Elected police chiefs

[ROSM]

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.

Sorry I find your response somewhat bitchy.

I dont see that Lord B needed to caveat it - it seemed fairly obvious to me, he was just explaining how it takes a mix and that some people who are elected will favour decisions based on their different level of experience. Realistically has anybody ever filled a senior authority decision making role in Business because 'its better to have someone rather than nobody'?

I dont think anybody 'enjoys' being on committees. They can be rewarding. I'm more in favour of committees that are made up of an odd number less than 3!!

 

[bobby smith]

Getting back to the maion subject, the way that i understand it is that the main POLITICAL PARTIES WILL "PUT UP" Candidates for this role, and word is that the current Chairman of the Sussex Police Authority, will WIN !!

 

[User removed 4]

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.

You really are stretching it to say fred the shred worked in "retail", especially trying to say he lacked knowledge of banking and finance.

 

[perseus]

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.

Who would you have recruited for the job of PM. Tony Blair or Gordon Brown ? (Historic)

 

[BigGully]

Sorry I find your response somewhat bitchy.

I dont see that Lord B needed to caveat it - it seemed fairly obvious to me, he was just explaining how it takes a mix and that some people who are elected will favour decisions based on their different level of experience. Realistically has anybody ever filled a senior authority decision making role in Business because 'its better to have someone rather than nobody'?

I dont think anybody 'enjoys' being on committees. They can be rewarding. I'm more in favour of committees that are made up of an odd number less than 3!!

You may find it bitchy, but only if you have a personal relationship with that poster and therefore have a view of his likely motives.

I dont know LB and he doesnt know me, so I commented on what I felt was a flawed argument, it seemed that his stance was he knew best above the one elected member of that committee, on a decision that really is quite difficult to determine.

 

[The Large One]

You may find it bitchy, but only if you have a personal relationship with that poster and therefore have a view of his likely motives.

I dont know LB and he doesnt know me, so I commented on what I felt was a flawed argument, it seemed that his stance was he knew best above the one elected member of that committee, on a decision that really is quite difficult to determine.

Then you have failed to understand what he actually said, and have instead put your own spin on it.

 

[ROSM]

You may find it bitchy, but only if you have a personal relationship with that poster and therefore have a view of his likely motives.

Likely Motives!!!

Is this Law and Order UK now? Why are you trying to paint something sinister into this?

 

[BigGully]

Likely Motives!!!

Is this Law and Order UK now? Why are you trying to paint something sinister into this?

Now come on, I didnt mean that, can I change that to you probably know what his personality and characteristics are, I just dont sorry.

TLO, you remind me of the schoolyard nerd, shouting fight behind two pupils having a row.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

ROSM seems to have put into words the precise issues that were facing the governing body when we took the decision to re-advertise, rather than appoint:-

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.

BigGully is still questioning the motives of the governing body:-

... it seemed that his (LB's) stance was he knew best above the one elected member of that committee, on a decision that really is quite difficult to determine.

One very significant factor at the time (which BigGully has ignored - although I have mentioned it) was that it is not part of the role of a parent governor to manage any performance deficiences manifested by a head teacher, nor is it part of the role for a parent governor to move a headteacher out of that role in an organised manner.

There are very sound reasons why elected parent governors are excluded from responsibilities to manage or fire head teachers. I hope they are obvious, but it may be that more needs to be said on this particular aspect of the dilemma. The fact that a parent governor does not have to exercise these challenging functions might, though, go some way to explain why a parent governor considers different issues when the question arises as to whether or not to appoint or re-advertise.