The MLC Board vs Rosa Storelli stoush raises some interesting questions regarding governance of our large private schools.
I was a parent of daughters at MLC for eleven years and I never got to terms with how the Board was appointed. (Although I must say I had absolutely no qualms with the board at the time.)
I know of a colleague who, as a parent at another large private school, was approached to join the board. From what I understood of the situation, the Board itself chose replacements when a vacancy occurred. I stand to be corrected about this, but that’s how I understood it.
It makes some sort of sense in a way.
I am currently in the process of setting up a “company limited by guarantee.” This company will be a not for profit organisation to provide educational services as it happens.
To form the company we need a group of people who will be members. We COULD say the members are the directors or another group of people altogether. Whatever, we would have to have some mechanism for replacing both members and directors when one of them ceases to occupy the role for whatever reason.
We could do what it appears the other private school discussed above. Whenever a member leaves, the remaining members could appoint a replacement. The members then appoint directors.
There is no in principal minimum number of members apart from the legal requirement of (I think) 2.
There is no reason MLC could not do the same thing. Just because it administers tens of millions of dollars each year makes no in principal difference.
So it is possible the MLC Board is accountable to no one but itself.
We don’t know. But given we, as taxpayers, give the College millions of dollars each year we should know.
