of SubPostmasters for redeveloping their
outlets.
There was talk about support for those who wish to leave, but we needed
to look at how we are going to protect those who want to stay and fight.
There was over emphasis on the wrong aspect. Mr Mark Baker
mentioned priorities; we needed to work towards a long term goal. He
then moved his motion. “From our Executive Council we set up a working
group to investigate and keep an eye on the possibilities of either in
conjunction with the management or on our own of buying the business.” DECISION
MR MERVYN JONES asked if the Council would be happy to take advice
on how to move forward and set up a working party.
MR PEBERDY clarified that this was something that appeared under A3.
You were asking for the Committee to look after it, The proposer is a
member of that Committee - the Negotiating Committee.
Executive Council Meeting ~~ 24-28 June 2004 Page 16 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
7) THE PRESIDENT clarified that a motion had been passed wanting a
committee to look at, and keep a watching brief, on the possibility of
buying Post Office Limited. The future of the Post Office came under A3
which is the Negotiating Committee. Mr Mervyn Jones is part of the
Negotiating Committee.
MR DARVILL pointed out that just because it was under A3 does not
mean it was a Negotiating Committee matter, and that there were other
people who would like to take part. He asked why it had to be the
Negotiating Committee.
MR MARK BAKER said that the Negotiating Committee had much work to
do. One member of the Negotiating Committee should head up the
working party, but use other people to make up the body of the working
party. Important to decide what size the working party should be.
THE PRESIDENT asked for ideas.
MR BUTLIN did not agree that they were looking for a management buy I
out. He thought they have problems and needed our help. They were
asking us to help to discipline our members.
He felt that talking about a buy out when we are not entrepreneurs but
SubPostmasters was not sensible. We are being asked to bite the hand
that feeds us. Would like a working party to discuss getting alternative
services into the business. Dave Miller made it clear that if we went that
way, he would help. He therefore proposed that we take up the offer of
having a working party with Dave Miller to discuss services.
THE PRESIDENT interjected that in the interests of carrying on with a
productive debate we should move the appointment of the committee to I
A8 on the agenda as it was there that Motion 47 was discussed.
MR MILNER restated his motion that the Chairman of the Negotiating
Committee and the General Secretary meet with Post Office Limited to
produce a joint communication reinforcing the message in relation to the
motion on the future of the Post Office network supported at conference,
including an affirmation of the belief of the Executive Council in the future
of the network. Seconded by Mr Darvill.
MR MARK BAKER commented that joint letters worried him. They could
be taken the wrong way by our members and his understanding was that
the letter would merely reaffirm that we needed to work more closely with
the Post Office. Many members would feel it is all very well the
Federation declaring their brand loyalty, but we didn’t have much coming
back their way from Post Office Limited.
He felt it was premature for this sort of statement to be made. Post Office
Limited had not handed over anything to demonstrate they were serious
about working closer with us. It could be taken the wrong way if the letter
was sent at this time.
Executive Council Meeting 24-23 June 2004 “Page 16 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential *
Maybe the Chairman of the Negotiating Committee could have a meeting
to start getting the Business to demonstrate in financial terms that
changes in working practices should take place. Do not support the
motion.
MR THOMSON agreed with Mr Mark Baker. We needed to work with
management towards a better future. The network does have a future, but
for many members there was no future for them. He felt it would be wrong
to put out a letter at this stage.
MR MERVYN JONES asked if perhaps we should be feeding back to
David Mills our cooperation to try and build up our assistance to reduce
core expenses of the business and the savings achieved through things
we have suggested are subject to negotiation to return to SubPostmasters
and encourage them to reinvest in their business.
MRS REEVES felt it was premature to write a letter. We need to engage
with Post Office Limited to find out how far they are prepared to go. Were
we capable of meeting them half way? They may ask for things we are
going to have to be brave about, and maybe points of issue we cannot
concede on. See what happens before letters are sent.
We should utilise the tools we have like the journal, be more positive at
branch meetings, challenge SubPostmasters more and tell them to raise
their game.
MR BUTLIN pointed out that Kevin Gilliland had made a brief statement
that he acknowledged that trust from Post Office Limited was not there
and that he would try and build that trust. He felt we should give him a
chance and when he had done it and we have a solid basis to move
forward, then we should send a letter. It was too early at the present time.
MR DARVILL mentioned that the subject had got a debate going. He felt ¢
there was some merit in the idea. He felt it should not be a joint letter but
one from the Federation, and that it would give the Chairman of the
Negotiating Committee and the General Secretary something to hold on
the Post Office to help with negotiations. They could use the line of if you
want our co-operation, start paying. It may not be the correct time to write
now, but it could be used in the future.
MR MILNER explained that he never said it would be an easy message to
get across. We were in this until the end. We have been fighting long and
hard to get a successful network. Dave Mills has already communicated
with SubPostmasters with the message he gave to those at conference.
What harm in a joint message that the Federation supports his view. We
do not have time, he will not hang around. We need to act and give some
reassurance to SubPostmasters that we’ do see a future for the network
and he thought the joint letter would do exactly that - it would give both the
Post Office and the Federation’s view, and would commit Post Office
Limited as well as the Federation to the words. {ic ¢
21-23 June 2004 Page 17 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
. © National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
~~, MR MARK BAKER felt the Negotiating Committee should go and take up
q ) Kevin Gilliland’s offer and recreate the trust. We needed something to
show the members that the Post Office are genuine. In turn we needed to
ask them to change the way they work and their attitude. Post Office have
demonstrated by what we have extracted from them, and that will be the
time for a letter pointing out that this was all they are going to have to work
with in 18 months time. The immediate future means engaging in talks to
right some of the wrongs. We still didn’t have pay sorted out. We didn't
have PRAG sorted out. That would show some commitment. We could
get some gains on these issues to demonstrate a fairer way of looking at
each other.
MR PEBERDY reported in the confines of the debate, that he felt that one
of the things we were given today was an olive branch being offered by
Kevin Gilliland of more honesty. He felt he would share more information I
with us to enable us to negotiate properly. He felt he was shocked at that i
first meeting that we walked out on his first day. Since then the
Negotiating Committee meetings where Kevin Gilliland has been present
have been more purposeful, and we would willingly embrace what Mr j
Mark Baker said. There are some green shoots of that which will come up I
in our report. I
He did believe as leaders of the organisation that before the end of the
Executive Council Meeting that there should be a coherent policy as to
where we are going. There are some bitter pills for a trade union to
deliver to its members. We may be better thought about by those who do
not attend branch meetings, and by those who see us as negative. We
may be accused of listening to members too much. We listen at
conference and how many people go to conference? If you go to a branch !
meeting, how many people actually attend? Perhaps we should go and
ask them to tell us what we should do.
Somewhere along the line if we are going to have what the public perceive
( as a strong brand under which we make our livings, we have to decide
what we support and what we don’t. We have to encompass a method of
delivering the bitter pill of reducing the rural network. We have a
membership we know cannot survive in rural locations. We have to bite
the bullet. There will become a time when if offices are not going forward
in a certain direction, and after certain amounts of perceived help and they
don’t want to go down that route, we will need to look for a better
SubPostmaster.
Would like to hear Council's coherent view of which way we do go
forward.
THE PRESIDENT explained that the discussions had several threads
running through. The Post Office itself needs to get smarter and less
expensive. We need to get smarter and better at what we do. We need to
smarten up, accept change, we need to some extent to forget the
commission side and look at growing volume, growing sales and
generating commission in spite of ourselves.
Executive Council Meeting 24-23 June 2004 Page 18 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential *
We have talked about ways of helping Post Office Limited to cut costs - -.
the provision of cash, provision of stock and changes to the way it was j
done.
We also need to look at the SubPostmasters businesses. It now has to be
a dual approach. The days of stand alone post offices are long gone. It
would be necessary for us to help SubPostmasters as we are an ongoing
aid to them to find the level of business on the retail side and offers which
would be suitable to them. We needed to ensure they have accessibility
to those things and use them.
It would give them more than one leg to the stool, with that and the Post
Office saving money leaving more money for them giving two legs to the
stool. The third leg will be the standards of the offices. It will be essential
that they grow in their standards that they display to customers.
We needed to become more like a franchise, to try and encourage people €
to raise standards. It was a new message that will have to go out from us.
He put a motion that the Executive Council through the Chairman of the
Negotiating Committee and the General Secretary engage with Post
Office Limited to identify opportunities of developing future initiatives
where the NFSP can be the conduit for SubPostmasters to benefit from
cost reductions brought about by SubPostmaster involvement in the
provision of cash, stores and other centrally provided services and to
maximise opportunities to provide quality offers to SubPostmasters
towards the creation of viable private businesses and to champion the
cause of higher more constant standards within post offices across the
entire network.
MR MARK BAKER said that we had to pay attention as to where this
could end up. What we were talking about was changing our contractual
position with the Post Office. To do the things suggested would mean that
contracts are not relevant and would impact on the contractual relationship ¢
between the Federation and Post Office Limited. Would bring us more
towards a trade association than a trade union. Once achieved we could
help our members to deal with conformance. We could negotiate with the
signwriters and get a better deal. We could get a better deal on carpet,
screens, and many other things. This would keep members loyal to the
Federation. Not just staying as we are and helping the Post Office move
forward, we are talking about necessary fundamental changes.
MR PEBERDY thought that the motion would enable us to start the ball
rolling with our commercial arm. We could do those things. We had our
own sign once. The delay in us doing it was that we have not had a
commercial arm full time who could have sourced those things. We run a
very small ship. Under a new commercial arm we could target someone
whose job that was. We have only been prevented by limited resources in
headquarters and our commercial arm. Restricted because of the
diversity of where they had to pick it up. This would be the remit of the
new person.
24-23 June 2004 ~ Page 19 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
* © National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
oO THE PRESIDENT took a vote on the motion which was carried
t
unanimously. [DECISION
Irrelevant
Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© Nationa! Federation of SubPostmasters. Strictly Private & Confidential «I
Irrelevant I
Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 ~ Page 21 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
i i {
Executive Council Meeting 24-23 June 2004 Page 22 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
_ I
© Nationa! Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential ~
‘Executive Council Meeting 24-23 June 2004 Page 23 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters i i Confidential
Irrelevant _ ...
Executive Council Meeting "21-23 June 2004. Page 24 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential ~
I
i i I
i i I
i i I
i i i
' ¢
i \
i la
\
Executive Council Meeting ” 21-23 June 2004 ~ Page 25 of 36
- © National Federation of SubPostmasters
Irrelevant
Debt Recovery PC SC 27
MR PEBERDY reported that we had had another shot at this
Situation. It was discussed at the Negotiating Committee meeting
on Sunday. Needs further work, and specific examples.
Document as written covers eventualities. What we are hearing is
about interpretation in the field. No use us making agreements,
Post Office Limited producing documents and then not being
implemented correctly. We have some examples and ask the
Council to allow us to take it back.
MR DARVILL produced an example of an open postal order, many
Council members had never seen one. Need to be bar coded so
they cannot be forged. We should do something about these
cases as SubPostmasters are being held responsible.
MR MARK BAKER commented that there seemed to be little
indication that we could represent out members. Will lose
confidence of our members if we put our name to such a process.
Should write to Post Office Limited telling them that we do not
agree with this, and to our members, and challenge it. They have
to demonstrate a fair and equitable system of proof, evidence
giving and ideally outside adjudication. He proposed that we
didn’t send the Negotiating Committee for further negotiations. If
we take out the Crown Offices, it was down to about £21 per office
per year. Why do they need these elaborate systems? They have
systems already, whey aren't they using them? He proposed that
we write to the Post Office and say no to the system.
THE GENERAL SECRETARY accepted all that had been said
about making good sums of money following on from excellent
forgeries. Had one at Shoreham and he couldn’t see what was
wrong. However, the instructions clearly said that you must
ensure that the Shakespeare hologram was on a card. However,
when there is an error and the SubPostmaster is found to be at
fault we are talking about a debt recovery system. Paragraph 5,
Principles, seems to have been completely forgotten as it lays out
exactly what should be in place before they seek to recover the
debt. This programme puts in place another means of a
SubPostmaster making good sums to avoid getting the sack. The
starting point was the contract which clearly states that the
SubPostmaster must make good sums of money. There should
be an appeal to ensure that the balance of probabilities is
satisfied. If we removed this process, what other mechanisms
were open to the Post Office other than termination of contract.
Though this may not be ideal, it was one stage better than we
previously had.
Strictly Private & Confidential
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
‘Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004
7 Page 26 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential ~
MR DARVILL commented that on the old system there used to be
something called sympathetic consideration which was now
missing. We needed a fair system, and this one did not allow for
the very good forgeries that were now appearing, and also
introduced a discussion on the ownership of a ‘bounced’ cheque.
THE GENERAL SECRETARY explained that this was not to do
with debt recovery. He responded regarding the ownership of the
cheque. The bank returned it to the Post Office and the Post
Office paid, therefore the Post Office owned the cheque. When
you made it good, you owned it. Things were tighter than they
were, £13 million was out in the network not being made good.
May be down to lax management. Maybe now it has gone too far
and we need to write and say we don't like Tony Marsh's attitude
to losses.
MRS BETHELL asked about cases where all checks were made €
but the cheque book and cheque card were stolen so the banks
refuse to pay.
MR PEBERDY reported that this would be outside the balance of
probability, and the SubPostmaster should not be asked to pay.
Post Office Limited asked what happened in the case of a forged
£20 note being taken on the private side - who pays?
MR MARK BAKER proposed that the Negotiating Committee go
and negotiate an appeals procedure where a member can gather
his evidence and go for an interview with the appropriate level of
management, represented by someone from the Federation and
argue his case before any debt recovery process is put into place.
However, before such talks are started we should write requiring
them to suspend all activity currently in place.
m=
MR PEBERDY was happy to go back and ask for an appeals
process, and mentioned that we had been asked to nominate
someone for the REM appeals panel and Mrs Sally Reeves had
been nominated.
MR THOMSON reported that most SubPostmasters do make
good their error notices. If someone felt strongly enough, there
must be an appeals process. He felt that we should make it clear
to Post Office Limited that if they were not prepared to introduce
an appeals process, then we would not accept the rest of the
process.
MR DAVIS had checked the contract at the end of Section 18,
Paragraph 5 and it states “Appeals on all other issues for example
recovery of losses caused by SubPostmasters negligence are
heard by the Regional General Manager whose decision is final.”
“Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 _ Page 27 of 36
~ © National Federation of SubPostmasters
immediately.
The appeals process was a contractual right - this process did not
remove that right. We would write to Dave Miller and explain that
we resented the fact that we had entered into an agreement and it
appeared to be being used wrongly as the first thing they are
doing was taking money out of salaries.
MR DARVILL reported that forgeries are now getting past the
checking machines, and raised some specific cases where
robbery was involved.
MR PEBERDY reported that many points had been raised to the
Security Division and we are awaiting their response. One point
was that whilst the procedure outlined could be good advice and
sound advice, it should not be contractual.
MR MARK BAKER commented that until such time as the
situation is clarified, the Contract Managers have instructions to
remove payments from wages.
THE GENERAL SECRETARY requested that every case be sent
to Shoreham that was outside the process to be followed up
Strictly Private & Confidential
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
Executive Council Meeting
21-23 June 2004
Page 28 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential .
Irrelevant I
Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 Page 29 of 36
© National Federation of SubPostmasters
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
Strictly Private & Confidential
Irrelevant
Executive Council Meeting
21-23 June 2004.
~ Page 30 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
tional Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
ao
Irrelevant
oan
Executive Council Meeting - 21-23 June 2004 Page 31 of 36 i
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters
Strictlv.Private & Confidential
DECISION)
ACTION)
Irrelevant I
Executive Council Meeting “24-23 June 2004
Page 32 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential * I
© Nation:
I ¢
x
Irrelevant I
Executive Council Meeting a 21-23 June 2004 Page 33 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
* © National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
Irrelevant I
Executive Council Meeting _ 21-23 June 2004 Page 34 of 36
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
ional Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential ~
Irrelevant I
Executive Council ‘Meeting ~~ 34-23 June 2004 - Page 35 of 36°
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
Irrelevant
‘Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 ~ ~~ Page 36 of 36°
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
’
mt
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
CIRCULATION: NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL At
MS/LW FM OG 02 02
6 August 2004
CIRCULATION: _ NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COUNGIL
‘General Secretary: COUN BAKER
Senlor Assistant General Secretary
Kevin Dans
Assistant General Secretary
‘Manin STODDART
Dear Executive Officer
MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING -— 21 ~ 23 JUNE 2004
Please find attached the minutes relating to items A4 — A16 on the agenda for the
above meeting.
Yours sincerely
MARILYN STODDART
Assistant General Secretary
im
>
im
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
{ i
Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 Page 37 of 62
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential *
Irrelevant I
I BeTION
Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 a Page 38 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters
Irrelevant
DECISION
Executive Council Meeting 7 21-23 June 2004
“Page 39 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential ~
I DECISION
I
I
I DECISION I
Irrelevant I
[DECISION
Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 ; Page 40 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
Irrelevant
Executive Council Meeting 24-23 June 2004 ~ Page 41 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
Irrelevant
[DECISION
fAcTIO!
(ACTION
(ACTION
Page 42 of 61
‘Executive Council Meeting "34-23 June 2004
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
\ i i
SiON
Training FM MS 04
(a) Retail Academy — Report of Pilot and Way Forward FM MS 04
MRS JENKINS reported that Induction workshops had been
delivered on a group basis across 3 Regional Development
Agency areas, North West (Preston College), South East (North
West Kent College) and North East (City of Sunderland and
‘Executive Council Meeting ~ 24-23 June 2004
Page 43 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential -
Stockton Riverside Colleges). Operationally, delivery of the
induction workshops had required an IT supported environment to
be able to use the diagnostic tool. Subpostmasters had needed to
go to a supported venue. The necessity to make arrangements to
leave the business and/or give up spare free time was a barrier
resulting in a number of no shows at the one day workshops, I
evidenced by the fact that 60 out of 187 registering I
Subpostmasters failed to attend.
Whilst feedback from those attending the first workshops had
been very positive, it was felt that having to travel to these events
may have contributed to the high level of “no-shows” and
therefore, a different approach was needed to overcome the issue.
Building on the feedback from the initial induction workshops a
two-session workshop had now been developed that uses a paper
based diagnostic tool, which can be delivered at NFSP branch
meetings and then followed up on a one-to-one basis with C
individual members. The paper based version of the diagnostic
tool was easier to complete and could then be input later into the
same computer programme to produce an assessment of the
Subpostmaster's learning needs. The college can then discuss
this on a one-to-one basis at a time that is convenient to the
member. The development of the paper based diagnostic means
that instead of having to ask Subpostmasters to travel to attend a
workshop, Retail Academy College partners were able to bring the
workshop to branch meetings and a follow up with the results
could be done by visiting the member's Post Office at a
convenient time.
A letter had been sent to Branch Secretaries offering the Retail
Academy as a guest speaker for the evening at an existing branch
meeting or, alternatively, arranging a meeting specifically for this
purpose, with the facility for a paper based diagnostic workshop.
The P & D are waiting to see what the response to this is.
MRS JENKINS added that the pilot was a joint one, which
included the National Federation of Retail Newsagents although
they were not as far advanced as the Federation were in holding
induction workshops.
The P & D Committee have had discussions with Retail Academy
and North West Kent College, who would be willing to run an
induction workshop specifically for the Executive Council.
MRS JENKINS in response to a question from MRS REEVES on
the new paper based diagnostic tool being used at a Branch
Meeting, informed Council that the meeting was an ordinary
Branch Meeting and Retail Academy had been invited to attend as
guest speaker and engage with Subpostmasters.
Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 - Page 44 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
c MR THOMSON was of the opinion that training was important, but
} he felt that the Federation as an organisation should approach
Post Office Ltd to change their structure, ie fewer Retail Line
Managers and provide Retail Advisors. He added that the
Federation ask Post Office Ltd to source a provider though the
Federation's trading arm.
MRS REEVES shared her concern on the length of time spent on
training and there being very little take up.
MRS JENKINS believed the reason for no shows was that people
were being taken away from their offices.
THE NATIONAL PRESIDENT asked for clarification on a meeting I
in the North East. MR DAVIS responded by saying there was a I
problem because there were only four branches with a total of 500
members that would have been eligible because of the colleges
catchment areas. Also the Branch Secretaries did not get the
materials out on time to members, which meant the first round of
arranged dates did not take place. Since then 22 have gone
through in the Sunderland area. The idea of the pilot was to try
different methods of engagement. MR DAVIS added that the pilot -
was due to continue to March 2005 when it would be assessed. !
MR THOMSON asked how many offices as opposed to individuals
had attended the courses. MRS JENKINS said that in the main it
was one person from each office. She added that there had been
one diagnostic workshop before Christmas and since there have
been three in Preston and two in Sunderland.
MR BUTLIN said there had been six induction meetings and 127
people signed up. He asked if any of the Publicity and
Development Committee had attended the meetings. MRS
JENKINS said she had attended Bluewater in November and one
in Preston and MRS BETHELL had attended one.
MR MILNER was in support of training in the retail side. He
alerted Council to the fact that when looking at the cost benefit of
what was being provided, the Federation were not able to access
funding for this training, but was aware that Retail Academy were
able to access funding. Some agreements had been made that
the Federation could re-claim some costs from Retail Academy.
He asked for an explanation of the cost implication to the
Federation.
MR DAVIS explained that Retail Academy did not receive funding
as it went directly to the colleges. Retail Academy received a
payment for managing the project and developing the course and
learning materials, which included 1I.T support, CD's and
workbooks. There are three elements to the Federations
involvement. The first is involvement in the Steering Committees
for which, whereby the Federation can recover costs from the
‘Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 i Page 45 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential -
project fund, travel, accommodation and subsistence for any
attendance at meetings. The system within the Federation is
expenses can be claimed. Fixed rates apply ie: £100.00 per
overnight and £20.00 subsistence, first class rail fare. What can
be recovered from the project is second-class rail fare, at the
cheapest rate that can be attained. Also any subsistence and any
accommodation chosen would have to be reasonably priced.
Receipts are required for any claims made, together with a
meeting report. If Executive Officers attend workshops to support
the delivery by colleges then there was a facility for them to
recover some costs for attending from the colleges at the rate of
£150 for a full day or £75 for a half day/evening, plus travel at
second class and subsistence. MR DAVIS added that centrally
headquarters could recover 50p per letter sent.
MR PEBERDY referred back to the GENERAL SECRETARY'S
report at the previous meeting, when he reported on a meeting
with Rob Amtsen where the GENERAL SECRETARY had refused C,
the offer of 50p, as this would not cover the cost to Headquarters,
and was waiting for Mr Arntsen to come back with a better offer
and asked MR DAVIS if he was indicating that a better offer had
not been received. I MR DAVIS had attended the meeting with
Rob Amtsen and Philip Bloor was going to find out what the cost
would be.
MR WILLSHAW said he had attended a meeting at Bluewater and
agreed that there should be training.
MR BUTLIN agreed that training was necessary, but was
concerned if the training being offered was right, as the take up
was low.
MR PEBERDY was of the opinion that a lot of time and effort of
the Secretariat and Publicity and Development Committee was
going into pushing something that people were not interested in.
He added that retail training should be on the retailer's premises.
He questioned the fact that the Federation were trying to make
something viable for both the colleges and Retail Academy. He
proposed that support should be withdrawn for. retail training and
that concentration be on membership.
oo
THE GENERAL SECRETARY said that when interviewing for the
Commercial Director’s position were asked to be critical of the
Federation. They had all responded by saying that Business
Advisors were needed. One had suggested the way forward was
fo get large organisations to sponsor the advisors.
Subpostmasters are asking for business advice not a qualification.
The Federation should look at where resources are focused upon.
MR M BAKER said that there was a Conference Motion that had
asked for training that would culminate in accreditation. He urged
the Council not to throw out training.
‘Executive Council Meeting a 24-23 June 2004 Page 46 of 64
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
t> MRS REEVES shared her concern that there was still 9 months of
. Federation involvement at the end of which it is uncertain if the
program will continue.
MR MILNER felt that at present a decision could not be made on
withdrawing training, once the new Commercial Director joined the
Federation further ideas could be input.
MR THOMSON was of the view that the best training was in
house to enable people to maximize potential and supported MR
PEBERDY.
MR PEBERDY in his right to reply said Subpostmasters had been
given the opportunity for training, but had not taken up the option. I
He said it was at a cost to the Federation. The time being spent !
on training could be used to increase membership. :
At the vote the motion was lost. [DECISION
MRS JENKINS asked again that Executive Officers let her know in
due course if they wished to attend a demonstration of the
diagnostic at Bluewater. ACTION
(b) Retail Academy ~ Future Involvement FM MS 04
MRS JENKINS referred to a document that had been circulated on
the Retail Academy share offer, and asked that the offer be
discussed.
MR REEVES asked for clarification that the cost would be £2,000. I
MRS JENKINS answered £1,000. MRS REEVES said that the j
document stated 20b shares at £100. would equate to £2,000. i
(, She was concerned that money be put into something that had an
uncertain future. She was also concerned because the deadline I
for the shares option was 30" April. Other organisations had not i
appeared to take up the offer. MR DAVIS said that the
organisations that had not responded to the first options on shares
were the NFSP, Barnet College and London institute. The reason
that the NFSP had not responded to the share offer was because
the decision had to be made by the Executive Council. He added
that in terms of the future of Retail Academy the pilot would finish
in March and not Retail Academy. The certificate would remain on
the mainframe for two years after the pilot finished. MR
FERGUSON referred to the share offer in the document, which
stated that the purchase of shares would be not less than 20 at
£100. each, therefore, it equated to £2,000. There was also the
issue that the money was going to a firm of solicitors and not an
accredited bank as is the norm.
‘Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 ~ Page 47 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
MR MILNER said that a decision should be made when the new t
Commercial Director was in place. MR MILNER put a motion to
Council, which was “The involvement in retail training be confined
to a minimum until a meeting takes place between the Commercial
Manager and the P & D and a report given to the Executive
Council on future work in retail training.” The motion was
seconded.
MRS JENKINS asked MR MILNER to quantify what he meant by a
minimum? He answered by saying there should be no more
development work, be -ire-current-pilot- °
° onktl Che. reapentt lee broaghh Gade
MR PEBERDY reiterated his concerns over the amount of time to EC»
and costs borne by the Federation on Retail Academy. MR
MILNER said that the number one priority for the P & D should be
membership recruitment and the second priority be a root and (
branch investigation of where the organisation was going. He
suggested that headquarters staff did very little work on Retail
Academy.
MR BUTLIN said that Retail Academy should arrange their own
meetings and not depend on the NFSP.
MR PEBERDY raised the issue that if the share option was taken
up would it also include an offer of a directorship and if the case
whom would this be. MR DAVIS confirmed that was the case and
said that the Council would need to decide whom the person
would be.
THE NATIONAL PRESIDENT asked if MR MILNERS motion
meant that we would not be take shares in Retail Academy. MR
MILNER clarified that this would be the case.
The motion was carried at the vote. DECIsi._,
Irrelevant
Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 : Page 48 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
“ny
are
Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 - Page 49 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
Strictly Private & Confidential «I
Executive Council Meeting 24-23 June 2004 ” Page 50 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
van (b) Dates of Future Meetings
,
4", 5" & 6" October 2004, Grimstock Country House Hotel
10", 11", & 12" January 2005
20", 218 22 8 23 March 2005
20", 24% & 22"4 June 2005
17", 18" & 19" October 2005
The Publicity and Development Report was moved DECISION)
Irrelevant
ACTION
{DECISION
Executive Council Meeting 24-23 June 2004 Page 61 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
I
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential - I
Irrelevant
DECISION}
Al6é SPECIAL MATTERS
Al6(a) Finance
{a) Treasurer's Report FIAC 02 ¢
THE TREASURER reported that there would be a subscription
increase on 1* August. He feared backlash from members and
suggested that a Branch Secretaries Circular go out to remind
them of Conference 2003 when this was agreed. Also it should
incorporate the benefits of being a member of the Federation.
THE TREASURER reported that membership at the end of May
was 76.36%. It was essential to do something now to increase
membership. He referred back to MR DAVIS's statement at
Conference where it had been reported that if membership grew to
85% it would bring in an additional £130,000 income; £90,000
would go to central funds. THE TREASURER was happy to allow
some funds to be used for a recruitment campaign. An increase
would strengthen the future of the Federation. He was not
prepared to continue to increase subscriptions without the
Executive Council making every effort to improve membership
levels and encourage Subpostmasters to be members. THE ¢
TREASURER moved his report. DECISI.
(b) Interim Financial Review FI AC 02
The Interim Financial Review had been circulated.
MR PEBERDY questioned the figures on the first page in that
corporate membership managed centrally showed a figure of
3,218, this should have read 218.
Executive Council Meeting ” 21-23 June 2004 ~ Page 52 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
Strictly. Private.&. Confidential
Irrelevant
DECISION)
‘Executive Council Meeting "24-23 June 2004 Page 53 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 7 Page 54 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters
Strictly Private & Confidential
SON
Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 ; - Page 55 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
-o. National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
{
(b) $60 software Release PC NW 06 01 i
MS STODDART reported that the presentation had been
circulated and that she had asked for clarification on what
scenarios would prompt the text messages on screens,
specifically those on slide 8 ‘Date Capture’. MS STODDART had I
since received two documents that gave an explanation, but as
they were marked confidential she was unable to circulate them.
The Product Manager is hoping that the definitive version of the
draft operations manual would be available in the near future,
which will be circulated. She informed the Council that the
messages would be in some detail to alert the Subpostmaster to
the situation and gave some examples.
vans
MR MILNER shared his concern on the advance data capture and
what type of information would be captured and asked if it would
mean additional work in the inputting of data and would there be a
payment. MS STODDART referred to the diagram on page 6 of
the presentation, which indicated the various steps. She had been
told that it was a simple process. The implications would be better
known when it was in operation.
(c) Horizon PC NW 06 01
MS STODDART reported that there was concern over the length
of time that it takes to address the problem when Horizon goes
down. She referred to correspondence that had been circulated
that had been prompted by a letter from the Midland Regional
Council, which brought a motion to be dealt with by (
correspondence rather than go to Conference. This was still a
problem, caused by the timescale in dealing with the process that
needs to be followed in identifying where the fault lies. After going
through the process the contract allows B.T to take up to five
working days to put the situation right. An additional problem is
that nobody gets back to the Subpostmaster to alert them as to
what is happening. She added that the response from Gareth Hall
did not indicate precisely how they were going to address the
problem. She asked for evidence to be provided on specific
problems where systems have gone down so that this could be
collated and used to further the Federation’s stand on the issue.
MR THOMSON was of the opinion that with the increase in
Network Banking waiting five days was unacceptable. MR
PEBERDY proposed that the issue be remitted to the Negotiating
Committee.
Executive Council Meeting 7 “24-23 June 2004 Page 56 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
Some members of the Council had experienced problems and
Cc J said they would provide the evidence.
The proposal was seconded and carried at the vote. DECISION)
MS STODDART said that she understood that Post Office Ltd was
monitoring the situation. MS STODDART pointed out that the
issue of compensation had been raised and is awaiting
clarification.
‘Executive Council Meeting 21-23 June 2004 ° " Page 57 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
Strictly Private & Confidential
Irrelevant
Executive Council Meeting 24-23 June 2004 _ ~~ Page 58 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
i
\
I
t I
Irrelevant
DECISION =
STIONI
Executive Council Meeting - 21-23 June 2004 Page 69 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential I
Irrelevant
[ACTION
‘Execuitive Council Meeting — 24-23 dune 2004. Page 60 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
© National Federation of SubPostmasters Strictly Private & Confidential
LYNDA WILLOUGHBY ofl
SHARON MERRYWEATHER —_—— . aif I
‘Executive Council Meeting _ 21-23 June 2004 : Page 61 of 61
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
rtN
ma
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
Appendix A
Presentation
By
Matthew Gibbs
Of
Post Office Ltd
Tuesday
22 June 2004
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
THIN IVS
A1LOneLS - SAID MEHLLYN
aouspyUod Uy}
yooge eunr Puce
SaTIWWOD eANIEXy
siaIseUsOdgnsg jo uolesape4 JeuoHeN
QU} 0} UOHE}USSAd
w. UOHe\sAed @ BdJJO 1SOd
NFSP00000509
NFSP00000509
TVTLIVICT ITVS
ATLOIALS ~ SEO MAHLLVN I
JOIId & UII ~OOZ 49q0}90 Bumeys youne]
yonpoid
SY} Oye} 0} Aja>!] JsowW Gue sjUapuadepuyI
suajsewjsodqns 404 Aiejunjo/,
Opis [!e}21 Sy} UO Aye ‘;euILUIE} MAN
sinoy paepue}xe
Buunp sdn do} seuoyd ajiqow pue jisuedy Joy
Aed ‘sKay Ayn eBseyo 0} Siswio}sno smojIy
Jeului9} juowAed ajqixoy y
uoneished
O
(
éuoyeysAed si Jey
NFSP00000509
Why are we doing it? ©
paystation’
+ Increase retail footfall in all locations
* Take on the competition
* Fulfil the need for an out of hours service
* Give profitable access to new products
* Corporate Vision:
- Bill payment recovery
- Entry into Smart Transit Market (set to grow to £2bn 2005/6)
60S00000dSAN
I =~ MATTHEW GIBBS - S™™CTLY
CODCID ICAL AL
NFSP00000509
UK Network
* Client need drives the offer
regionally.
* Initial Branch Selection
- Independent Agents
- Directly Managed
* Questionnaires and follow-up
MATTHEW GIBBS - STRICTLY
TaN lati mY ad Vind OWE
60S00000dSAN
The Network:Timings &
Location
The optimum network will initially consist of 5,000 terminals.
October 2004 _ Pilot: 180 terminals in the S. West and London.
January 2005 Phase 1: 670 further terminals in London.
April 2005 Phase 2: a further 4,150 terminals roll-out to the UK.
These targets are subject to agreement with our suppliers and clients.
MATTHEW GIBBS - S™CTLY
CORCIDOAITIAL
NFSP00000509
60S00000dSAN
Phased approach
ses
es
E Top-up
E Top-up
Quantum
Other Transit
I I MATTHEW GIBBS - STRICTLY
OALE ERI AL
Congestion
Charging
Transit Transit Bill Payment
Key Recharge I Key Recharge Debit Card
Electricity Electricity payment
Plus Other
Products
NFSP00000509
-_
60S00000dSAN
NFSP00000509
Targeted Clients
Who will be targeted first?
« E Pay
* TranSys for Transport for London
¢ EdF(Electricitie de France)
When do they come on board?
* October Pilot
Which technology will we support?
¢ E-Top Up
¢ Oyster recharge
* Actaris key recharge
- I MATTHEW GIBBS - SF™CTLY
ONE ID IAI LAL
60S00000dSAN
NFSP00000509
~
“my
wee’
Propositions
Agents
* Market based proposition
* Additional income average up to
Clients
* Competitive pricing
£3,000 (provisional) * Out of Hours Network
* No capital outlay but will needto + Security and Integrity of Post
have telephone and power lines Office Ltd
* Full Training * Continuity of Network
* Technical and customer * Customer Service
Helpline
Customers
+ Easy access
* Convenience
* Reliability of the Post Office
* Trust especially around £
I MATTHEW GIBBS - STRICTLY
CORICIDEAITIAL
60S00000dSAN
NFSP00000509
Income - Provisional
Electric 5,641 £457
Gas 1,553 £126
Transit 6,947 £2,682
Mobile 743 £170
Total 14,884 £3,435
I a I MATTHEW GIBBS - S™CTLY
COMEINENTIAL
NFSP00000509
- —
~ vey =
. ~/
Key dates I oe)
paystation”
I June NFSP EC Briefed
June Internal and Stakeholder Communications ——
. _begin — Oe
July Questionnaire 1 with Trade Marketing pack
ne __.... ., delivered- 10,000 SPMs and selected DMBs
September Questionnaire 2 with Ts and Cs delivered
October Pilot Go live (180 branches) : OO
January 2005 —~Phase 1 Go live (850 branches in total) J
I MATTHEW GIBBS - STRICTLY
ORI II AITIAL
60S00000dSAN
NFSP00000509
Issues
paystation®
* Client negotiations are still on-going and are in confidence
Supplier deadlines — working at pace to hit pilot timescales
Ensuring adequate coverage of agents for localised clients
The phased roll —out and communicating this to agents
e
NFSP Support
e.g. Subpostmaster magazine
60S00000dSAN
— MATTHEW GIBBS - ST™CTLY
OULU A LAL ‘