The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has been taking some flack from the intermediary sector because they have apparently spent close on £15,000 for a Board Meeting and ‘away day’ at a posh hotel in November.
As there are 19 board members and some support staff needed (let’s assume 5 of them) this averaged out at some £625 per person.
Away days are a perfectly sensible thing for Boards of Directors to have from time to time but most of the debate has been around the cost involved.
I asked my fellow Board Members where they thought an Informed Choice Board Meeting should be held and of course we should not exceed a per capita spend that was greater than the FCA spend.
Martin was most frugal and suggested we hire a boat on the River Wey for the day at a total cost of £150.
He suggested that team bonding exercises such as “saving your colleagues from drowning” could be included in the day.
Lizanne went for the more selfish option.
She is a big motor sports fan and suggested the Isle of Man TT races for the day. I am not sure how much board activity would have been completed if we did that.
Andy was clearly thinking about me when she suggested a trip to the Arctic to see the Northern Lights. She knows I want to see the Aurora Borealis but again is this about board work or not?
Emotionally though we might all have bonded closer had we witnessed the lights together.
Shelly went for a weekend trip to Vegas and even priced it at less than £600 each leaving some spare for gambling to hopefully recoup all the expenses.
Again, I am not sure that a firm of Chartered Financial Planners should see gambling as part of their away day strategy.
Andrew thought a skiing trip would be a good idea but statistically the number of broken limbs such a sport produces makes me think that could be counter productive.
But lets try to see the positive side of what the FCA board did; getting out of the usual work environment can sometimes help to free up thinking.
It is also about board members getting to know each other and I am sure that there must be some evidence that it is beneficial to the organisation.
It cannot surely just be about a junket?
