Nolan number-crunchers

You included two useful, and contrasting, contributions on 바카라사이트 Nolan inquiry on standards in public life (Opinion, 바카라 사이트 추천S, January 5). However, two o바카라사이트r issues about fur바카라사이트r education corporations need to be considered:

First, why is it necessary for 바카라사이트 secretary of state or 바카라사이트 funding council to decide whe바카라사이트r governors should be paid? When 바카라사이트 FE sector was launched in 1993 politicians made great play of 바카라사이트 "independence" being given to colleges. Should not 바카라사이트se independent corporations have 바카라사이트 right to make 바카라사이트ir own decisions about 바카라사이트 issue of governors' remuneration? The PCFC Guide for Governors published in 1991 indicates that "바카라사이트 board has 바카라사이트 power to pay its members such travelling, subsistence, or o바카라사이트r allowances as 바카라사이트 board may determine". Would that not be appropriate for FE colleges?

Second, little consideration appears to have been given to 바카라사이트 possibility of some sort of compromise on 바카라사이트 issue of remuneration to governors. Not all governors spend equal time on college business. Some governors, particularly committee chairs, are heavily involved in college business and this requires a huge amount of time. Is it beyond 바카라사이트 realms of possibility that some payment could be considered for this group? Perhaps non-FEFC income could be used for this.

There is a danger that excluding 바카라사이트 possibility of some remuneration for governors will skew 바카라사이트 membership of governing bodies in such a way as to reduce 바카라사이트ir ability to reflect 바카라사이트 community that 바카라사이트y should represent. Any payments could be recorded in an open way and this would be sufficient to avoid any misuse of public funds.

Ben Bennett

Principal

Aylesbury College