On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:22:49 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Crash hasn't made any claims. Campbell has however. Even if he was on 10 boards he would never work 60 hours per week. If he is telling the truth then he is counting some other workload or like you he doesn't understand the difference between management and governance.
wrote:
Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the Health
NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his role (50
days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per week. This >>sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these hours.
Crown Health Entities (such as HNZ) are run by a CEO and supporting >>management. These are full-time roles covering the day-to-day
operations of the organisation.
The role of a board chair is to run board meetings. Typically board >>meetings would normally be held monthly, last an hour or 2 with some
extra time for all board members to prepare for the meeting and to be >>involved in board committees that meet separately. A few days per
month per board member should be more than adequate. Board members
are governance-focused and not full-time roles.
HNZ has a full-time CEO and supporting management. They make all the >>day-to-day decisions on behalf of the board. The only involvement of
board members in this process is to set general directions for the CEO
to follow and step in should there be the odd problem.
So how does Rob Campbell justify working 60 hours per week for the HNZ >>board? Presumably he has raised this issue with the Minister of
Health at the time? If not - why not?
Interesting, Crash, if true. Do you have a reference for these claims.
I can well believe that he was working 60 hours a wekk - but that
would be for all his Board roles . . .
Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the Health
NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his role (50
days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per week. This
sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these hours.
Crown Health Entities (such as HNZ) are run by a CEO and supporting >management. These are full-time roles covering the day-to-day
operations of the organisation.
The role of a board chair is to run board meetings. Typically board
meetings would normally be held monthly, last an hour or 2 with some
extra time for all board members to prepare for the meeting and to be >involved in board committees that meet separately. A few days per
month per board member should be more than adequate. Board members
are governance-focused and not full-time roles.
HNZ has a full-time CEO and supporting management. They make all the >day-to-day decisions on behalf of the board. The only involvement of
board members in this process is to set general directions for the CEO
to follow and step in should there be the odd problem.
So how does Rob Campbell justify working 60 hours per week for the HNZ
board? Presumably he has raised this issue with the Minister of
Health at the time? If not - why not?
Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the Health
NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his role (50
days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per week. This
sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these hours.
Crown Health Entities (such as HNZ) are run by a CEO and supporting management. These are full-time roles covering the day-to-day
operations of the organisation.
The role of a board chair is to run board meetings. Typically board
meetings would normally be held monthly, last an hour or 2 with some
extra time for all board members to prepare for the meeting and to be involved in board committees that meet separately. A few days per
month per board member should be more than adequate. Board members
are governance-focused and not full-time roles.
HNZ has a full-time CEO and supporting management. They make all the day-to-day decisions on behalf of the board. The only involvement of
board members in this process is to set general directions for the CEO
to follow and step in should there be the odd problem.
So how does Rob Campbell justify working 60 hours per week for the HNZ
board? Presumably he has raised this issue with the Minister of
Health at the time? If not - why not?
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:22:49 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Crash hasn't made any claims. Campbell has however. Even if he was on 10 boards
Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the Health
NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his role (50 >>>days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per week. This >>>sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these hours.
Crown Health Entities (such as HNZ) are run by a CEO and supporting >>>management. These are full-time roles covering the day-to-day
operations of the organisation.
The role of a board chair is to run board meetings. Typically board >>>meetings would normally be held monthly, last an hour or 2 with some >>>extra time for all board members to prepare for the meeting and to be >>>involved in board committees that meet separately. A few days per
month per board member should be more than adequate. Board members
are governance-focused and not full-time roles.
HNZ has a full-time CEO and supporting management. They make all the >>>day-to-day decisions on behalf of the board. The only involvement of >>>board members in this process is to set general directions for the CEO
to follow and step in should there be the odd problem.
So how does Rob Campbell justify working 60 hours per week for the HNZ >>>board? Presumably he has raised this issue with the Minister of
Health at the time? If not - why not?
Interesting, Crash, if true. Do you have a reference for these claims.
I can well believe that he was working 60 hours a wekk - but that
would be for all his Board roles . . .
he would never work 60 hours per week. If he is telling the truth then he is >counting some other workload or like you he doesn't understand the difference >between management and governance.
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 00:03:56 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour question of Crash was loaded, and we both know it. You are so transparent. And then of course you revert to type and are abusive with your favourite form - sarcasm!
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:22:49 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Crash hasn't made any claims. Campbell has however. Even if he was on 10 >>boards
Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the Health >>>>NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his role (50 >>>>days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per week. This >>>>sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these hours.
Crown Health Entities (such as HNZ) are run by a CEO and supporting >>>>management. These are full-time roles covering the day-to-day >>>>operations of the organisation.
The role of a board chair is to run board meetings. Typically board >>>>meetings would normally be held monthly, last an hour or 2 with some >>>>extra time for all board members to prepare for the meeting and to be >>>>involved in board committees that meet separately. A few days per >>>>month per board member should be more than adequate. Board members
are governance-focused and not full-time roles.
HNZ has a full-time CEO and supporting management. They make all the >>>>day-to-day decisions on behalf of the board. The only involvement of >>>>board members in this process is to set general directions for the CEO >>>>to follow and step in should there be the odd problem.
So how does Rob Campbell justify working 60 hours per week for the HNZ >>>>board? Presumably he has raised this issue with the Minister of
Health at the time? If not - why not?
Interesting, Crash, if true. Do you have a reference for these claims.
I can well believe that he was working 60 hours a wekk - but that
would be for all his Board roles . . .
he would never work 60 hours per week. If he is telling the truth then he is >>counting some other workload or like you he doesn't understand the difference >>between management and governance.
Clearly you do not understand how usenet works. Crash posted some
words that started off:
"Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the
Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his
role (50 days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per
week. This sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these
hours."
That may well be a quotation from somewhere else - all I asked for was
a reference for that and other statements made.
Clearly you are out of your depth again, Tony. I have not disagreed or
agreed with the conclusions, but if true they are surprising. All I am >seeking Just sit back and wait to see how the discussion goes . . . -
perhaps try reading something on anger management . . .
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 00:03:56 -0000 (UTC), TonyObviously Google isn't your friend Rich. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting this sort of garbage!
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Clearly you do not understand how usenet works. Crash posted some
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:22:49 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Crash hasn't made any claims. Campbell has however. Even if he was on 10 boards
Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the Health >>>NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his role (50 >>>days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per week. This >>>sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these hours.
Crown Health Entities (such as HNZ) are run by a CEO and supporting >>>management. These are full-time roles covering the day-to-day >>>operations of the organisation.
The role of a board chair is to run board meetings. Typically board >>>meetings would normally be held monthly, last an hour or 2 with some >>>extra time for all board members to prepare for the meeting and to be >>>involved in board committees that meet separately. A few days per >>>month per board member should be more than adequate. Board members
are governance-focused and not full-time roles.
HNZ has a full-time CEO and supporting management. They make all the >>>day-to-day decisions on behalf of the board. The only involvement of >>>board members in this process is to set general directions for the CEO >>>to follow and step in should there be the odd problem.
So how does Rob Campbell justify working 60 hours per week for the HNZ >>>board? Presumably he has raised this issue with the Minister of
Health at the time? If not - why not?
Interesting, Crash, if true. Do you have a reference for these claims.
I can well believe that he was working 60 hours a wekk - but that
would be for all his Board roles . . .
he would never work 60 hours per week. If he is telling the truth then he is
counting some other workload or like you he doesn't understand the difference
between management and governance.
words that started off:
"Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the
Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his
role (50 days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per
week. This sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these
hours."
That may well be a quotation from somewhere else - all I asked for was
a reference for that and other statements made.
Clearly you are out of your depth again, Tony. I have not disagreed or agreed with the conclusions, but if true they are surprising. All I am seeking Just sit back and wait to see how the discussion goes . . . - perhaps try reading something on anger management . . .
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 00:03:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:22:49 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the Health >>>>NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his role (50 >>>>days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per week. This >>>>sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these hours.
Crown Health Entities (such as HNZ) are run by a CEO and supporting >>>>management. These are full-time roles covering the day-to-day >>>>operations of the organisation.
The role of a board chair is to run board meetings. Typically board >>>>meetings would normally be held monthly, last an hour or 2 with some >>>>extra time for all board members to prepare for the meeting and to be >>>>involved in board committees that meet separately. A few days per >>>>month per board member should be more than adequate. Board members
are governance-focused and not full-time roles.
HNZ has a full-time CEO and supporting management. They make all the >>>>day-to-day decisions on behalf of the board. The only involvement of >>>>board members in this process is to set general directions for the CEO >>>>to follow and step in should there be the odd problem.
So how does Rob Campbell justify working 60 hours per week for the HNZ >>>>board? Presumably he has raised this issue with the Minister of
Health at the time? If not - why not?
Interesting, Crash, if true. Do you have a reference for these claims.
I can well believe that he was working 60 hours a wekk - but that
would be for all his Board roles . . .
Crash hasn't made any claims. Campbell has however. Even if he was on 10 boards
he would never work 60 hours per week. If he is telling the truth then he is >>counting some other workload or like you he doesn't understand the difference >>between management and governance.
Clearly you do not understand how usenet works. Crash posted some
words that started off:
"Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the
Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his
role (50 days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per
week. This sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these
hours."
That may well be a quotation from somewhere else - all I asked for was
a reference for that and other statements made.
Clearly you are out of your depth again, Tony. I have not disagreed or
agreed with the conclusions, but if true they are surprising. All I am seeking Just sit back and wait to see how the discussion goes . . . -
perhaps try reading something on anger management . . .
On 6 Mar 2023 02:48:20 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Why should it be so?
On 2023-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The statement "Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 00:03:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:22:49 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the Health >>>>>>NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his role (50 >>>>>>days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per week. This >>>>>>sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these hours.
Crown Health Entities (such as HNZ) are run by a CEO and supporting >>>>>>management. These are full-time roles covering the day-to-day >>>>>>operations of the organisation.
The role of a board chair is to run board meetings. Typically board >>>>>>meetings would normally be held monthly, last an hour or 2 with some >>>>>>extra time for all board members to prepare for the meeting and to be >>>>>>involved in board committees that meet separately. A few days per >>>>>>month per board member should be more than adequate. Board members >>>>>>are governance-focused and not full-time roles.
HNZ has a full-time CEO and supporting management. They make all the >>>>>>day-to-day decisions on behalf of the board. The only involvement of >>>>>>board members in this process is to set general directions for the CEO >>>>>>to follow and step in should there be the odd problem.
So how does Rob Campbell justify working 60 hours per week for the HNZ >>>>>>board? Presumably he has raised this issue with the Minister of >>>>>>Health at the time? If not - why not?
Interesting, Crash, if true. Do you have a reference for these claims. >>>>>I can well believe that he was working 60 hours a wekk - but that >>>>>would be for all his Board roles . . .
On the matter of cites, and references. Some times cites are needed, indeed >>useful. However there are occassions when cites are not required as the >>matter is small or it is public knowledge.
Society would break down if we all requested cites for each, and every >>statement. Nothing would progress.
In this case probably is that the Rob Campbell has been quoted in the Main >>Stream Media or elsewhere.
The 60/week figure is also "plusable" as in Campbell said it. After all he >>is has been having some frank and meaningful out bursts.
chair of the Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was
budgeted for his role" was made - I have not seen it, and I do follow
at least some "main stream media", and if indeed ""much has been made"
of this allegation it should be reasonably easy to give a reference.
Crash hasn't made any claims. Campbell has however. Even if he was on 10 >>>>boards
he would never work 60 hours per week. If he is telling the truth then he >>>>is
counting some other workload or like you he doesn't understand the >>>>difference
between management and governance.
Clearly you do not understand how usenet works. Crash posted some
words that started off:
"Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the
Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his
role (50 days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per
week. This sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these
hours."
That may well be a quotation from somewhere else - all I asked for was
a reference for that and other statements made.
Clearly you are out of your depth again, Tony. I have not disagreed or
agreed with the conclusions, but if true they are surprising. All I am
seeking Just sit back and wait to see how the discussion goes . . . -
perhaps try reading something on anger management . . .
Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the Health
NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his role (50
days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per week. This
sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these hours.
Crown Health Entities (such as HNZ) are run by a CEO and supporting management. These are full-time roles covering the day-to-day
operations of the organisation.
The role of a board chair is to run board meetings. Typically board
meetings would normally be held monthly, last an hour or 2 with some
extra time for all board members to prepare for the meeting and to be involved in board committees that meet separately. A few days per
month per board member should be more than adequate. Board members
are governance-focused and not full-time roles.
HNZ has a full-time CEO and supporting management. They make all the day-to-day decisions on behalf of the board. The only involvement of
board members in this process is to set general directions for the CEO
to follow and step in should there be the odd problem.
So how does Rob Campbell justify working 60 hours per week for the HNZ board? Presumably he has raised this issue with the Minister of
Health at the time? If not - why not?
--
Crash McBash
On 2023-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 00:03:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:22:49 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the Health >>>>>NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his role (50 >>>>>days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per week. This >>>>>sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these hours.
Crown Health Entities (such as HNZ) are run by a CEO and supporting >>>>>management. These are full-time roles covering the day-to-day >>>>>operations of the organisation.
The role of a board chair is to run board meetings. Typically board >>>>>meetings would normally be held monthly, last an hour or 2 with some >>>>>extra time for all board members to prepare for the meeting and to be >>>>>involved in board committees that meet separately. A few days per >>>>>month per board member should be more than adequate. Board members >>>>>are governance-focused and not full-time roles.
HNZ has a full-time CEO and supporting management. They make all the >>>>>day-to-day decisions on behalf of the board. The only involvement of >>>>>board members in this process is to set general directions for the CEO >>>>>to follow and step in should there be the odd problem.
So how does Rob Campbell justify working 60 hours per week for the HNZ >>>>>board? Presumably he has raised this issue with the Minister of >>>>>Health at the time? If not - why not?
Interesting, Crash, if true. Do you have a reference for these claims. >>>>I can well believe that he was working 60 hours a wekk - but that
would be for all his Board roles . . .
On the matter of cites, and references. Some times cites are needed, indeed >useful. However there are occassions when cites are not required as the >matter is small or it is public knowledge.
Society would break down if we all requested cites for each, and every >statement. Nothing would progress.
In this case probably is that the Rob Campbell has been quoted in the Main >Stream Media or elsewhere.
The 60/week figure is also "plusable" as in Campbell said it. After all he
is has been having some frank and meaningful out bursts.
Crash hasn't made any claims. Campbell has however. Even if he was on 10 boards
he would never work 60 hours per week. If he is telling the truth then he is >>>counting some other workload or like you he doesn't understand the difference
between management and governance.
Clearly you do not understand how usenet works. Crash posted some
words that started off:
"Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the
Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his
role (50 days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per
week. This sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these
hours."
That may well be a quotation from somewhere else - all I asked for was
a reference for that and other statements made.
Clearly you are out of your depth again, Tony. I have not disagreed or
agreed with the conclusions, but if true they are surprising. All I am
seeking Just sit back and wait to see how the discussion goes . . . -
perhaps try reading something on anger management . . .
On 6 Mar 2023 02:48:20 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The statement "Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 00:03:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:22:49 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the Health >>>>>>NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his role (50 >>>>>>days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per week. This >>>>>>sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these hours.
Crown Health Entities (such as HNZ) are run by a CEO and supporting >>>>>>management. These are full-time roles covering the day-to-day >>>>>>operations of the organisation.
The role of a board chair is to run board meetings. Typically board >>>>>>meetings would normally be held monthly, last an hour or 2 with some >>>>>>extra time for all board members to prepare for the meeting and to be >>>>>>involved in board committees that meet separately. A few days per >>>>>>month per board member should be more than adequate. Board members >>>>>>are governance-focused and not full-time roles.
HNZ has a full-time CEO and supporting management. They make all the >>>>>>day-to-day decisions on behalf of the board. The only involvement of >>>>>>board members in this process is to set general directions for the CEO >>>>>>to follow and step in should there be the odd problem.
So how does Rob Campbell justify working 60 hours per week for the HNZ >>>>>>board? Presumably he has raised this issue with the Minister of >>>>>>Health at the time? If not - why not?
Interesting, Crash, if true. Do you have a reference for these claims. >>>>>I can well believe that he was working 60 hours a wekk - but that >>>>>would be for all his Board roles . . .
On the matter of cites, and references. Some times cites are needed, indeed >>useful. However there are occassions when cites are not required as the >>matter is small or it is public knowledge.
Society would break down if we all requested cites for each, and every >>statement. Nothing would progress.
In this case probably is that the Rob Campbell has been quoted in the Main >>Stream Media or elsewhere.
The 60/week figure is also "plusable" as in Campbell said it. After all he >>is has been having some frank and meaningful out bursts.
chair of the Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was
budgeted for his role" was made - I have not seen it, and I do follow
at least some "main stream media", and if indeed ""much has been made"
of this allegation it should be reasonably easy to give a reference.
Crash hasn't made any claims. Campbell has however. Even if he was on 10 boards
he would never work 60 hours per week. If he is telling the truth then he is
counting some other workload or like you he doesn't understand the difference
between management and governance.
Clearly you do not understand how usenet works. Crash posted some
words that started off:
"Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the
Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his
role (50 days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per
week. This sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these
hours."
That may well be a quotation from somewhere else - all I asked for was
a reference for that and other statements made.
Clearly you are out of your depth again, Tony. I have not disagreed or
agreed with the conclusions, but if true they are surprising. All I am
seeking Just sit back and wait to see how the discussion goes . . . -
perhaps try reading something on anger management . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Nothing, but you appear to believe otherwise. Crash is usually muich
On 6 Mar 2023 02:48:20 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Why should it be so?
On 2023-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The statement "Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 00:03:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:22:49 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the Health >>>>>>>NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his role (50 >>>>>>>days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per week. This >>>>>>>sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these hours.
Crown Health Entities (such as HNZ) are run by a CEO and supporting >>>>>>>management. These are full-time roles covering the day-to-day >>>>>>>operations of the organisation.
The role of a board chair is to run board meetings. Typically board >>>>>>>meetings would normally be held monthly, last an hour or 2 with some >>>>>>>extra time for all board members to prepare for the meeting and to be >>>>>>>involved in board committees that meet separately. A few days per >>>>>>>month per board member should be more than adequate. Board members >>>>>>>are governance-focused and not full-time roles.
HNZ has a full-time CEO and supporting management. They make all the >>>>>>>day-to-day decisions on behalf of the board. The only involvement of >>>>>>>board members in this process is to set general directions for the CEO >>>>>>>to follow and step in should there be the odd problem.
So how does Rob Campbell justify working 60 hours per week for the HNZ >>>>>>>board? Presumably he has raised this issue with the Minister of >>>>>>>Health at the time? If not - why not?
Interesting, Crash, if true. Do you have a reference for these claims. >>>>>>I can well believe that he was working 60 hours a wekk - but that >>>>>>would be for all his Board roles . . .
On the matter of cites, and references. Some times cites are needed, indeed >>>useful. However there are occassions when cites are not required as the >>>matter is small or it is public knowledge.
Society would break down if we all requested cites for each, and every >>>statement. Nothing would progress.
In this case probably is that the Rob Campbell has been quoted in the Main >>>Stream Media or elsewhere.
The 60/week figure is also "plusable" as in Campbell said it. After all he >>>is has been having some frank and meaningful out bursts.
chair of the Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was
budgeted for his role" was made - I have not seen it, and I do follow
at least some "main stream media", and if indeed ""much has been made"
of this allegation it should be reasonably easy to give a reference.
What is wrong with discourse, chats and dialogue?
You are lost in your political trap.
Crash hasn't made any claims. Campbell has however. Even if he was on 10 >>>>>boards
he would never work 60 hours per week. If he is telling the truth then he >>>>>is
counting some other workload or like you he doesn't understand the >>>>>difference
between management and governance.
Clearly you do not understand how usenet works. Crash posted some
words that started off:
"Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the
Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his
role (50 days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per
week. This sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these
hours."
That may well be a quotation from somewhere else - all I asked for was >>>> a reference for that and other statements made.
Clearly you are out of your depth again, Tony. I have not disagreed or >>>> agreed with the conclusions, but if true they are surprising. All I am >>>> seeking Just sit back and wait to see how the discussion goes . . . -
perhaps try reading something on anger management . . .
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 16:19:53 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6 Mar 2023 02:48:20 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The statement "Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 00:03:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:22:49 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the Health >>>>>>>NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his role (50 >>>>>>>days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per week. This >>>>>>>sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these hours.
Crown Health Entities (such as HNZ) are run by a CEO and supporting >>>>>>>management. These are full-time roles covering the day-to-day >>>>>>>operations of the organisation.
The role of a board chair is to run board meetings. Typically board >>>>>>>meetings would normally be held monthly, last an hour or 2 with some >>>>>>>extra time for all board members to prepare for the meeting and to be >>>>>>>involved in board committees that meet separately. A few days per >>>>>>>month per board member should be more than adequate. Board members >>>>>>>are governance-focused and not full-time roles.
HNZ has a full-time CEO and supporting management. They make all the >>>>>>>day-to-day decisions on behalf of the board. The only involvement of >>>>>>>board members in this process is to set general directions for the CEO >>>>>>>to follow and step in should there be the odd problem.
So how does Rob Campbell justify working 60 hours per week for the HNZ >>>>>>>board? Presumably he has raised this issue with the Minister of >>>>>>>Health at the time? If not - why not?
Interesting, Crash, if true. Do you have a reference for these claims. >>>>>>I can well believe that he was working 60 hours a wekk - but that >>>>>>would be for all his Board roles . . .
On the matter of cites, and references. Some times cites are needed, indeed >>>useful. However there are occassions when cites are not required as the >>>matter is small or it is public knowledge.
Society would break down if we all requested cites for each, and every >>>statement. Nothing would progress.
In this case probably is that the Rob Campbell has been quoted in the Main >>>Stream Media or elsewhere.
The 60/week figure is also "plusable" as in Campbell said it. After all he >>>is has been having some frank and meaningful out bursts.
chair of the Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was
budgeted for his role" was made - I have not seen it, and I do follow
at least some "main stream media", and if indeed ""much has been made"
of this allegation it should be reasonably easy to give a reference.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/pro/sacked-health-chair-used-up-at-least-125k-in-fees-in-3-months
Crash hasn't made any claims. Campbell has however. Even if he was on 10 boards
he would never work 60 hours per week. If he is telling the truth then he is
counting some other workload or like you he doesn't understand the difference
between management and governance.
Clearly you do not understand how usenet works. Crash posted some
words that started off:
"Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the
Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his
role (50 days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per
week. This sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these
hours."
That may well be a quotation from somewhere else - all I asked for was >>>> a reference for that and other statements made.
Clearly you are out of your depth again, Tony. I have not disagreed or >>>> agreed with the conclusions, but if true they are surprising. All I am >>>> seeking Just sit back and wait to see how the discussion goes . . . -
perhaps try reading something on anger management . . .
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 03:34:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyBULLSHIT! That's another perfect description of your attitude Rich!
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Nothing, but you appear to believe otherwise. Crash is usually muich
On 6 Mar 2023 02:48:20 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Why should it be so?
On 2023-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:The statement "Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 00:03:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:22:49 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the Health
NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his role (50
days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per week. This >>>>>>>sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these hours. >>>>>>>
Crown Health Entities (such as HNZ) are run by a CEO and supporting >>>>>>>management. These are full-time roles covering the day-to-day >>>>>>>operations of the organisation.
The role of a board chair is to run board meetings. Typically board >>>>>>>meetings would normally be held monthly, last an hour or 2 with some >>>>>>>extra time for all board members to prepare for the meeting and to be >>>>>>>involved in board committees that meet separately. A few days per >>>>>>>month per board member should be more than adequate. Board members >>>>>>>are governance-focused and not full-time roles.
HNZ has a full-time CEO and supporting management. They make all the >>>>>>>day-to-day decisions on behalf of the board. The only involvement of >>>>>>>board members in this process is to set general directions for the CEO
to follow and step in should there be the odd problem.
So how does Rob Campbell justify working 60 hours per week for the HNZ
board? Presumably he has raised this issue with the Minister of >>>>>>>Health at the time? If not - why not?
Interesting, Crash, if true. Do you have a reference for these claims. >>>>>>I can well believe that he was working 60 hours a wekk - but that >>>>>>would be for all his Board roles . . .
On the matter of cites, and references. Some times cites are needed, indeed
useful. However there are occassions when cites are not required as the >>>matter is small or it is public knowledge.
Society would break down if we all requested cites for each, and every >>>statement. Nothing would progress.
In this case probably is that the Rob Campbell has been quoted in the Main
Stream Media or elsewhere.
The 60/week figure is also "plusable" as in Campbell said it. After all he
is has been having some frank and meaningful out bursts.
chair of the Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was >>budgeted for his role" was made - I have not seen it, and I do follow
at least some "main stream media", and if indeed ""much has been made" >>of this allegation it should be reasonably easy to give a reference.
What is wrong with discourse, chats and dialogue?
more thoughtful and responds reasonably to real issues - I suspect
that he will respond in due course to give the background to his
comments; in contrast you take even a simple conversational request as
being an attack.
You are lost in your political trap.
Crash hasn't made any claims. Campbell has however. Even if he was on 10
boards
he would never work 60 hours per week. If he is telling the truth then he
is
counting some other workload or like you he doesn't understand the >>>>>difference
between management and governance.
Clearly you do not understand how usenet works. Crash posted some
words that started off:
"Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the
Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his >>>> role (50 days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per >>>> week. This sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these >>>> hours."
That may well be a quotation from somewhere else - all I asked for was >>>> a reference for that and other statements made.
Clearly you are out of your depth again, Tony. I have not disagreed or >>>> agreed with the conclusions, but if true they are surprising. All I am >>>> seeking Just sit back and wait to see how the discussion goes . . . - >>>> perhaps try reading something on anger management . . .
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 03:34:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyI did not do that, I simply asked a question. Why do you dislike questions?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Nothing, but you appear to believe otherwise. Crash is usually muich
On 6 Mar 2023 02:48:20 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Why should it be so?
On 2023-03-06, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The statement "Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 00:03:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:22:49 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the Health >>>>>>>>NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his role (50 >>>>>>>>days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per week. This >>>>>>>>sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these hours. >>>>>>>>
Crown Health Entities (such as HNZ) are run by a CEO and supporting >>>>>>>>management. These are full-time roles covering the day-to-day >>>>>>>>operations of the organisation.
The role of a board chair is to run board meetings. Typically board >>>>>>>>meetings would normally be held monthly, last an hour or 2 with some >>>>>>>>extra time for all board members to prepare for the meeting and to be >>>>>>>>involved in board committees that meet separately. A few days per >>>>>>>>month per board member should be more than adequate. Board members >>>>>>>>are governance-focused and not full-time roles.
HNZ has a full-time CEO and supporting management. They make all the >>>>>>>>day-to-day decisions on behalf of the board. The only involvement of >>>>>>>>board members in this process is to set general directions for the CEO >>>>>>>>to follow and step in should there be the odd problem.
So how does Rob Campbell justify working 60 hours per week for the HNZ >>>>>>>>board? Presumably he has raised this issue with the Minister of >>>>>>>>Health at the time? If not - why not?
Interesting, Crash, if true. Do you have a reference for these claims. >>>>>>>I can well believe that he was working 60 hours a wekk - but that >>>>>>>would be for all his Board roles . . .
On the matter of cites, and references. Some times cites are needed, indeed >>>>useful. However there are occassions when cites are not required as the >>>>matter is small or it is public knowledge.
Society would break down if we all requested cites for each, and every >>>>statement. Nothing would progress.
In this case probably is that the Rob Campbell has been quoted in the Main >>>>Stream Media or elsewhere.
The 60/week figure is also "plusable" as in Campbell said it. After all he >>>>is has been having some frank and meaningful out bursts.
chair of the Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was
budgeted for his role" was made - I have not seen it, and I do follow
at least some "main stream media", and if indeed ""much has been made"
of this allegation it should be reasonably easy to give a reference.
What is wrong with discourse, chats and dialogue?
more thoughtful and responds reasonably to real issues - I suspect
that he will respond in due course to give the background to his
comments; in contrast you take even a simple conversational request as
being an attack.
You are lost in your political trap.
Crash hasn't made any claims. Campbell has however. Even if he was on 10 >>>>>>boards
he would never work 60 hours per week. If he is telling the truth then he >>>>>>is
counting some other workload or like you he doesn't understand the >>>>>>difference
between management and governance.
Clearly you do not understand how usenet works. Crash posted some
words that started off:
"Much has been made recently about Rob Campbell, as chair of the
Health NZ Board, billing for far more time than was budgeted for his >>>>> role (50 days per year). He claims to be working up to 60 hours per >>>>> week. This sounds very odd indeed - no board chair ever works these
hours."
That may well be a quotation from somewhere else - all I asked for was >>>>> a reference for that and other statements made.
Clearly you are out of your depth again, Tony. I have not disagreed or >>>>> agreed with the conclusions, but if true they are surprising. All I am >>>>> seeking Just sit back and wait to see how the discussion goes . . . - >>>>> perhaps try reading something on anger management . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 123:34:17 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,703 |