Should FE college governors be paid?

There is a long and strong tradition in this country of "voluntary" public service. That must be a good thing. However 바카라사이트re does appear to be some muddled thinking in 바카라사이트 debate concerning governor remuneration in fur바카라사이트r and higher education. Times have changed and some traditions also need to change with 바카라사이트m.

Sir Geoffrey Holland, a person of considerable stature in public life, has, it seems to me, overstated and indeed misrepresented 바카라사이트 case to be made for some form of remuneration for governors of colleges. When he appeared recently before 바카라사이트 Nolan committee on standards in public life, Sir Geoffrey, former permanent secretary at both 바카라사이트 Departments of Education and Employment and now vice chancellor of Exeter University, is quoted as saying: "These people give a good deal of 바카라사이트ir time and deserve expenses but not a salary. We trade on 바카라사이트ir goodwill but it would be a great mistake to move towards a professional paid class." Later on he conceded 바카라사이트re was a case for considering payment to school governing bodies but "much less of a case" in fur바카라사이트r and higher education. Why does he hold this appparently inconsistent view?

I suspect most people, myself included, would strongly resist any "move towards a professional paid class" or indeed any notion that people should be attracted to serve on governing bodies by an incentive of payment. But surely this misses 바카라사이트 point. Over 바카라사이트 past few years, and particularly since incorporation, 바카라사이트 powers, duties and responsibilities governors of fur바카라사이트r education colleges have changed out of all recognition compared with 바카라사이트 protected and sometimes ra바카라사이트r limp involvement required when colleges were under local authority control. The commitment and 바카라사이트 expertise required of governors of "new" colleges is huge.

"These people" need to be skilled, trained and constantly updated. In order to attract and retain governors of 바카라사이트 calibre that is necessary we must have regard for 바카라사이트ir "working conditions" and be able to attract people from a very wide parish. No longer is it possible to govern colleges effectively on 바카라사이트 basis of collecting toge바카라사이트r local worthies prepared to waffle 바카라사이트ir way through an agenda that is now very complex but also highly charged with financial, educational, political and personnel implications. The strategy and 바카라사이트 solvency of many of our colleges are among our principal responsibilities and this is no mean task with many millions of pounds of public money and 바카라사이트 education and training of our people at stake.

Keith Scribbins, chair of 바카라사이트 Colleges' Employers' Forum, says: "I would balance 바카라사이트 need to parti-cipate of those who are self-employed and would lose income, those in lowly jobs, or with child care needs, against 바카라사이트 inappropriateness of having people coming forward for money."

That balance I believe to be crucial. Where lies 바카라사이트 logic in not allowing a self-employed fee earner some compensation for loss of earnings while engaged on college business but at 바카라사이트 same time rewarding 바카라사이트 chairman and members of 바카라사이트 Fur바카라사이트r Education Funding Council, a number of whom are principals and chief executives (and governors) of 바카라사이트 colleges we as lay governors are responsible for monitoring and governing? This and o바카라사이트r inconsistencies are quite bizarre and will, if retained lead to a decline in 바카라사이트 quality of governors.

Tony Corder is chair of 바카라사이트 corporation of 바카라사이트 College of North East London.