Beyond PMSA has some concerns about the recently announced PMSA Governance Review process with the A
We note that the AICD has indicated that “Any Constitutional change will be at the determination of the two Churches”.
This is the most important issue to be reviewed and needs to be addressed first and foremost by the Churches - before any review takes place and potentially makes the entire AICD review redundant.
We specifically object to our school fees being spent with any organisation prior to the Churches making clear public statements as to whether they will consider constitutional change.
We specifically object to our school fees being spent with the AICD or any other provider of “improvement services” who are constrained by the Statement of Work to:
Only make recommendations about reforming the existing PMSA entity – “retain(ing) its existing schools within its current group structure”
Beyond PMSA currently asserts that a likely desirable future state for each of our schools is one where independent Councils exist across individual schools. The AICD Statement of Work prevents this option being examined and communicates clearly PMSA’s intention to ignore parents calling for an open and fair consideration of this future.
Only review governance “within the existing parameters set by the existing PMSA Constitution”
Beyond PMSA asserts that the Constitution under the current Letters Patent legal structure is in fact a large part of the current problem.
Provide feedback only in the form of “written submission” in response to an “issues paper”.
Beyond PMSA asserts that issues of confidentiality, accessibility and availability of a large parent and stakeholder body to engage in constructing substantial written response plays to an apathy bias in the design of the review methodology and is a disappointing proposal when channels such as direct and anonymous survey might offer better protection to stakeholders and quality of data collection for the reviewer.
We believe it ignores the point that more than 2000 stakeholders have supported a vote of No Confidence in the existing PMSA Councilors – the suggestion that they would now have confidence for them to self-review and self-improve demonstrates an arrogant disregard for the assessment the community has already made: that they are in fact not competent to undertake any review or reform.
This “review” is another example of where the current PMSA Councilors are more interested in creating illusions through misleading statements rather than genuinely being interested in reform. An “open consultation process” is misleading when the report findings are anything but “open” to all stakeholders. The community was asked to participate in a review without Terms of Reference less than 3 months ago, and whose final recommendations have reportedly been delivered to the PMSA and Churches but has not provided visibility on any recommendations, or indeed a timeline or commitment to do so, to parents and stakeholders.
Beyond PMSA encourages current Members, Graduates and Fellows of the AICD who are concerned about the brand damage from AICD associating itself with the PMSA, to raise their concerns directly with the AICD.
The Executive Team of Beyond PMSA happily offers to meet confidentially with representatives of the AICD Business Development team to assist them in making this decision to supply services to the PMSA or not – we feel it part of our moral and professional obligation to ensure the AICD is cognizant of the complaints that have been lodged against the current Council in the public domain.
Beyond PMSA will happily engage, and will encourage all concerned parents and stakeholders to engage, in a transparent and confidential AICD lead process where the engagement is jointly pursued through the Churches.
Beyond PMSA condemns the current PMSA Council for its attempt, once again, to ignore our calls for genuine reform to governance for our schools.
As the Statement of Work currently stands, this process will be yet another example of financial mismanagement and mis-use of our school fees to protect an archaic and self-serving governance model for a few men and women who refuse to engage in the discussion that really needs to be had.
