Two of the school governors waited with their hands raised throughout the discussion session to ask their question, but were never given an opportunity to do so. One of our governors, Natalie Channon, asked for another meeting, but was refused.
Sue Smith, one of the four parent representatives on the Working Group was present and sat at the front with Gil Sweetenham. After Gil's overview of about 30 minutes, and during the discussion session afterwards that lasted about 45 minutes Sue Smith was allowed speak at length in response to several questions. She has been a vociferous supporter of change from the outset and comes from one of the wards, Regency, that will benefit from the new proposals.
Why was she the only parent representative from the Working Group there? It seems that the Working Group parent reps were asked if they could attend the day before, and the others could not attend as they had commitments elsewhere. Fair enough, but then should she have been allowed to attend either if this was the case, especially when she already has a track record of bias for the proposals?
Tracey-Ann Ross of Schools4Communities was present and had been given permission to be there by Gil Sweetenham as she had an invitation from one of the governors at her junior school. She asked one question, but was not involved in discussion beyond that. She certainly did not get a chance to stand up and talk for the length of time that Sue Smith did.
ACTION
If you are unhappy with this meeting and feel it was biased send letters to the members of the CF&S Committee, to Gil Sweetenham, and to the Argus.
You can find details of who and how to contact people on this blog article:
Who To Contact And How
Technorati Tags: Meetings, News, SAR, Secondary Admissions Review