I refer to the article about the cost of the innovative scheme for elections to health boards: a cost which experience would suggest was unwarranted given the low turnout ("Every vote cast in health board elections cost £12", The Herald, February 6).
I would further suggest the experiment was no improvement on the current system for appointing non-executive board members; indeed, quite the reverse. A local election system could result in appointing members with strong political affiliations or activists promoting a single issue whereas a board member requires to take a broader unbiased view.
The present system does, I believe, produce such persons. Potential board members must apply to a public advertisement and thereafter be subjected to a rigorous assessment and interview process within which any political affiliations must be declared. The Health Secretary retains the final decision on appointments. This process should insure the most appropriate people are appointed.
I endorse the views expressed by the deputy chairman of the BMA that it is much more important to invest in front line services than in elections to health boards. To spend an estimated £12 million on what seems to have been a flawed, if well intentioned, initiative at the expense of patient care would, in my opinion, be most inappropriate.
I was also concerned about the views apparently expressed by some elected board members that they merely rubber stamped decisions made by executive members. It is the primary function of non-executive board members to question and constructively challenge recommendations from professional staff and monitor their activities. This is a vitally important role for non-executive members in any setting and when I was chairman of an NHS board this was clearly understood and practised.
The board was composed of very able non-executive members from a wide variety of backgrounds recruited by the public process I have described. If it isn't broken don't fix it.
Professor George L Irving CBE,
St Leonard's Road,
Ayr.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article