User removed 4
New member
you cant go wrong with "old bill" or "cozzer ", rozzer is so ealing comedy,or flash harry in st trinians, and dont even mention " the fuzz ", hopefully that one stays in the 70's where it belongs.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Elected police chiefs
- Thread starter The Large One
- Start date
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
well the "professional" aspect probably. a wide and deep knowledge of issues involved; knowledge of how the systems work and what the protocols are, where information can be obtained or outside expertise found and the experience to understand that information.
Expert is relative anyway, if you have driven every day for 20 years, including long distance, foriegn, different vehicles, you are an expert driver compared to someone whose driven a couple of years around town in their shopping car.
User removed 4
New member
And he had all that did he ? you're sure of that ? Or perhaps this is just another opportunity for you to have a pop at me.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Since this thread seems to have spun off into a debate about my motives, abilities and "professionalism", I suppose I'd better respond. I wasn't appointed to the governing body because I was any sort of professional. I was approached by the Chair because he thought I could contribute something as a member of the local community. My children had attended the school and I knew it well. A vacancy had arisen for an LEA nominee on the governing body and it was suggested that I apply to the LEA to be their nominee - which I did.
The governing body was anything but a group of "professional committee people" - it consisted of a group of individuals, drawn from a variety of backgrounds - the landlord of a local pub, the vicar, a local businessman, an 8th Viscount, a housewife from the next village, etc - all of us unpaid volunteers. We used to disagree as much as we agreed. And no one individual's views ever held sway. All of us got to know the school, its teaching staff, its support staff and its children really well. And we didn't bring an "agenda" to the process, other than a wish for the school to be well run and successful.
I think things have changed, since I left the governing body. These days, there is an expectation that much more "hands-on" management (of things like budgets, "business planning", etc) is taken on by school governors. And the skills and commitment of the individuals who volunteer to give up their time to do this role are now subject to critical, public comment by the bunch of "educational professionals" who make up the Inspection teams appointed by OFSTED - who are, of course, held to account by civil servants based in Whitehall. What is certainly the case today is that recruiting volunteer school governors is proving extremely difficult. And it seems that even parents are increasingly reluctant to get involved in the process.
Anyway, that's how I got involved. Thanks to the posters in this thread who have challenged the idea that we were all "professional busybodies". We weren't. And I never claimed to be an "expert". I wasn't.
The governing body was anything but a group of "professional committee people" - it consisted of a group of individuals, drawn from a variety of backgrounds - the landlord of a local pub, the vicar, a local businessman, an 8th Viscount, a housewife from the next village, etc - all of us unpaid volunteers. We used to disagree as much as we agreed. And no one individual's views ever held sway. All of us got to know the school, its teaching staff, its support staff and its children really well. And we didn't bring an "agenda" to the process, other than a wish for the school to be well run and successful.
I think things have changed, since I left the governing body. These days, there is an expectation that much more "hands-on" management (of things like budgets, "business planning", etc) is taken on by school governors. And the skills and commitment of the individuals who volunteer to give up their time to do this role are now subject to critical, public comment by the bunch of "educational professionals" who make up the Inspection teams appointed by OFSTED - who are, of course, held to account by civil servants based in Whitehall. What is certainly the case today is that recruiting volunteer school governors is proving extremely difficult. And it seems that even parents are increasingly reluctant to get involved in the process.
Anyway, that's how I got involved. Thanks to the posters in this thread who have challenged the idea that we were all "professional busybodies". We weren't. And I never claimed to be an "expert". I wasn't.
Davey Boy Smith
Active member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 502
There are some bits of this I like. Police Authorities - as this thread shows - are not really that understood as public bodies given that their role is to hold the police to account on behalf of the local community. At least this way there would be a clear individual who can be the target of all the positive or negative points for policing in that area. The issue however will be is this a secure position.
For example, if this is fought on political party basis - which IMHO it will be - there won't be much choice and indeed it might well be difficult to oust a poor performing elected Commissioner. That is the opposite of democratic accountability thus defeating the objective of the initiative...
As for elected mayors a la London that for me is real democracy electing someone to run my town who is then scrutinised by others and the electorate. Far more accountable in my view...
For example, if this is fought on political party basis - which IMHO it will be - there won't be much choice and indeed it might well be difficult to oust a poor performing elected Commissioner. That is the opposite of democratic accountability thus defeating the objective of the initiative...
As for elected mayors a la London that for me is real democracy electing someone to run my town who is then scrutinised by others and the electorate. Far more accountable in my view...
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Never miss an opportunity to have a pop, bushy. Or you, BigGully.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
i thought you asked a question, i thought you might like an answer. i dont *know* that Lord Bracknell has all those qualities, you offered him as an example or "professional" committee members. maybe "serial" committee members would be a better description, but the points that make them an expert still hold.
Your post was clear .....
Your own decision ahead of the only elected representative prevailed, this somehow backed up your presumed claim that this might prove how those unelected and unaccountable should remain in place on issues that significantly effect those directly involved, it was arrogant and everything why we strive for greater accountability.
You dismissed the parent governor as incidental, as ultimately your view was more valid.
I disagree.
I doubt whether you still have close links with that school or even have an idea how your decision might of impacted on those parents or children.
How about those first set of applicants, are they performing elsewhere, maybe outperforming your man.
We dont know, maybe even difficult to determine, but if you were made accountable then this information would be there for us all to see and then we might actually know whether you are doing a good job.
You see its not the decision making that irks me but your self proclaimed arrogance that you and you alone might only be qualified to make them, although you have absolute no mandate to do so.
Its not having a pop at you its just not agreeing with you.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
NOT "my own decision". It was a collective decision of the governing body.
I made NO claim that "this might prove how those unelected and unaccountable should remain in place on issues that significantly affect those directly involved". The original post described this decision as "one of the most difficult processes I've been involved in".
NOT "arrogant", at all.
"You dismissed the parent governor as incidental, as ultimately your view was more valid". NO, I didn't.
"I doubt whether you still have close links with that school or even have an idea how your decision might of impacted on those parents or children". As a parish councillor for the past 20 years (until May this year), I met regularly with representatives of the school, including the head, governors, parents and pupils - long after I ceased to be a governor. I continued to be a governor for some time after we appointed the new head and worked very closely with her. Her tenure was very successful - as has been that of her subsequent successor.
"If you were made accountable then this information would be there for us all to see and then we might actually know whether you are doing a good job". In relation to school governors, that's what OFSTED reports purport to do. In my capacity as a parish councillor, I was accountable to the electorate. And - in a small village community - accountable to people I bump into regularly. [Although I hasten to add that I did not represent the parish council on the school governing body.] As I have said, I was invited, by the Chair, after some consultation with the school community, to apply to fill a vacancy on the school's governing body. I didn't just put myself forward out of self-interest.
"Your self proclaimed arrogance that you and you alone might only be qualified to make [decisions] - It was NEVER "me and me alone". And I NEVER claimed to be "qualified" in any way.
"You have absolute no mandate to do so". Insofar as I was appointed by the LEA, I had a mandate from the LEA to act as an LEA-appointed governor. Incidentally, that mandate isn't to represent the views of the LEA. Not that any of the governors bandied around the "mandates" that put us on the governing body. We all made our judgments with a view to serving the best interests of the school. If we didn't, we would have been removed from office, by law.
Your original post was based at yours and other unelected members overruling the one elected person, this point was clearly highlighted by you.
Ultimately the overriding decisions by you and some ( not all ) did not show that those unaccountable members had some ordained access to a correct decision.
Why not become more accountable even elected when having to make such significant decisions, we cannot know whether your decision was reasonable, after all the one elected person didnt and her view was casually dismissed.
I do not know your own capabilities, but there is no doubt that there can be those that seem to gravitate towards unaccountable committee roles, offering unqualified decisions that at times effect us all.
It is interesting that when more transparency and accountability demanded, many like you feel aggrieved.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
I haven't "casually" dismissed the parent governor's views - nor did the governing body at the time. We were genuinely concerned that all the candidates that were interviewed in the first round would not make the grade as head of the school. If those fears proved justified, then the school might have been lumbered with a headteacher who would take a lot of managing (which is not a role that elected parent governors ever do), or we might have appointed a poor headteacher who would never move on, because they wouldn't have the qualities required to secure an appointment to a better paid job in a bigger school (which was the reason that the previous head had left).
The other thing I'll say is that I've never felt aggrieved by a requirement to be accountable.
The other thing I'll say is that I've never felt aggrieved by a requirement to be accountable.
But your post, categorically offered a reason why somehow an unelected representative, ( yourself ) view of an applicant might have been more validated than your elected colleague.
The validation of your decision is unsubstantiated other than you telling us all on here it was the right decision.
By what parameters do you feel might offer an accurate indication of your own performance ? ,,,,, absolutely none !!!
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
no. back to the original issue, electing officials isnt going to bring in people who necessarily know what they are doing, just talk a good game to the average voter. it might work when you want to represent the population for matters of broad overall policy (ie law making), but when it comes to specific areas of creation and execution of strategy i want professionals with long track records in the industry to run significant institutions. i want a policeman to run the police force, a fireman to run the fire service, not some chap who's run a hotel or shop to decide they could do a better job of it. the learning curve is too steep for an outsider to pick up. consider that those banks that failed, notably RBS and Halifax, both had CEOs with a background in retailing, not banking. they lacked knowledge of banking and finance industry and pursued a strategy based on what they knew.
The Large One
Who's Next?
- Thread starter
- #96
Big Gully, seeing as your understanding of the Lord B' situation is zero, and your ignorance is total - despite being told repeatedly what was happening - why don't you belt up for a bit, rather than continue driving your own arrogant (your word) agenda?
Oh get over yourself.
I bet you too are a committee member ............ and you are about to tell the world what a lucky committee that is.
The Large One
Who's Next?
- Thread starter
- #98
ROSM
Well-known member
Well if this thread has taught me one thing, it is to think very carefully about the request I received to think about joining the board of governors at a school my son is due to attend (please note, not as the parent governor).
The reasons I came to be asked were due to my experiences in writing and validating business plans and business cases. The appointment of people to key roles was discussed and I explained that my background in recruitment had been to fill roles within my own team, rather than as a specialist recruiter.
I was actually asked the very question about 'would you fill a role with the best applicant even if they failed to meet the standard you were looking for?'
My response was that I have held a simple view which is
a) if the deficiencies could be overcome/improved on without negatively impacting the organisation
and also
b) if in say 12 or 18 months the individual who wasnt performing, would he be able to move out of that role in an organised manner.
If the answer was 'no' to both then i wouldn't appoint and would readvertise. That seemed to satisfy the person questioning.
That doesn't make me right by the way and certianly doesn't mean that it would be a better view than say an elected parent governor.
The reasons I came to be asked were due to my experiences in writing and validating business plans and business cases. The appointment of people to key roles was discussed and I explained that my background in recruitment had been to fill roles within my own team, rather than as a specialist recruiter.
I was actually asked the very question about 'would you fill a role with the best applicant even if they failed to meet the standard you were looking for?'
My response was that I have held a simple view which is
a) if the deficiencies could be overcome/improved on without negatively impacting the organisation
and also
b) if in say 12 or 18 months the individual who wasnt performing, would he be able to move out of that role in an organised manner.
If the answer was 'no' to both then i wouldn't appoint and would readvertise. That seemed to satisfy the person questioning.
That doesn't make me right by the way and certianly doesn't mean that it would be a better view than say an elected parent governor.
That seems totally reasonable to me, but I cannot remember LB offering the caveat of your last line.
I do recognise that committee members play an important role in many walks of life and their work can even be inspirational.
But alas there still remains many unelected 'serial' committee members that enjoy the undeserved power of making decision on behalf of others.
When this is challenged, they fall back to their default position of thinking they know better.