Every Havering’s academy prepares students for GCSE. Because academies are unaccountable they give as much, or as little, information as they wish. They are in receipt of millions of pounds of public money but treat every stakeholder as a nuisance. This is an undemocratic outrage and Havering Council is helpless unless they use their position as influencers to change this situation.
A paradigm of how GCSE results should be presented1
Making school ties compulsory emphasises their necessity. ‘Compulsory’ school ties, implies there are no circumstances when they stop being essential.
Two of Havering’s academies don’t understand this. Harris Academy Rainham has a school tie policy, which makes them compulsory for male students.1 Obviously this means female students, in the same classrooms and following the same learning activities, are treated significantly differently. The benefits bestowed by a school tie are non-essential for females because they’re females.
At Sacred Heart of Mary’s Academy, which is all female, ties are compulsory but only for six months of the year. During the hotter months ties are not worn. How the Academy discovered that weather decides when a tie is essential to education, or discipline, or the school ethos is fascinating. Just how did they do it? What scientific experiment was followed? Will they publish the data?
Does it matter? It matters a great deal because compulsory school uniform is a tax/entry fee.2 Ties must be bought yet the policies underpinning that tax/entry fee is arbitrary and inconsistent. These two schools have policies which are absurd and indefensible. Students can, and are, excluded from classrooms for ‘improper’ school uniform. The policy is ridiculous. Ridiculing it by students is a disciplinary breach and is fiercely punished. Academies are trapped in an historic time-warp.
School attendance is compulsory and wearing school uniform is a necessary part of attendance. Obeying the law obliges parents/guardians to buy the designated uniform. Many items have to be bought from a specified shop (see Introduction). The cost of school uniforms is controversial.2 As can be seen from the introduction, there are considerable differences in cost on even basic items like the school tie. The Drapers’ Academy tie is less than half that of the Sacred Heart of Mary3 with the Harris Academy Rainham at a sort-of midpoint.
Conclusion
Harris Academy Rainham relies on gender to make sense of its school tie policy. On the other hand, Sacred Heart of Mary relies on the weather. Both are indefensible. And parents/guardians have to pay. Given that Academies are places of learning you might think that policies would be intelligently reviewed. An immediate outcome would be to reduce the tax/entry fee for compulsory education.
Britain’s new Prime Minister routinely wears T-shirts in public. Andy Burnham is a vivid illustration that the world has changed and schools should ‘catch-up’. And the House of Lords have just announced that ties are no longer compulsory for male peers.5
Keith Prince (1 hour 44 minutes) did an accurate and tedious nit-picking dissection of the *RULE BOOK*. He enjoys nit-picking. No-one else does.
Motion A: Everyone agreed that Havering, “limit excessive private profits in children’s residential social care across the UK, in alignment with Scotland.”
Motion B: “This Council agrees not to spend valuable council resources on a referendum to leave London.”
Andrew Rosindell was a dark cloud looming over Reform councillors, keeping them on ‘message’. True Believers affirmed their commitment, though some were more slippery than others – step forward, Bailey Nash-Gardner (1:54), Luke Barry (1:55), and Gary Payne (2:02).
The motion introduced a fierce Gillian Ford (1:51), which was refreshing. Cut-and-thrust is always appreciated when it is done well. Three Reform councillors indulged themselves in jeering, which was really a bullying tactic.
Motion C: “Council recognises that adverse childhood experiences, trauma and other life events can affect a resident’s ability to engage with support services, sustain tenancies, maintain employment and participate fully in community life.”
The Reform Group’s Amendment was insane, “Council calls upon the Executive Leadership Team to support the Cabinet in achieving these outcomes.” (my emphasis)
The Reform Administration asked the Executive Team to cooperate with the policies of councillors. Asked! Keith Prince’s Administration obviously has a strange relationship with the Executive Leadership Team. Councillors agree policies, which must be implemented by the Executive Leadership Team.
Keith worries that the Executive Leadership Team can refuse councillor policies. The Executive Team must follow instructions. If they refuse, they must resign or demand written, legally binding, instructions. Those instructions act as a legal statement that the Executive Leadership Team were under duress and acting in opposition to their professional advice.
Apart from this insanity, the debate was wonderful. There was cross-party agreement on the importance of the motion. Matt Stanton (2:08), Graham Day (2:11) and Keith Prince (2:17) referenced known experiences which added to the texture of the debate. If there is indeed a ‘joined up response’ and recognition of the ‘ecosystem’ of support following this debate, Council can congratulate itself.
Motion D: “Commends the new Administration for their firm and determined action to tackle the ongoing fires, smoke and pollution from Arnold’s Field, Launder’s Lane, and the impact on residents in Rainham.”
Only one cabinet member didn’t have a question to answer, Sue Benjamins, the Finance Tsar. As Havering lurches towards bankruptcy that’s an insight into the priorities of councillors.
Q2: Martynas Cekavicius replying to Brian Eagling (55 minutes): Brian is an excellent councillor and it’s best to agree when he is using local knowledge. Martynas did just that. Very wise. At stake was street cleaning and the claim that Harold Wood had been cleaned 17 times. Brian denied that flat out and offered to demonstrate that to Martynas. He graciously agreed.
Q4: Robert Whitton replying to Stephanie Nunn (1:00): Housing fraud could potentially be costing £2m annually if Havering is ‘average’. Robert was entirely dissatisfied with current anti-fraud procedures. He favoured beefing up the fraud squad. He said this could pay for itself as well as releasing homes to people who had a legitimate need.
Q5: Keith Prince replying to Darren Wise (1:05): The sight of torn, dirty flags on lampposts is a grim reminder of last year’s emotional spasm. But what to do? Just like people who put notices about lost cats and dogs on lampposts they remain awaiting removal. But who pays? Keith was clear – it wouldn’t be the Council. The price of faux patriotism.
Q10: Graham Day replying to Gillian Ford (1:26): Graham is a specialist in waffle, which is irritating. This critical question demanded a detailed reply. Unfortunately, it was ‘pie in the sky’. Significant expenditures depended on future savings (which are probably real but in the meantime?). Graham floundered. If this is indicative of Reform budget analysis Sue Benjamins is in for a hard time.
All 18 of Havering’s secondary academy schools are inspected and graded by OFSTED. The reports are an important source of information for parents.1 This is especially true for parents of Year 6 children transitioning to secondary schools.
This discussion asks whether OFSTED reports are worth the paper they are written on.
Discussion
Attainment 8 will….be based on a calculation of pupils’ performance across eight qualifications.2 Attainment 8 covers every academic experience of students in schools. It is the key performance indicator for parents and is ignored by OFSTED. Schools are monitored through OFSTED inspections and focus on four main areas, which don’t include academic achievement.3
The best and worst 2025 Attainment 8 scores in Havering were: Coopers Coborn 58.2 and, Bower Park 37.7.4 Havering as a whole slightly outperformed England. Coopers Coborn exceeds both Havering and England. It successfully prepares students for GCSE. The reverse is the case for Bower Park. They are well below the Attainment 8 scores of Coopers Coborn, Havering and England.
Coopers Coborn
The OFSTED report ignores Attainment 8 outcomes. Nothing. There are, however, 12 lines on Safeguarding.6 Safeguarding isn’t more important than academic outcomes. It isn’t controversial to think OFSTED could, and should, celebrate Coopers Coborn’s GCSE successes. The report does comment on teachers,….[who] have strong subject knowledge.
OFSTED rated Coopers Coborn as ‘Good’ in 2022.
Bower Park
OFSTED bizarrely says, The school has high aspirations for pupils’ academic achievement….7 The reality is different. OFSTED damns the quality of teaching and the classroom experience of students. Effectively they say teachers are weak and ineffective at promoting learning and discipline. The report dismisses Safeguarding in a single sentence, “The arrangements for safeguarding are effective. “
The Bower Park OFSTED report is a naked and unashamed whitewash.
OFSTED report says Bower Park is ‘Good’ in 2023
OFSTED
Ofsted exists to raise standards and improve lives for all. We put children and learners who face barriers to their learning and/or well-being at the heart of what we do. This is our mission.8 (my emphasis)
OSFTED fails its ‘mission’. Students in Coopers Coborn had an Attainment 8 score of 58.2 and Bower Park 37.7. It’s a travesty that both schools are rated ‘Good’.
There is a further deficiency. OFSTED’s ‘mission’ states, We put children and learners who face barriers to their learning and/or well-being at the heart of what we do.9 (my emphasis)
Really?
Coopers Coborn achieved a high Attainment 8 score. But this might not be case for the Disadvantaged Students who attend the school. Their achievement in the all-important Gold Standard in English and Maths was 44.4%.10 The disparity with their non-disadvantaged students is 26.4 percentage points, which is statistically significant. GCSE English and Maths grade 5-9 is an essential achievement. OFSTED don’t mention the chasm in achievement inside the same school, with the same teachers and the same resources in their report.
Nor do they comment on the additional £107,000 in Pupil Premium funding Coopers Coborn received for their Disadvantaged Students. This isn’t just a value for money issue. It’s the scandal of missed opportunity for the most vulnerable students attending the school that’s critical.11
Conclusion
OFSTED reports fail their ‘mission statement’. OFSTED protects schools from scrutiny and is in hock to the educational establishment.
OFSTED reports are worthless.
Addendum: New OFSTED policy
I couldn’t find any examples of this style of inspection so I don’t know how they assess the *achievement* element.
May 7th was exhilarating for Keith. Victory made him the darling of the media. He appeared on TV and in most national newspapers. He even appeared on the front page of a prominent French newspaper. Nigal Farage and Robert Jenrick came to share the limelight. Keith proudly said that Havering was under ‘New Management’.
That was May.
Keith is a veteran politician and knows a thing or two. But he was amazed to be mugged by the MetPolice. Havering hires five officers as additional local police. In early June the cost increased to £600,000 a year. That’s a stonking £120,000 per officer per year. Keith ‘tackled’ the Mayor about it and was brushed off. He didn’t even demand evidence from the MetPolice as to how £600,000 was reached.1
On the 3rd July Keith met executives from the Essex and Suffolk Water Company, the ‘baddies’ in the Gallows Corner saga. He emerged defeated. He was helpless in the face of their shifty and evasive ‘explanations’. (see Addendum)
“Sadly, they are still unable to provide a firm completion date, and based on their updates, it looks unlikely that the junction will be fully reopened before October.”2
A gallant effort at populism was a damp squib. Keith banned the flying of the Gay Pride flag. He did it with a flourish via a video podcast outside the Town Hall. Keith was obeying a Farage edict to ban the Gay Pride flag as opposed to doing it because it was suitable for Havering. Farage is using stereotypes to drive policy. Obviously, this is ridiculous for a populist political party with gay members. The policy has failed as can be seen from successive by-elections defeats.
Amazingly there was a reaction. Havering’s Gay Pride Activists were provoked as they were meant to be. What was unexpected was that they broke into the Town Hall and erected the flag anyway.3 Gay Pride forced a score draw.
Thus far Keith has faced relative trivia. But what happens when brutal events occur and he has to upset LOTS of people? Adult and Children’s social services, homelessness, the £100m+ of government debt are menacingly going to spring into action and wreck his policies. Needless to relate Farage has nothing to say about substantive local government issues.
Addendum: Prince’s meeting with the Essex and Suffolk Water Company
“As Leader of the Council and Assembly Member for Havering and Redbridge, I have continued to pile on the pressure. Today [3rd July 2026], I met with Transport for London and Essex and Suffolk Water (ESW) to demand a clear completion date, proper answers, and firm accountability from ESW for the ongoing delays. Residents should not be left in limbo, and businesses should not be expected to keep absorbing the impact without clarity or action.
Sadly, they are still unable to provide a firm completion date, and based on their updates, it looks unlikely that the junction will be fully reopened before October. As both Council Leader and London Assembly Member for the area – I will continue to raise this directly with the Mayor of London, demand regular progress updates from both TfL and ESW, and press for stronger accountability and further compensation and support for those most affected.”
Between 2022-26 the Conservatives collapsed after numerous defections. The principal beneficiaries were the HRA Administration. Three Conservatives joined Reform UK at the end of the period.
Reform could matter in 2026. The Green party existed in 2022 but was disregarded. That changed after their recent parliamentary victory. They aren’t as well organised as Reform but might do well and will certainly split the vote.
Electors can choose from a large number of candidates and parties. For example, HRA isn’t a single party, it’s an umbrella organisation.1 There are Conservatives, Greens, Labour, Independent RAs, and Reform standing as political parties. There are 302 candidates for 55 seats.
Low turnouts make elections a lottery. Voting is normally based on name recognition, or the first initial of the surname, or scattergun, or selection of a party. Gooshays in 2022 had a turnout of 23.46%.2 Winning literally depended on marginal decisions. In 2026 Gooshays has 20 candidates for three seats.
Conclusion
Havering traditionally has Minority Administrations. It’s a certainty to happen once more in 2026. But….Even certainties lose.
Addendum: Wards, sitting councillors and additional candidates
Beam Park (2 ward councillors) ~ Two Labour councillors plus 9 (more candidates)
Cranham (3) ~ Two HRA councillors plus 14
Elm Park (3) ~ Two HRA councillors plus 14
Emerson Park (2) ~ 11 (no councillors standing)
Gooshays (3) ~ One Labour; One HRA councillor plus 18
Hacton (2) ~ One HRA councillor plus 10
Harold Wood (3) ~ Three East Havering RA councillors plus 15
Havering-Atte-Bower (3) ~ One HRA councillor plus 16
Heaton (3) ~ Two Labour councilors plus 14
Hylands and Harrow Lodge (3) ~ One HRA councillor plus 14
Marshalls and Rise Park (3) ~ Two HRA; One Reform councillor plus 13
Mawneys (3) ~ Three Conservative councillors plus 13
Rainham and Wennington (3) ~ One HRA councillor plus 15
Rush Green and Crowlands (3) ~ Two Conservatives plus 14
South Hornchurch (2) ~ Two HRA councillors plus 10
Squirrels Heath (3) ~ One Conservative; One Reform councillor plus 15
St Albans (2) ~ One Conservative; One Labour councillor plus 9
St Andrews (3) ~ One HRA councillor plus 15
St Edwards (3) ~ 16 (No councillors standing)
Upminster (3) ~ Two HRA councillors plus 14
Three councillors are standing for wards that they didn’t represent 2022-6
Notes
1 Two cabinet members voted against HRA policy without resigning for example.
The GLA budget is a billion pounds affair. Trivial sums don’t really matter but the West Ham United stadium scandal does empty the pockets of Londoners. It’s a £20m a year debt in the accounts. Keith Prince, Havering’s GLA member, opened the topic – the entire exchange is below – with the Mayor. He didn’t land a blow.
The contract was negotiated by Boris Johnson. It stinks (see Addendum). It’s so bad that an unkind observer might say it was corrupt. Huge losses are paid by the GLA – or, to put it another way: You. The £20m is just under the Havering deficit for 2026-7. That deficit is driving the borough into bankruptcy. £20m is a triviality to GLA accountants but is life-or-death for Havering.
Keith didn’t mention Havering. Nothing at all. The exchange between Keith, the Mayor and the Chief of Staff was too pally, too cosy and too complacent. Keith says – with a straight face – that he endorses Reform UK’s slash and burn attitude towards local government finance. Well, he should have linked the WHU/London stadium stitch-up with Havering’s financial situation. Havering’s wallet is emptying by an annual £500,000+.
The London Stadium was the showpiece of the 2012 Olympics. A national treasure. And now? Its current value is ZERO! NOTHING!
There were mealy-mouthed equivocations. No one cares. Keith was on the right track but didn’t, or couldn’t, follow through. Perhaps, he’s still in thrall to Boris ‘Partygate’ Johnson who negotiated the contract?
Solutions? What one bunch of smart-arse lawyers put together another bunch of smart-arse lawyers can undo. Or, the GLA could use hard ball politics. Naming rights were cited as being an ASPIRATION. But what do we see blazoned across the stadium: WEST HAM UNITED. Do they pay for the privilege? Who knows? Who cares? Have GLA lawyers been to the London Stadium? Do they know what is going on? No, they don’t.
The losses will massively increase if WHU get relegated to the Championship next season. Havering will be under more financial pressure from Boris Johnson’s toxic legacy. Meanwhile WHU pay huge amounts of money on players, most of whom are, or become, hopeless.5
London, United Kingdom – November 13, 2024: Stadium of West Ham United Football Club, a professional football club based in Stratford, East London.
The GLA Debate: Keith Prince’s contribution
Keith Prince AM: Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Mayor, David, team. Just before I start, I will declare that I am a season ticket holder of the West Ham [United Football Club] Women’s team, just for clarity, because I intend to ask a question relating to West Ham. Mr Mayor, LLDC sold the London Stadium to GLA Holdings. Could you explain the reason for that move, please?
Sir Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Firstly, before I ask the Chief of Staff to respond, I hope we are still talking after Sunday. It is a big game on Sunday for both of our teams!
Keith Prince AM: I am very much hoping we will be talking. I will settle for a draw. How about you?
David Bellamy (Mayor’s Chief of Staff): This is part of the transition that took place at LLDC as it reached — we say LLDC is now in its third phase. The first was the run up to the games [2012 Olympics]. The second was the period after the games and then, with so much progress made, it is time to transition. With LLDC becoming a smaller organisation, the conclusion that we reached was that rather than E20 – as it was then called – being a subsidiary of LLDC, in turn a subsidiary of the GLA, it would be better done just to be a standalone company directly underneath the GLA.
Keith Prince AM: I will ask another question of the Mayor, but I am quite happy for you to answer, David. As we know, the deal cost GLA Holdings £1. That reflects the fact that London Stadium makes a significant loss each year. Who is now going to bear the burden of that loss, and what moves have been made to reduce that loss? (see Addendum) As people will be aware, for the last ten years, I have been encouraging LLDC to engage with West Ham in order to find a naming rights sponsor, which most people estimated would be of a value of around £4 million. Because it has not engaged with West Ham and because that deal has not been done so far, one could reasonably presume that it has lost £40 million. Either Mr Mayor or David, will there now be encouragement for the new holding group to engage with West Ham and to have a joint venture in relation to the naming rights? It cannot be done solely by GLA Holdings because of the rules around the Premier League.
David Bellamy (Mayor’s Chief of Staff): In answer to the first part of your question, Assembly Member, in terms of the losses the stadium makes as a consequence of the deal that was done by the previous Mayor, it routes differently. It used to route through LLDC, and it now routes through the GLA Mayor budget but, ultimately, the Mayor’s overall budget has to bear the consequences of that loss. What we do is we work hard to minimise that loss. There are clearly a number of aspects to that. There is the efficient running of the stadium. There are invest-to-save projects. For instance, over the years, we have replaced a lot of the seating in the lower bowl so that it is cheaper to move seats for other events. We have held additional events. There are commercial deals. In terms of naming rights specifically, it is a difficult market. You can see that with some other notable stadiums not having successfully secured naming rights. Any deal has to be one that will work for us and will work for West Ham as well. It is not accurate to say that this is something we have never worked with West Ham on, and there are there are discussions with it going on at the moment and, clearly, we always want to work well with West Ham –
Keith Prince AM: A quick question, please. Also, as part of the scaling down, Mr Mayor, you know that the planning powers have now been returned to Newham. I understand why that is done, but do you think that is sensible? Newham is the fourth worst borough for planning applications. Would that put at risk any developments coming forward?
Sir Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Let me just say, it was always the intention to give back to the councils the powers that had been taken from them. There were five boroughs involved in terms of the original LLDC. All of them now have their planning powers back. Do you think it would be wrong if we carried on in perpetuity the planning powers? Each council is in charge of applications in its respective borough.
2 The annual loss is £20.9m which the GLA finds out of its budget. Source loc.cit
3 This financial situation has led to the venue’s long-term value being assessed at zero by independent experts, a stark indication of the economic challenges it faces. Source loc.cit
There is a legal requirement that Councils have a balanced budget. This is impossible because Havering is bankrupt. Its statutory commitments can’t be funded from revenue. The strategy is to add to debts to pay revenue commitments. This is fiscal insanity as the interest can’t be paid.
Enter Chris Wilkins, Cabinet Member for Finance (13 minutes).1,2 He declared the budget will be legally balanced because…..he’d organised more debt. The debt mountain will be £229m by 2029. Chris gives an excellent impression of being a nodding donkey. He doesn’t seem to understand what he‘s reading. A debt of £229m means interest payments will be 30% of the budget by 2029. Chris didn’t mention interest charges during his 13 minutes speech. Philip Ruck (1:31) noticed and was outraged at the sheer folly of it. Annual (unpaid) interest payments would be about £17m and would be added to the capital. Credit card maxxed out!
Keith Darvill (25) introduced the Labour amendment3 self-consciously. He was ultra-defensive and apologetic – as if he was speaking out of turn.
Michael White (36) gave a masterful speech. He demonstrated his command of the subject and critiqued HRA’s four years in a probing, forensic way. The principal highlight was his remarks about the GLA budget, which amounts to nearly 25% of the total Council Tax bill. He made play about the lack of a medium-term plan for the dire budget pressures. He worried about the impact of the Israel-USA-Iran war on interest rates. Michael made obvious remarks about relying on loans for revenue expenditure. Thus, he successfully trashed Chris’s blissful optimism.
Martin Goode (53) denounced the reliance on long-term debt to fund current expenditure. He demanded that the Council throw in the towel and face facts. He wants Government Commissioners to take over the Council. Gillian Ford (1:00) said only the section 151 officer could ask for Government assistance like this. That ought not be a problem as she had previously stated HRA was following an unsustainable strategy.
Keith Prince (1:01) has a curious flippant style, which mostly falls flat. He worried about debt and the borough’s future Council Taxpayers. Interestingly he claimed the borough’s woes were turbo-charged by the lack of detailed scrutiny. This is theoretically likely but Havering’s culture of absenteeism4 by councillors means more scrutiny is unlikely. Unlikely because it involves doing homework and turning up.
Ray Morgon (1:28) indulged in chit-chat. Judith Holt (1:34) pointed out special skills were needed to read a budget book 1070 pages long. Nisha Patel (1:40) did a good review of Michael’s speech reinforcing some points. Gillian Ford (1:42) had a breathless shopping list of achievements. The concept ‘strategy’ appeared many times. Brian Eagling (1:45) said that football pitches had seen fees rise yet again and that sport should be promoted. Oscar Ford (1:48) used fluent management speech. This didn’t always coincide with reality. Barry Mugglestone (1:51) was combative, which livened the meeting up. He and Keith Prince exchanged pleasantries about the Freedom Pass. They were both right, which made it more entertaining.
Jane Keane (1:56) did a Hollywood Oscar’type speech praising the Council’s staff. David Taylor (1:58) is a class act who will be badly missed. His nemesis, Andrew Rosindell, was given a quick going over. Andrew has consistently voted for the bankruptcy of Havering. Luckily he was in the chamber to enjoy David’s speech. James Glass (2:01) was demob crazy and is a loss. What he lacks in accuracy he makes up for with boyish enthusiasm.
2 Group spokesmen had 20 minutes for budget speeches. Astonishingly, Wilkins only used 13 minutes.
3 This Council calls on the Administration to introduce and promote an SME Support Package, initially, funding such a proposal from unspent UKSPF (and/or other unspent grants) seeking partnership for such a support package with organisations such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Adult College. (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Council, 04/03/2026 19:30p1073
Havering’s councillors collectively have a poor attendance record for council meetings.1 In the six months to the 14th February 2026, 55 councillors were scheduled for 374 meetings. They attended 320, which is a 14.5% absenteeism rate. The British absenteeism rate is 4.1%. A 14.5% absenteeism rate is a giant Red Flag for any employer. Obviously there are wild variations between councillors. Two councillors had severe illnesses and were given leave of absence by the council.
However
Most councillors didn’t have severe illnesses but still had appalling attendance records. Osman Dervish attended one meeting out of the seven. Carol Smith attended one of her three meetings. Damian White attended one meeting out of four. These councillors collectively attended three meetings in six months and were paid £200 per week each. This is £15,600 for nothing. It’s shameful.
However
At the other end of the scale there are dedicated councillors. There were 14 councillors who had 10+ meetings scheduled. Six had perfect attendance records. The Magnificent Six: Councillors McGeary, Morgon, Christine Smith, Summers, Taylor and Whitney.
So what?
Six years ago, Politics in Havering said Havering has too many councillors2 and current attendance records backs that up. There are piles of dead wood in the council chamber who need clearing away. Ten councillors were scheduled for three meetings in six months. If they weren’t there would anyone notice? They are make-weights at best.
On previous occasions when this point has been made, outraged councillors have contacted Politics in Havering denouncing the lack understanding. Claims to be hard-working ward councillors are made but can’t be verified. All that can be verified is attendance at council meetings.
And the attendance statistics are grim.
Addendum
Keith Prince, GLA member, attended 23 meetings from a possible 28 in the last six months.3 This is 82%. Three GLA members have 100% attendance records.
