I was a Governor of the -------- (name redacted by editor) School Federation.
When the decision was made to become an academy I was initially in support. This was because I considered the education authority had behaved badly regarding the BSF fiasco.
The governors were advised that they would elect the trustees. So far as I am concerned, this opportunity never really arose. Instead the appointment process was sprung at a governors meeting at which there was no agenda item. I considered this to be no more than an ambush.
I had no personal input into the appointment of the "trustees" and because the matter was not included on the agenda for the meeting had no real opportunity of doing so.
Had I realised that the trustees were going to be appointed at that meeting I would most certainly have attended the meeting and challenged the process.
The four nominees were nominated by one of their number and were voted in there and then with all of the nominees voting.
I challenged this process at a subsequent meeting and the governors then decided not to minute my challenge. Another example of open governance!
I resigned as a governor because I was not prepared to continue having an association with an organisation whose values do not reflect mine when it comes to following open and democratic process.
I would be interested if anybody has any similar experience of this type of behaviour?