The Hive has an interesting piece on Baygate today, exploring governance issues, and in particular, the relationship between Boards and CEO's. Here 'tis:
In the Baygate case, it has to be remembered that the CEO is employed by the District Health Board itself. The CEO is, in effect, the Board's only employee, as all the rest of the staff are ultimately responsible to the CEO. So the point that Queen Bee makes is a good one - does it matter if the CEO loses confidence in his Board? It seems to me as though this was an employer/employee relationship that went sour, and it is hardly surprising that it went sour given the lengths the CEO seems to have gone to to undermine the Board, ultimately contributing directly to its demise. David Cunliffe seems to have accepted everything that Chris Clarke said as gospel, but as anyone knows, there are two sides to every story, and Cunliffe is treading on dangerous ground if he made his sacking decision based on only half of the available information.