Memorandum by the Zoos Forum (PAP 42)|
1. The Zoos Forum is an advisory body that
advise Ministers and officials on zoo matters. Members are selected
by appointment rather than election because of the need to secure
people who can give specialist advice and ensure the body has
the correct balance. Appointment system is more cost effective.
2. Problems could arise if people were elected
time taken to progress the selection
processit would become unmanageable if around 30,000 posts
had to be filled by election;
likelihood is that very few people
would exercise their vote;
the amount of paper the public would
have to plough through for 30,000 posts would be too burdensome;
very few vote at local and European
no guarantees on the appropriateness
of the candidates;
who votes? It is difficult to maintain
fairness and transparency unless "everyone" can vote.
It will be harder to achieve fairness as clearly voting boundaries
need to be defined.
3. A jury service equivalent would not seemingly
How would people with the right expertise be
How would the right balance of experts be secured?
Also, people would probably find excuses for not turning up at
the meetings, which would undermine the effectiveness of the body.
No! Too bureaucratic to administer and should be a voluntary desire.
4. Probably all these to achieve a balance
of views in every public body.
5. This is sensible. Departments know what
expertise they need, but officials need good guidance in procedures
Having been through it, it seemed fair to me!
6. No comments.
7. No comment.
8. Not sure that they need to play any role.
They are not likely to know much about many of the proposed candidates.
None! It must not be viewed as influenced because
people will not always come forward if it is.
9. Question 10 suggests so!
10. No. Perceived interference will demean
11. None. It would take up too much time
for them and would be another hoop to jump through.
Must ensure rules keep it fair, open and transparent.
12. No. Expense does not appear to be needed.
13. Central records should give a steer
on this. The Zoos Forum has a good balance of women and men, which
is quite a narrow field, so it can be achieved. Members appointed
to the Zoos Forum include vets; zoo operators from large and small
collections; zoo specialists; representatives from local authorities,
animal welfare and zoo sceptics; and zoo professionals in the
fields of conservation, education, research.
14. Diversity can be secured without compromising
the principle of appointment on merit by targeting organisations
representing the interests of women, ethnics, disabled etc so
we get candidates from them.
Selection process must demonstrate that person
fulfils "job" criteria.
15. Don't believe remuneration would increase
In some situations it may enable more people
to participate if they are not financially penalised by taking
part. Costs however will increase!
16. The public probably do not understand
the process of appointments. They probably do not consider it
fair or transparent because the media suggest "cronyism"
is rife in the appointments process.
I found so, yes, but doubt whether the general
public know how the system works.
17. Advertising should be in journals read
by people with the skills or expertise sought. Also, organisations
representing minority groups should be targeted as a matter of
18. To ensure appointments are made in an
independent and transparent way.
Yes, all public appointments must be seen to
be fair, open and transparent to ensure public support.
20. No views.
21. No comments.
22. What do they do?
23. Depends on the purpose of the appointment
and its length but in principle, yes.
24. Don't know what they are.
Yes as question 19, all public appointments
must be seen to be fair, open and transparent to ensure public