Just over seven years ago, the National Governors’ Council was born after what The TES described as a “difficult, protracted labour”. If it could survive that, it suggested, “the rest ought to be a piece of cake”.

It has not been that easy, but the NGC has progressed from a membership of 21 local associations to 92, covering more than half the local education authorities in England, and is recognised by the Department for Education and Skills as the principal voice of governing bodies. However, as with all new institutions, the initial impetus eventually gives way to consolidation, which can too easily become stagnation, and reorientation is required. The NGC has reached this point, with pressure increased by the DFES’s determination to reassess its funding which in turn prompted a review by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The executive knows it needs to rejuvenate. Back in June 2000 its administrator prepared a comprehensive development plan, which unfortunately got bogged down through lack of clarity. Subsequent proposals centred on the post of general manager, but failed to tackle the way that the executive worked. Doubtless, the current executive will be making further proposals. Will it be brave enough to consider an entirely fresh start?

The accountants’ review came up with no new solutions, merely highlighting the bleak financial alternatives. The only restructuring option considered was merger with the National Association of Governors and Managers.

Despite some positive arguments, the report also enunciated stumbling blocks, mainly the need for cultural change, the time it would take and the loss of choice.

From the start there was no love lost between NGC and NAGM. The former was regarded as an unviable upstart and the latter as an unrepresentative body in decline, neither of which proved correct. In fact their activities are complementary and there is a growing number of members in both camps who feel the time is ripe for merger, perhaps as the General Governors’ Council to parallel the General Teaching Council.

The NGC’s strength lies in its recognition of the corporate responsibility of governing bodies, representing their views through local associations which in turn are members of the NGC. Its annual meeting regularly attracts some 200 members. Its weakness lies in the slow two-way communication that such an extensive network involves and a lack of assured resources. And it has no research facility.

NAGM, which has group and corporate membership and a few local associations, is based principally on individual governors, with a membership of some 45,000. Its representative base is therefore weak. Its strength lies in its service to individual governors through its highly-regarded journal and advice papers. It has a research facility. Both are consulted by the DFES.

It would be an impertinence to propose amalgamation to resolve the NGC’s funding problems. But there is a logic in such a development. The union of these two would encompass the spectrum of activities of both bodies and provide a united front for governor representation. The pooling of expertise would provide a more effective organisation and members of both bodies would benefit.

There would be financial savings since both maintain an office and a full-time administrator, and they would not be bidding against each other for DFES funds. It should not be a daunting task to devise a structure which embraced both local associations and more direct access. That the two bodies can reach agreement, albeit under pressure, has been proved by the formation of Governorline.

Of course, there must be a willingness on both sides. For some activists representing the organisation becomes a way of life and there is no incentive for radical change.So the pressure must come from their members. Both organisations need revitalising. So up members and nag ‘em!

Roger Adcock was honorary secretary of the NGC, until he resigned late last year, along with the two vice-chairs, over concerns about internal reorganisation and funding. Chairs of the NGC associations meet tomorrow to discuss a draft strategic plan