I attended this one day conference as one of the two elected representatives of our Trust. I had intended to report on this verbally and answer questions at our Governors meeting tonight; however as I have to present my apologies herewith a brief written note. I will be happy to answer any queries people might have after reading it. Also I shall post it to my blog davidbarry.posterous.com and you are welcome to comment on it there. The meeting was an all day affair in Manchester, and consisted of a serious of workshops and plenary sessions. While as always at such things some of the most useful bits were to do with informal meetings with other Governors a number of points came up both there and in formal sessions. In no particular order:- 1. Our Governing Body at 37 members was seen by most people as being quite large. 2. A lot of NHS Trusts have very well defined geographical catchment areas which makes representation easier to organise, and the number for example, of interested bodies smaller. This does make it easier to have a small body of Governors. So while we are larger than usual, we may (stress may) have special circumstances that justify it. (Do we?) 3. There was still a lot of uncertainty as to exactly what Governors are for. -Partly this was because, by definition custom and practice has not yet had an opportunity to evolve in the way it has tended to, with say, school governance. -Partly this was because the role of the Board of Directors seemed to be different from one trust to another. Some Boards seemed, frankly, rather secretive, holding closed meetings only. -Partly because there often seemed to be a lack of shared understanding between Governors and Board members as to what their respective roles were. It was perhaps more important for the present that the understanding be shared than as to what the understanding was.. -Even the terminology confused; many ordinary members when they voted for governors thought a Board of Governors, like a school board of Governors, would be the strategic management Board for the Trust. -While attendence at governors meetings -whatever they were called - by Board Directors was agreed to be a very good thing it was felt that the fact that the chair of the Board of Directors was also Chair of the Governors was not helpful. Not only could this lead to problems with conflicts of interest it helped to increase confusion as to what the respective roles of the two bodies was. There was strong support for the idea that there should be a separate chair of Governors, who would be a Governor, elected by Governors, and who would not be a Board Director. 4. Following on from this last point it was confirmed that the Governments policy is:- a. That all hospitals become foundation trusts b. That Foundation Trusts be given greater independence c And in the light of this governance arrangements would be reviewed, so for example legislation might be used to clarify the roles and such changes as a elected Chair of Governors distinct from the Chair of the Trust might well take place. David Barry