[Bell Historians] CCC Bells & Clocks Committee

[Mark]

Oh dear!

What's wrong with being open about how any appointment is made? It's only
bells we're talking about - not matters of national security. If people are
appointed on ability and competence what is there to hide?

Advertising or recommending candidates, interviews and a half decent
performance management structure, and all should work well. Surely all
appointments should be open and subject to scrutiny without referring to
freedom of information.

Or am I missing something?

Mark

Arcubus
31Park Street
Worcester
WR5 1AD

0797 1573688
 

-----Original Message-----
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of David Bryant
Sent: 30 August 2006 19:26
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] CCC Bells & Clocks Committee

> I think most people on your list are grown-ups and quite capable of 
> deciding for themselves whether this is a fit subject for open 
> debate.  But, by all means, let us move it elsewhere, if you feel the 
need 
> to leap in and censor on the extraordinary basis stated above.
> 
> Credibility is not just an issue for members of the new CCC Bells & 
Clocks 
> committee ...

Don't patronise me Robert. As I have said, you are quite at liberty to 
discuss it here but I don't want a repeat of the circuar argument 
whereby demands are made to the members of the committee to explain how 
they were appointed. This achieves nothing and is not fair on them. 
Provided this request is observed, I think open discussion is a good 
thing.

David







 
Yahoo! Groups Links