1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Dear Stephen: When are staff governors excluded from discussions?

Discussion in 'Governors' started by montiagh, Mar 8, 2012.

  1. Montiagh, your 13 yrs experience shows that GBs can function well by treating all governors equally, following procedure and commonsense and thus avoid SG exclusions. However, I suspect that a survey would show that where SGs are excluded, they are repeatedly excluded.
    For interest, when (as you say in a previous postings) you challenged the then chairs decision and weak clerk tio exlcude SGs, were you a parent governor by any chance?
    I ask because I suspect parent governors are more likely to have a stronger sense of accountability and have a higher regard for the SGs.
    Just a thought..
  2. montiagh

    montiagh New commenter

    Ivor Monkey. First, in life I have a strong will to ensure that fair play is achieved in all walks of life. Having knowledge of GB's for some considerably time can illustrate to oneself, what is a good and effective GB and what is the opposite. In the case I alluded to earlier on this post - yes I was a parent governor and I had nothing but trouble from a chair who systematically along with a clerk (with a complete lack of wisdom) abused the equality of the SG's. I will on each and every time an abuse occurs bring the chair and clerk to task.
    After all it is not only the job of goverenors to challenge the head, SLT and school on matters, it is the duty of every governor to challenge all breaches of the legislation and regulations surrounding governance.

  3. montiagh

    montiagh New commenter

    They are most definitely not supported either by their LA's or more importantly by an impotent dfe. The dfe could not be more useless in this arena and I would put a large amount of cash on a bet that if a FOI request was made to the dfe to report on how many governor complaints they had come down in favour of the governor in the last five years their answer would be zero.

    This is one area of goverance that is crying out for peer support with a new independent body which has teeth. For those posters who may say that there is sufficient protection out there for governors who try to do their jobs properly let me nail that thought as a complete illusion to the wall.

    I hope that Chris Wormald the new Permanent Secretary at the Department for Education will look at this area of governance but doubt he will.
  4. reg1950

    reg1950 New commenter

    A regular little charmer aren't you.
    Well I took my time to reread the thread as you suggested but I still can't find anywhere where RW tries to do any of the things you allege. Maybe I'm just dim. It seems to me RWs replies were rather more helpful to the OP than anything you contributed. Sadly (especially for montiagh) when people like you ivor make threads so unpleasant and personal other people mostly go away and spend their time doing something more worthwhile. As a result since this thread became so nasty no-one has joined it to offer any helpful advice to montiagh. I hope you are proud of yourself ivor. Maybe you should have started a new thread after all? It might have got you a better response. Just a thought for another time.
    Feel free to abuse me now as well. I won't be replying to you when you do. You can have the thread to yourself.
  5. Actually I am thank you, but you clearly aren't.
    So you missed Rott W's accusation that my suggestion for delaing wiht authoritarian chairs was aggresive and confrontational? But he failed to provide any alternatvies. And you missed his:
    ivor_Monkey, if you want a discussion on chairs abusing their powers
    start a new thread on that subject, don't hijack someone else's! "
    So you missed the irony of Rott W's attempt to exclude somebody from a thread about authoritariain chairs trying to exclude SGs.
    I conclude that you are either a selective reader or more probably Rott W in disguise.
  6. I see what you mean: it would be hard to impersonate and hard to disguise. Fair enough, but (in my defence) I did suggest Reg1950 might alternatively just be a "selective" reader. So it seems that has now been confirmed.
    Meanwhile, back in the real world the more interesting and relevant point is the noticeable lack of any suggestions for dealing with authoritarian chairs who (repeatedly) try to exclude staff governors.
    I suggested that any attempt should automatically trigger a debate and recorded vote on the decision to exclude. Is this it?

  7. harsh-but-fair

    harsh-but-fair Star commenter


  8. Could you please post a link to a newspaper report on the trial?

    Because frankly the story is becoming less believable with each post. You seem to believe that the Judge made comments which are only known locally. Judges comments are a matter of public record and any local journo worth their salt would have such comments splashed across the front page.

    persons who wilfully withhold such information, and are caught, end up in jail. I'm afraid your fantasy really doesn't stak up. You're not the clerk in this school are you?
  9. montiagh

    montiagh New commenter

    <font size="2">Crispness - I have tried to give you one or two hints that I cannot be too open on here. I wish it was not fantasy. The governor who has received this treatment cannot simply keep it to themselves. Judges comments are not a matter of public record unless you purchase the transcription of the whole of the proceedings at great cost. I think that in understanding law you will know that cases have judgments, those are written judgments by the judge for public consumption. They are the conclusion of the case and the vast majority of the case is not detailed and not publicised. This case was heard by a well known QC and they are available to the public the link of which I cannot give for obvious reasons. The governor was threatened to drop the case and reported those threats to the Judge. </font>
    <font size="2">You must realise that the public judgment forms only a small part of a case. In a Judicial Review you will have particulars of claim, disclosure, evidence, oral hearing, and the substantial hearing. The judge made many comments that were noted from both the oral hearing and the substantive hearing to which they do not remain secret - hence local. The governor cannot make this public as they have been threatened with suspension. </font>
    Judicial Reviews are very tight in what they can hear, they are simply there to make a judgement as to whether in law a decision made by a public body (in this case a school's GB) is correct in law or not. No other matters of law can be dealt with, so even if withholding evidence is super naughtly, that is a matter for another place. And who would do that as the governor has personally spent considerable amounts fighting justice and the chair simply uses school resources.
    <font size="2">Are the dfe aware of this case yes? It was a complaint with them first and because the chair withheld the vital information from them they concluded that there was no case to answer. In essence the Dfe will always believe a chair and never a governor. The governor provided overwhelming evidence that the dfe disregarded. So the governor had no option but to take the JR route. The chair could have at any point halted matters and conceded but wouldn't. The chair lost the case with their very expensive barristers and the school have been landed with a large 5 figure cost. Even after the dfe realised that they were wrong they have refused point blank to do anything about it. Oh and is this all that has been done to this governor no it is not. </font>
    <font size="2">What did the governor do to deserve this; well they simply challenged breaches to legislation and regulations something that you governors are expected to do.</font>
    <font size="2">So the message from the dfe to school governors is very simple, if you find that your governing body is breaching legislation make sure that you do not challenge those breaches as we will not support you in any shape or form.</font>
  10. And every newspaper group that I'm aware of take a subscription to http://www.bailii.org/ where all these transcripts are available. A trivial task to look it up for any journo.

    I have no idea why you feel you cannot identify the school or case.

    Surely it is a cause célèbre by now, if half of what you say is true.

    On the other hand ...
  11. montiagh

    montiagh New commenter

    Crispness - it is not cause célèbre because the governor does not wish for more retribution. The case was reported on a number of legal web sites and because of the Judges findings in the case the dfe agreed to look at and revise an element of their regulations. As regards your comment - 'On the other hand..' This continuing sentiment of yours is become a little tiresome now as the details that I have mentioned about this case are 100% correct. And as regards your comment - I have no idea why you feel you cannot identify the school or case - illustrates that you cannot have read all that I have posted.
  12. Rott Weiler

    Rott Weiler Star commenter Forum guide

    As a matter of interest montiagh which regulation did the DFE amend as a result of this?
  13. montiagh

    montiagh New commenter

    Crispness I did nearly pick you up for your comment about subcriptions to ballii being paid when bailii is free. However, the majority of legal cases in the UK are not reported in Bailii. On reflection I struggled to find this one. However, I can find it on the subscribe only websites of Westlaw and Lawtel.

    Once again as I have mentioned earlier. Judicial Reviews are a particular narrow area of the law that are only concerned with whether a public body has acted ultra vires in their decision process against existing legislation.The power of the courts is generally limited to saying yes the public body acted outside its powers or they did not. If it did the court generally tells the public body to re-do the process again correctly this time. A JR case can be brought with many abuses of legislation contained within it including ECHR and the judge only has to find fault on just one of those abuses to rule in favour of a claimant.

    RW - Again for me to state what the area of legislation in question is, will assist in the identity of the governor. I have tried very hard to re-iterate a number of times that I have no intention of doing this.
  14. You are right to say that the vast maj of Uk cases are not reported on Bailii. That's because the vast maj of cases are heard in the crown court, which Bailii does not report. However all JRs are heard in the Admin Court (a High Court division), which are reported on Bailii.

    It's funny that I found a recent case that so closely resembles the one you are harping on about, but differs in crucial but significant ways, isn't it?
  15. montiagh

    montiagh New commenter

    Crispness - I am finding your posts abusive. Further you appear not to have actually read all that I have written. If I may for the very last time impart to you that every single word that I have written is 100% accurate. I will hopefully also state once more that only a tiny part of court cases are reported in their judgments with the vast majority of evidence never reported hence my comment on the transcript of both oral and substantial hearings. Your 'harping on about' comment is most discourteous and in my view has no place on this forum. Maybe it is your style, but it is most unwelcome.
  16. reg1950

    reg1950 New commenter

    Another similarity is that chair of governors in the case you found crispness is also a LA councillor.
  17. A bit more research brings up that this particular LA Governor is assistant Executive of children's services and the local press indicates that they ran an illegal campaign on a Federation proposal and more recently nearly brought the school into disrepute in the Jewish Press. The information states that the LA governor is a Doctor (Dr.) and had a major altercation with the Conservative party at Auschwitz. One assumes that the lofty position brings with it the power of the LA.
  18. The thing is, I don't find your posts very credible. For the reasons I've given.

    Just 'cos you say something is 100% true, doesn't make it so.
  19. Cameron and co can be blamed for lots of things, but I don't think they had a local branch at Auschwitz.
  20. The altercation was between the LA Councillor and Conservative MP Aidan Burley. The complaint in the press was that this chair of governors accused Mr Burley of dozing off at a seminar at Auschwitz and was in no position to preach about controversies involving alleged antisemitism when she had accepted a Hamas linked organisation to hold a meeting in the school who the FBI had outlawed. It must have been very embarrassing for the school.

Share This Page