IWAS amazed to read your report (LET, January 25) describing how there is no teaching staff representative on the governing body of Accrington and Rossendale College because the elected representative, Mr Wilf Finch, was thrown out three months ago, on the grounds that he refused to accept the governors' code of ethics.

Specifically , he rejected a doctrine of collective responsibility, preventing him from speaking out publicly against a majority decision of the governing body.

The natural reaction to this of the man in the street is: "Who on earth do they think they are?" The governing body of a school or college ideally represents a great variety of special interests, areas of expertise and opinions.

To suggest that governors be denied public expression of their personal convictions, subsequent to any decision of the governing body with which they disagree, is clearly unjust. It's no surprise if some see it merely as a device for the repression of dissent or even discussion.

On my own file, if it still exists, is an official reprimand because Iwrote to the local press about the way in which exam results were published. My facts were not disputed, but I was held to be at fault because I was in possession of these facts by virtue of my job as a teacher.

In other words, those with relevant first-hand knowledge were banned from comment. This is one reason why so much in education has gone publicly unchallenged , and why ignorance - for example that of John Blunt - has free reign, uncorrected by those who know. I imagine Mr Finch's colleagues elected him because they judged him a man of conviction who was prepared to say what he thought, but I have no idea what his views on college policies are and I might very well disagree with them if I had.

M BREWER, Scott Avenue, Accrington.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.