Page 2 of 2

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:17 pm
by englishangel
kerrensimmonds wrote:Or 'she'.................
hear hear. And why would 'Southern' want to put the cat among the pigeons?

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:39 pm
by peter2095
Getting cynical i suppose, is that a sign of old age?

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:28 pm
by Foureyes
peter2095 wrote:Maybe foureyes is Southern in Disguise
In order to scotch any possible rumours, although I live in southern England, I am definitely not to be confused with Peter Southern.

As regards my complaint, it is this. I have now discovered that the vacancy notice was posted in the Sunday Times and The Times on 12/13 January 2007. Both of these papers these days have a failrly limited distribution, and could easily be missed by possible candidates, particularly, as I said earlier, those living abroad. Hopefully, many Old Blues will look at the CH website from time-to-time and it therefore makes sense that the vacancy notice should appear on its "jobs" page. What I consider wrong/careless/negligent is that that notice did not appear until Tuesday 23rd (ie, a delay of ten days - why?) and when it did appear (Tuesady 23 January) it gave potential applicants only four working days to get their act together and submit a covering letter, a CV and three references, which combined with the modern postal system presented an almost impossible task.

My case is that such an important matter, particularly to Old Blues, should have been handled with greater expedition and consideration.

As regards the other post being advertised, it is correct that the original notice appeared in October and the person offered the job then turned it down. But, what has changed is that the post advertised in October was for a 4-day a week post for 2 years and it has now become a 5-day a week post with no time limitation.

Re: CLERK OF CHRIST'S HOSPITAL

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:40 am
by icomefromalanddownunder
Foureyes wrote:Old Blues may wish to note that the job advertisement for a new Clerk for the Foundation (ie, the Counting House) was posted on the CH Website on Tuesday 23 January for response by Monday 29 January. To give old Blues just four working day's notice for what to us is a very important post seems a disgrace - or, perhaps, they just don't want Old Blues to apply but feel that they have got to go through the motions of posting a SitVac notice.

It is true that the post was advertised in The Times in the third week in December, but why a full month's delay in putting it on the CH Website?

Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the Forum, and for inviting comment, but if you seriously want an answer, rather than speculation, would it not be appropriate to ask those who posted the ad, and those responsible for the CH Website?

Please accept my sincere apology if you have addressed this matter to the school.

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:42 am
by Foureyes
icomefromalanddownunder wrote:Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the Forum, and for inviting comment, but if you seriously want an answer, rather than speculation, would it not be appropriate to ask those who posted the ad, and those responsible for the CH Website?
A very reasonable question. In fact, I have already taken this up with the Counting House/Clerk, but I also posted it on the CH Forum so that a wider Old Blue audience would be aware of the situation.

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:35 pm
by J.R.
Hmmmmmmm ! All very interesting !

I'm afraid all this smacks of what I came across many times in my days with Local Government. It had to be seen to be fair to advertise ALL vacant posts, internally and externally, (if you'll pardon the expression !)
It was all very academic really, because everyone 'in the know', knew who'd got the job even before the ink was dry on the Sit Vac advert !

As for the six criteria required for the job on the job-spec, I fall at every hurdle, so as the great Catherine Tate would say,............

'Look at me face ! Am I bovvered ?'

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:50 am
by Foureyes
J.R. wrote:I'm afraid all this smacks of what I came across many times in my days with Local Government. It had to be seen to be fair to advertise ALL vacant posts, internally and externally, (if you'll pardon the expression !) It was all very academic really, because everyone 'in the know', knew who'd got the job even before the ink was dry on the Sit Vac advert !
Initially, this was my reaction as well, but, despite what it says on the CH swebsite that the closing date for application is 29th January, the headhunters (who rejoice under the name of "Odgers") have now extended the deadline to 5 February. This seems to suggest that instead of already having a preferred candidate, they actually don't have enough of sufficient quality. Oh dear!

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:21 am
by sejintenej
Foureyes wrote: the headhunters (who rejoice under the name of "Odgers") have now extended the deadline to 5 February. This seems to suggest that instead of already having a preferred candidate, they actually don't have enough of sufficient quality. Oh dear!
or someone has told them about the negative comments on this thread. They have to be seen by future employers as being fair and just.

I go along with JR (and as I posted earlier) that there might be an already agreed applicant; we will never know.

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:38 pm
by J.R.
.... or maybe there haven't even been any applicants ?

Hmmm !!!

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:38 pm
by blondie95
All,
Anyone with any form of connection to the school would have known the mighty three were all going almost at once! In fact i remember when i was at the school there being speculation of a mass exodus when the head went.

As for the job for a major donor trust fundraiser-i thought about it myself, although not having done that sort of fundraising i have been working on the other side of fundraising for a while now (i.e the processing of and helping charites become good at) and major donor is funnily enough a 'major area'. It would be a challenge to undertake