Your state school governing body is made up of a bunch of well meaning volunteers generally from all walks of local life.
You will see from this what it's all about and what is expected of you.
Problems can and do arise and the school governing body is such a powerful tool IMO that it cannot be overruled.
I give you an example:-
In a rural community where everybody knows everybody else and the local school is very much part of the community - as it absolutely should be - long standing governors become very great friends with the Headteacher, so much so that the Headteacher has those particular governors 'eating out of her hand'. The danger is (and this has happened and I'm certain this is not a case in isolation) is that the HT is never challenged, is allowed to hide and manipulate figures and present to the general public a picture of a thriving school with no problems when in fact, the school is in freefall.
Parent governors are those with the most to gain from being elected as governor as by their very title they can become a part of the decision making processes within their child's school.
A great idea - in theory. In practice it can be such a different story.
Another example:-
Unhappy parents making formal complaints about a variety of subjects to the HT over the years. The Chair of Governors (Chair of a great many years) is always present at the complaint meeting (at the invitation of the HT). Naturally enough, parents think their complaints have been heard by the Governing Body but in fact, the full GB never gets to hear of them as the Chair and HT have deemed the complaints as resolved (even though parents think otherwise!) This misrepresentation even fools the Local Authority School Improvement Partner who visits HT approx 3 times a year to make sure all is well.
The worse case scenario:
Chair of Governors present on a formal complaint about the significant over assessment of a child by a teacher. Both HT and Chair have obviously reached a conclusion before the meeting takes place. Following an independent assessment of the child the HT forges a LA document making the marks seem closer to the teacher assessment (although still much lower) than they should have been. HT then refuses under Freedom of Information to release emails between LA and HT relating to this complaint until forced to do so by the LA.
A formal complaint about HT then follows and LA does not let Chair takes part due to earlier involvement and evidence of collusion with HT. Complaint is handled by Vice-Chair (parent governor) advised by LA.
HT suspended.
Disciplinary panel comprising 3 school governors thus far not involved dismiss HT for gross misconduct (facts are conclusive and indeed damning).
Appeal panel (further 3 governors not thus far involved) hear all evidence again and decide to reinstate her. Parents are aware of suspension (press coverage) but not aware of severity of complaint against her and are now of the opinion that the complaint must have been minor otherwise the LA wouldn't have let her return.
The LA had no choice but to let her return as the appeal panel governors decision is final. These governors are her friends and have businesses and local standing within the community. These well meaning volunteers are being asked to decide upon the fate of their friend - a judgement that will affect her future income, pension and social standing. At times like these the wellbeing and education of the children at their school is as far away from their minds as can possibly be. This cannot be right.
Finally, to rub salt into the wound, the Chair of Governors stood as character witness in the HT's defence at the appeal despite being told not to make contact whilst she was suspended.
This cannot be right - parents trust their HT and why wouldn't they? School governance IMO is a perfect example of how Big Society can go so wrong.