Governance Forums

This week we have the “Governance Forums” hosted by the PMSA, with PMSA Councillors, School Councillors, School Principals and the PMSA Corporate Office in attendance. It seems that the Uniting and Presbyterian Church moderators will not be attending. Forums will be held at BBC (tonight), Clayfield College (Wednesday 18th) and Somerville House (Thursday 19th). We understand that the forum at Sunshine Coast Grammar has been cancelled.

Beyond PMSA have received many messages and emails from stakeholders about not wanting to attend the forums, as they are taking the form of controlled PMSA lectures, not constructive, open forums aimed at best practice reform.

Beyond PMSA’s executive team will not be participating in the forums, although we will have an executive attending some of the sessions, as an observer. We believe that these sessions will not consider or be able to deliver the extensive change needed to ensure that these fine schools benefit from world class governance practices.

However we encourage our supporters to attend and assess for themselves how the PMSA has developed the process, and what they are trying to achieve.

The forums are stated as an opportunity to discuss the current governance structure of the PMSA and provide clarity on governance change options available. As we know there has been much discussion and conjecture as to the effectiveness of these forums due to the need to:

Pre-register attendance (people should be able to attend without identifying themselves);
Pre-register queries (which stymies free flowing and “direct dialogue” as promised by the PMSA Chairman on ABC radio on 27 October and 3 November 2017);
Hold the forums without audio or film recording of the session, limiting participation by boarding families and others who for various reasons cannot attend in person.

There are also concerns held by many that pre-registering questions will mean that not every question submitted will be answered.

In fact, this has been confirmed by the PMSA themselves in their standard email out to potential participants when they have said:

Many of your questions will be answered at the forum. As you would understand, with many questions submitted and limited time at the forum, we may not be able to cover all questions pre-registered.

PMSA Councillors will be attending and answering questions.

This gives us two main areas of concern:

Will there be selection of “PMSA friendly” questions at the forum rather than the more genuine and critical stakeholder queries; and
Can and will the PMSA Councillors take responsibility for every query and answer, or will we hear a deflection of responsibility as has been heard by stakeholders when they have had individual interaction with the PMSA such as:

The Churches have deemed the school council charters as unavailable.

The AICD is the only entity who can answer questions about the design of the review.

Without the Churches being represented at each forum and the AICD, this is likely to happen. Let’s hope all those stakeholders in this process can attend and be given the time to answer genuine stakeholder queries.

In the spirit of openness and helpfulness, we want to hear what questions you have submitted to the Forum, and after you have attended you can let us know if your queries were given any airtime.

I’m sure we can trust our stakeholders to be respectful in their comments to this post. If you are concerned about being identified, please PM us directly and we will post your queries below on your behalf.

We believe that one of the most important questions to be answered centres around the deficiencies in the current AICD work scope that has been approved by the PMSA (without broader community consultation). Stakeholders should ask “why” they were not asked about the scope before it was “approved” by the PMSA, and “why” (given the clear failings of this organisation) we are all being told what aspects of it’s own reform will be permitted and what will not. That it is appropriate for the PMSA to be running a review of its own reform is bemusing by 21st Century governance standards, but that issue aside, the fact that it does not include an examination of constitutional reform and the appropriateness of continuing under Letters Patent is FUNDAMENTAL.

So the FUNDAMENTAL question is this - As Beyond PMSA is finalising the preparation of what it considers will be a strong application to the Attorney General to withdraw the PMSA’s Letters Patent and require it to be re-incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act, if that application is made and is successful, then what is the PMSA’s “Plan B” to fix things properly?

With legal advice already having been obtained by Beyond PMSA on this matter, it is not sufficient for the PMSA to casually dismiss the potential for such an application to be successful. A successful application will fundamentally change the scope of the reform process being presented at these Forums. Surely it is far better that the PMSA be seen publicly to be addressing material governance deficiencies than to be left to embarrassingly respond to and defend its position via a public application process?

To get you started on considering some other important questions, here are some basic queries we are aware of that have been submitted to the PMSA for the Forums. Feel free to use these if you have the opportunity:

Who determined the terms of reference for the AICD facilitated review?
Why were the terms of reference limited in the Scope of Works?
Why did the terms of reference not include a review of the constitution?
Why did the terms of reference not include a review of the appropriateness of the PMSA legal structure?
What assurances can the PMSA give stakeholders that any recommended changes will be implemented in full and without amendment?
What assurances and methodology can the PMSA implement so that stakeholders have confidence that all recommended changes will have long lasting impact? (i.e. not changed in subsequent PMSA meetings)
What is the outcome from the Chesterman Review and when will this report be published to submitters and stakeholders as promised?
Why has the AICD review commenced when the Chesterman process is still not finalised?
Why not publish the school council charters as part of the review?
When will submitters receive a copy of the AICD suggested amendments?
Can the AICD give assurances that all submissions and ideas (including those to question 14) will be presented to the PMSA, the Churches, and the stakeholder in their published report?
Why does the PMSA not publish general purpose financial accounts such that all remuneration and related party dealings of PMSA Councillors would have to be disclosed in full?Doesn’t the Australian Accounting Standards require general purpose accounting reports for an entity such as the PMSA?
Why is school by school financial information not available when 16 out of the top 20 schools in Brisbane publish such financial data and this publication would seem to have very little impact on their "competitive advantage"? In fact, many would say it was a marketing advantage to be so transparent and accountable.
Why are the school fee discounts available to the PMSA Councillors as per the Scholarships, Fee Discounts and Bursaries Policy not disclosed in the annual accounts under remuneration and related party disclosures?
How much are the corporate costs of the PMSA in the Financial Year 2017 and how does that compare with the "savings" that have been achieved by group buying insurance and the like. Is this a KPI of the PMSA executive team and Councillors and was there a net "saving" as has been implied?
How are the corporate costs of the PMSA allocated to each school - is it on a "per student" basis, a "per dollar of fee revenue" basis or something else. If something else, please outline the methodology.
Please outline the process followed in stepping down on full pay the Somerville House Principal and whether such process included a workplace investigation?What was the outcome of this investigation?Were the actions of the PMSA completely justified such that there will be no adverse and expensive legal claim borne by stakeholders?
What is the progress of the appointment of the Somerville House Principal and when can stakeholders expect an announcement?

Surely we would all prefer that the PMSA stand behind a reform process that does the job PROPERLY.

Are we really prepared to settle for something that is LESS, just because some think that pushing for proper structural reform is too hard? Is that the type of lesson that we expect our children to receive? Does that demonstrate the respect that we should have for the wonderful staff at our schools who must endure operating under the present structure every day?

We MUST make the time to get this right. We DON’T have the time to get it wrong. After 100 years lets ensure what is delivered actually makes a material and positive difference to the future of our schools.

Over to you, the stakeholders…..