Any other governors out there?

[IncessantChangerOfName]

I'm six years into my term next year. Every other governor that was on the board has left in that time.

I have my own kids, none of whom attend this school.

I have had a hectic year, including a parents death, so took some time out of the role. I was ready to jump back in, but I have had a email last week that's completely thrown me. It's asking me a question that I have zero skills to decide on. Three of us governors have to ratifiy it and another has said they also feel way of their depth.

I have explained how I feel and asked for help to make this desision. But I feel very uncomfortable whatever desision I make that from I can see is asking for possibly a big budget cost I don't agree with.

Rather than feel like I want to disect the cost, my first gut feeling is that the school isn't going in the way it was and I don't feel aligned with this budget choice.

When do you know it's time to move on? I really don't feel comfortable with this question and I don't really like what's driving it, or where its leading the school.

It sounds like this is something that should be discussed at a finance committee meeting ?
What category governor are you? You mention having undertaken the role for 6 years, so you see into your second term? Are all finance decisions generally made by the whole GB, or is there a separate finance (sub) committee? IME decisions for large expenditure - the HT puts forward their ideas and quotes and there is full discussion by a committee. If none of the governors have this skill set, there is a big training need to be addressed .

To explain- I'm not a governor but have had many years experience as clerk .

I was a parent governor but my child moved soon after I took up my role so I'm a community governor. It's got to be ratified by me before it goes to the finance committee. I feel uncomfortable even doing that. I had to sit gcse maths twice before getting a C. I would never put myself forward for the finance committee. I'm comfortable enough with our accounts and even one off capital spends like multiple white boards as they was allowed to full into disrepair. For some reason, this thing has thrown me right off. I can get my head around it and I will. But I just feel uncomfortable.

I also have experience as a clerk. You cant ratify something you dont understand or agree with.

What type of school are you? Does your Local Authority, or Diocese offer any advice

Unless you have an elected role such as chair or vice chair, this doesn't make sense to me. I can't see why individual governors without a financial role would be expected to ratify a financial decision prior to it going to finance committee . That is the purpose of that committee . Depending on the terms of reference and the finance statement (can't think what it's called now) decisions can sometimes be made by chair of FC and COG. In your position I would suggest to raise your concerns with the chair of governors and with the clerk who should be able to give guidance on procedures according to what is legal and also what fits in with your own terms of reference .

Ex governor of many years here. Why are you being asked to make this decision? Who is asking you to make it? Why can't the finance committee consider it?

I'm on another sub committee and it's got to be agreed by that ( my) sub committee before it can go to the finance committee.

I could say yes but the finance committee could say its not possible so it would be moot. But I don't feel equipped to say. I have told the clerk. But overall, overriding, I don't want to be in this position. Its only the second time I have felt uncomfortable and no one has done anything wrong. It's an expense that if say yes to, will be ongoing and irreversible. It would make more sence for the finance board to say if its even possible before I say anything. I have Total faith that the finance board has the ability to make a sound desision. The chair is extremely good private accountant for a start

I can't grasp what the problem is here. What could possibly be so complicated, that if you were given enough information, you couldn't make an informed decision?

It sounds like this has two parts. An agreement in principle, and financial viability. It's perfectly reasonable to have a sub committee that is asked whether they recommend a course of action, and a finance committee to decide if it is financially viable. That said, if you don't feel comfortable, you can either refuse to contribute to the decision, or decide that your discomfort is a sign that you disagree with the course of action.

I have to say that my schools were very dull and even when we went through federation I didn't feel uncomfortable making the decision. Often the decision is made for you by circumstance.

It's not just that it's complicated. I don't fully understand the long term ramifications. It's that it also makes me feel uncomfortable

It's putting SMT in a new pay scale that we have never been in before.

Part of the discomfort is that my gut says I don't agree. The pay scale has always been in this scale range. That was know when SMT took up posts. So what happens when we hit the top of this range? Do we go into the next pay scale etc. It's not beyond a lay person to reach a conclusion if they are given the exact figures and how much per year on adverage the pay increases within this new range etc. It's just I don't feel comfortable deciding. I'm wondering if because I'm beginning to feel I'm being asked to do things that now make me feel uncomfortable if it's a sign it's time to step down.

I have no problems approving capital spend but this could be an ever increasing can of worms. If we can offord it today ( I have no idea if we can) I don't know if its sustainable five years down the line.

I would say to abstain as you don’t feel confident that you are fully appraised of all the information and implications.

I think I'm going to have too unless all of the questions can answered for the five years with clear answers on how this effects all staff potential pay scales.

I know you don't need to be a subject matter expert to be a governor. But I'm subject mater fuckwit when it comes to things like this. Seems a massive bull ache of stress unpicking this before finance pick it apart, but I don't feel I can comment until finance pick it apart. Unless we say yes, it doesn't get to finance! I'm not comfortable with that. I don't see have much choice

I suggest you read guidance if you have access to it and if still unsure email your local authority governor support team for advice.
usually there would be a pay panel who make this decision collectively rather than one individual. Or are you chair of the pay panel?
school governance is really hard and totally under appreciated.
I have learnt a lot from a Facebook group ‘school governance network uk’.

Ah I get where you are coming from now . So you are on staffing SC . I think you are being asked to make the decision on the basis of whether you feel the staff deserve the additional pay rise . It's the same as staffing committee have to approve some of the appraisals that move staff I to another grade/increment. There is no need to worry about what will happen when they reach the top of the scale the HT is hoping to move them to at the moment - that will be a question for another year.

The decision as to whether the school can afford it will be made by the finance committee.
That's my understanding anyway .

It is a bit complicated - property and buildings works the same.
Sometimes schools combine these committees eg finance and staffing or buildings and finance .
You also have to bear in mind that when a HT is raising these proposals in the first place, that they will (or should have ) already considered such scenarios .

You may also want to consider that a governor's role is to provide challenge to a HT so don't be afraid to ask questions if you are unsure . Hopefully the questions will be answered to your satisfaction and the discussion and decision minuted .

I think that the question you want to be asking is what is the rationale behind the decision to request the change - and do you agree with this .
Rhetoric impact upon the school's budget, both now and in future will be made by finance committee .

Thanks for this. So I might not have to work out any of the costs it seems, Thank you. Lots of questions to ask. Maybe it will seem a bit clearer in the morning.

This is definitely one of those "is this really worth the stress?" Moments. Whatever you do, someone thinks your useless but your doing sometimes high responsibility jobs for zero pay.

I think two terms is long enough to see so much change you don't recognise the school you joined.

This is only the second time I have felt I'm not the right person for this job.

Your LA should be able to give you access to the payscales. Normally there is a group size based on the number of pupils and that determines the pay scale. You can go up to 25% above if there are exceptional reasons.

You need to think about why you are being asked to do this. Has the school's capacity increased? Have you developed extra facilities? Is the school providing services it didn't provide in the past, which puts extra responsibility on the SLT? Are you finding it hard to recruit for senior posts?

Have you sought guidance from the school's LLP or the area manager? They should be able to tell you whether it's a crazy idea or whether there is justification.

@IncessantChangerOfName I recommend you join the Facebook group School Governance Network UK: https://www.facebook.com/groups/821981841151894/

There are a lot of very experienced governors on there who can help you. Only verified governors can join and, once in, you can ask questions anonymously.

" It's that it also makes me feel uncomfortable

It's putting SMT in a new pay scale that we have never been in before.

Part of the discomfort is that my gut says I don't agree."

I'm probably biased here - I'm a former parent governor turned community governor at a primary school - in my area even schools which used to be oversubscribed are having to restructure - there have been government cuts but also the cohorts of children now in primary are smaller than they were.

Your quoted concern these and the issues you raise in the rest of your post last night seem like very reasonable issues.

You're not making the decisions on your own here, but I think you should write down some questions to ask.

Examples - but these may not be relevant to your school, you might know the answers, they might have included these points in the proposal, you might have better and more important questions.

Is the school using current pay scales used across a local authority/academy trust/other wider organisation?

Why do they need to increase pay for management?

What's happening to other staff in the school? Are there non SMT teaching staff who have a good case for higher pay scales or are likely to? Is the school likely to have to make cuts or restructure lower down. Are the staffing needs of the school well covered? How about the state of the building and teaching resources other than staff? Up to date books that meet the needs of the curriculum, for example?

How will doing this or not doing so affect pupils compared to other options? How would news and social media coverage of management giving themselves a big pay rise be seen by other staff, families whose kids attend, the community?

Has there been trade union consultation?

What issues does the school, the area its in, families whose kids attend, the wider organisation, face over the next few years? This goes back to sustainability.

Maybe you'll be persuaded, maybe other governors on the subcommittee will also share concerns, perhaps not.

Thanks everyone. I have a lot more facts now. There's a meeting to go over it before it hits finance, I think it would move the entire SMT up and we have just increased the SMT numbers. It's potentially going to set a very expensive president for the rest of the SMT. I think once we have had the meeting it will be clear.