Well I'll say one thing the meetings have been getting better - I'm sure its not that I'm just being worn down! The SurreyCC guys were "almost" at the point I might have considered allowing them to address a small unimportant meeting as practice. They did however seem to have put a bit of effort in.
The questions from parents were of a very high standard I would be very interested to act as a conduit to put some of you together to research your chosen line of enquiry - it seemed a couple of people would like to work on population statistics.
Afterward we got to chat informally with some of the many governors who were in attendance, they talked a little about starting the "due diligence" process. I don't really have any specifics to relate but it was quite comforting to hear them answer questions from parents, also for them to see that the parents were not wielding pitchforks and just wanted to see that there would be a fair and professional investigation of the facts. I did suggest to them that they outline the process, the steps they would take in a small document - we may not find out much but it at least provides comfort that there is a process which for the cynical majority is something of a relief. I wouldn't trust SurreyCC at all, but the governors vague descriptions of the proto stages of "due diligence" made me happier that someone was going to hold SurreyCC to account in a professional manner - they discussed for example the hiring of external consultants to provide specialist expertise that they might be lacking. I'm sure they will have the clout to demand SurreyCC fess up the correct documents although the time-frame seems very short to me. SurreyCC has so far been guilty of such bungling incompetence in its presentations that it leaves you assuming that there must be some angle or ulterior motive. I loved the comment posted somewhere on this blog discussing the obsession with the Kings site for example "Is there Oil under Kings or something?" I think we should definitely probe if Kings really needs to close, SurreyCC seem so sure on such flimsy evidence. SurreyCC were picked on again and again for their stats and one woman filleted them with such skill and ease it was embarrassing to watch.... I almost felt sorry for them.
All in all this was the best meeting I've been too so far.
I started off this process thinking this was a "done deal" and that even though it was hopeless we had a duty to ask questions. I've been aghast at those who have said "what can you do" because it is important that we engage in the process and make our views heard.
I came away from this meeting still carrying the impression that if SurreyCC had their way it would have been a done deal and with no due diligence - we would have just been informed what was going to happen. We have no idea what happened in that emergency governors meeting on the 10th of March (the minutes are sealed) but whoever forced it to "due diligence" did us a very big favour.
There is a process - its not a done deal - people should not give up.
Anyone else have a different view on this meeting send it to me.
Why are the minutes of this public body "sealed"?
ReplyDeleteI understand that the agenda, tabled documents and minutes are not restricted unless they have been included in the agenda in advance as "Part 2" items. There are strict rules for what may be considered as Part 2 items.
And talking of minutes, someone made the excellent point last night that none of the parents' views were being recorded at any of the meetings ... so how exactly are our opinions being taken into account by members of SCC and the LEA not present at the meetings?
ReplyDeleteThey may be 'sealed' because they are not signed yet. Therefore they may not be able to release them until they are signed at the next meeting. This is only a suggestion - I could be wrong, my wife tells me I am most of the time!!
ReplyDelete