A question of ethics.

[JennyMorgan]

The Broads Authority is unquestionably a member of the National Parks family, it has also elected to 'rebrand' the Broads as a National Park. That being an unarguable fact then surely it is a reasonable and moral requirement that the Authority abides by the rules of the National Parks?

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1493168170964436/permalink/1546302932317626/

 

Governance at the Authority, once again, is open to further question.

[Matt]

The Broads Authority is unquestionably a member of the National Parks family, it has also elected to 'rebrand' the Broads as a National Park. That being an unarguable fact then surely it is a reasonable and moral requirement that the Authority abides by the rules of the National Parks?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1493168170964436/permalink/1546302932317626/

Governance at the Authority, once again, is open to further question.

But it was a SOS appointment so nothing to do with governance at the BA?

And at the time of appointment he eligible to apply and be appointed. The rules subsequently changed and the rule apply to appointment only so I can't really see the arguement.

Just seems like a witch hunt to me.

[JennyMorgan]

Matt, most certainly NOT a witch hunt as far as I'm concerned, more a wish that the Authority accepts a moral requirement to abide by the current rules. I am aware that the Authority tends to interpret and sometimes bend the rules to suit its agenda but in this case the rules are clear, being a member of the National Parks family does have its responsibilities, in my view the Authority shouldn't pick and choose which rules to apply, or how to apply them, nor should it choose whom to apply them to. There is no question that at least two other committee members were required to resign under these rules. What also has to be considered is that the 'sitting member' has long been immensely supportive of the Executive whilst the two that were required to resign were clearly not adverse to asking less than helpful questions. I used the term 'ethics' and I stand by that. It is a matter of ethics, no question in my mind as to that. The Authority expects us to abide by the current rules, it should do the same. I can't choose to ignore the 1986 Broads Act simply because the previous Port & Haven bylaws suited me better. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

SOS appointment or not, it is surely good governance on behalf of the Authority to ensure that such matters are both squeaky clean and above board? A moral and ethical responsibility, if nothing else. I'm not a lawyer, I'll leave the legal niceties to those who understand such things.

[Matt]

Peter, sorry my witch hunt was more a reference to the link and other places.

Public Appointments to the Broads Authority are regulated by OCPA who would have been involved in an extension of the contract. Should anyone want to raise concerns they should first go to them. In my experience the BA would have very little control over the appointment or indeed the termination of a SoS Appointment.

[MauriceMynah]

I don't have a facebook account so have no idea what the fuss is all about! 

[JennyMorgan]

John, lucky you!

 

Back from the pub, general consensus within our small group was that the relevant rule should apply equally, one way or the other, across the board.

 

John, I haven't looked but I believe that Paladine has raised this very topic in the 'other place' but under what heading I don't know.

 

Just waiting for my regular sparring partner to wade in, expect he's out polishing his stern-drives!!

[JennyMorgan]

Mat, have raised your point re the OCPA on FaceBook. Seems to me to be entirely relevant.

[Guest]

.....Just waiting for my regular sparring partner to wade in, expect he's out polishing his stern-drives!!

 

My stern drive is in tip-top condition Peter, (though a bit tricky to polish)

 

...but I thought I wouldn't bother wading in this time, it gets so repetitive.

 

Your regular "groan" threads die away quickly when almost everyone ignores them.

 

I thought I'd give it a try too...  (I must try harder though)

[JennyMorgan]

 

...but I thought I wouldn't bother wading in this time, it gets so repetitive.

 

 

But this subject hasn't been raised before!

 

Let's be having you, you know that you want to    

[Matt]

Mat, have raised your point re the OCPA on FaceBook. Seems to me to be entirely relevant.

No but I see you have so no problem.

There terms for reappointment are likely to be very different to initial appointment and probably based on performance and contribution. There would also have been legal input to the SOS advice and assuming it was disclosed will have been covered.

Nothing to see here, move along please......!

[Paladin]

Nothing to see here, move along please......!

You wish 

[Matt]

You wish

Well I am sure we shall see in due course.

[Polly]

I am with MM no FB account and no idea what we are looking at. .?

[JennyMorgan]

Matt, I understand that it is DEFRA's code of ethics rather than that of the OCPA that is relevant in this case. Had the BA not chosen to treat one committee member differently to two others then I doubt that this topic would have reared its head.

[Polly]

OK i am picking up the basic idea. Thanks for the suggestion, Paladin , but FB is not something I would join I don't like their ethics at all

[Matt]

I see the Facebook page has the written answer to the question posed to the BA on the member in question.

Back to DEFRA it appears.