This week, we will look into the murky machinations that led
to the removal of Cllr Malcolm Calver as local education authority
(LEA) representative on the board of governors at St Florence
VC school.
Cllr Calver was an LEA governor by virtue of the fact that he
is the elected county councillor for the area.
His term of office expired on July 9 2008.
As I know from my own experience, in order that appointments can
be made in timely fashion, there is an item on every governing
body agenda regarding any vacancies arising either through resignations
or upcoming expiry of terms of office.
Cllr Calver tells me that this was discussed at the governors'
meeting in January 2008 when he expressed his willingness to continue,
provided of course that he was successful in the forthcoming elections.
Having been re-elected, he was fully expecting the Leader, Cllr
John Davies, to reappoint him.
When six months passed with no word from the Leader he made enquiries
and was told that someone else had replaced him.
Now, while there is no requirement that LEA governors have to
be elected members, there is, as you might expect in a democracy,
a convention that the elected member should have first call.
Cllr Calver then obtained the minutes of the October 2008 governors'
meeting which showed that only four members attended.
The minutes record:
There was one vacancy for an LEA governor, as Cllr Calver's
term of office has ended on 8 July. A nomination for this position
was awaited from the Leader of Council, Cllr John Davies, and
the Cabinet member for children, young people, learning and Welsh
language [Cllr Rev Huw George]. Some governors spoke of
hearing, and having, concerns about Cllr Calver remaining on the
governing body. Following a secret ballot, it was unanimously
RESOLVED (i) to request that the LEA did not reappoint Cllr Calver
(ii) to suggest an alternate person for the LEA governor position.
Cllr Calver felt this was against the Rules of Natural Justice
which require that any allegations are made known to the "defendant"
who should be given the opportunity to answer them i.e. the law
takes a dim view of Kangaroo Courts.
So he wrote to the Leader and the Rev Huw George asking to be
told what he was supposed to have done wrong and why the Rules
of Natural Justice hadn't been applied.
Cllr George replied: "I was not privy to to the 'concerns'
raised or discussed at the meeting and do not feel it appropriate
to question the resolutions of governing bodies. I am not aware
of any 'serious allegations' made against you as referred to in
your letter."
That neatly dodges the Natural Justice problem because the absence
of 'serious allegations' means there was nothing for Cllr Calver
to defend himself against.
However, it raises another question: how did Cllr George come
to the conclusion that Cllr Calver was not a fit and proper person
to be a governor of St Florence School if he made no attempt to
discover the nature of the other governors' concerns?
The Leader replied: "Given the unanimous decision of the
meeting, I am more than happy to support the decision of my colleague
Councillor Huw George to abide by the wishes of the governing
body meeting. It was not necessary to question their unanimous
decision and on the basis of effective relationships inappropriate
to appoint you to the governing body."
What this waffle amounts to is that four members of the governing
body - none of whom are elected - should have a greater influence
in these matters than those who less than a year ago elected Cllr
Calver to be their representative on the county council.
The Leader and Cllr George seem to be saying is that the governing
body will, effectively, have a veto over who is appointed as an
LEA governor.
I am not sure the law allows them to fetter their discretion like
this.
In any case, if governors can exclude anyone who disagrees with
their world view, it is a recipe for cronyism.
And it is totally against the principles of a liberal democracy
which values freedom of speech and the right of dissenting voices
to be heard.
Cllr Calver, who I know to be less than enthusiastic about the
prevailing soft left, touchy feely theories of the educational
establishment, has a habit of asking awkward questions and not
always in the most diplomatic terms.
But that shouldn't disqualify him from being a school governor,
just the opposite in fact.
Such people provide a counterweight to the cosy consensus.
Just think how different things might have turned out if, instead
of a board packed with yes-men, Sir Fred Goodwin had to contend
with a couple of members of the awkward squad who questioned whether
the bank was lending too much to too many dodgy customers.
It also strikes Old Grumpy that there is something rather strange
about the time-line of the above events.
Cllr Calver's term of office expired on 8 July 2008.
So why wasn't he reappointed straight after the elections in early
May?
After all, at that point, there was no (official) indication that
the rest of the governors were unhappy with his presence among
them.
So why delay the decision until October?
My theory is that someone had already had a word in county hall's
ear but Cllr John Davies realised the dangers in giving Cllr Calver
the boot on the basis of a backstairs whispering campaign and
the vote at the governors' meeting was arranged to provide cover.
In his letter Cllr George says: "Having noted the resolution
recorded in the minutes I therefore felt it inappropriate to reappoint
you to the governing body."
But, as the governing body meeting was on October 15 and Cllr
Calver's term of office expired on 8 July, there must have been
some other reason why he wasn't reappointed in the intervening
period.
The suspicion must be that the actual decision had been taken
much earlier and the "unanimous decision" of the governing
body was merely a piece of sanitary engineering designed to mask
the smell.
The Leader is clearly impressed by the unanimity of the governors'
decision - he mentions it three times in his letter - but as Socrates
observed: "The truth isn't discovered by counting heads".
Unfortunately, the Leader seems to believe that the truth of a
proposition is determined by how many people can be persuaded
to vote for it.
But there is no logical foundation for such a belief.
If it were so, majority government would be the acme of perfection.
But, as the poet Dryden said:
Nor is the people's judgment always true:
The most may err as grossly as the few.
Finally, as I have reported previously, Cllr Calver claims he
was telephoned by the Leader soon after the election with an invitation
to join the Independent Political Group: "come in from the
cold" as I am told the Leader put it.
At that time there was some doubt whether Cllr Brian Hall was
going to sign up and Cllr Calver's signature was required to bring
the IPG's membership up to the magic 38 (Brian's
revenge).
Old Grumpy wonders whether he would have been so shabbily treated
had he not spurned the Leader's warm embrace.
As George Orwell observed: "Anyone who challenges the prevailing
orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness."
The government is deploying vast amounts of taxpayers' money
in an attempt to get the banks lending again.
Could it be that they are chasing the wrong fox and the real problem
is to get people - especially house buyers - to start borrowing
again.
It takes two to tango and the banks can't force unwilling borrowers
to join the dance.
Imagine your bank manager rings you in the morning with the offer
of a 100% mortgage at zero interest on any property you fancy.
If you have been reading in the papers that house prices have
another 10-15% to fall before they reach bottom, you would be
wise to decline this generous offer.
So, instead of insuring the banks against their losses on toxic
assets wouldn't it be better if the government extended a guarantee
to anyone purchasing a house in the next six months, say, that
it would cover any losses made on a future sale.
If this succeeded in putting a floor under the housing market
it needn't cost the taxpayer a penny and even if it didn't it
would cost peanuts compared to the billions being thrown at the
banks.
This financial crisis originated with the housing bubble and until
price stability is restored there will be no end to it.
back to home page