August 18th Work Session

Well, I made it through the work session! It was not always easy as I had been instructed beforehand that I was not to participate. It was hard to remain silent at times. Most of the Board members were cordial, the superintendent less so but that was to be expected.

The facilitator began by asking individual Board members to reflect back to a Board meeting or moment that they felt had been positive. There were two central themes that emerged from that discussion: 1) Board members appreciate hearing from students and staff about the good things happening in our schools and 2) Board members appreciate lively discussion and working collaboratively to address issues - several mentioned the process of working through the new administrative rules for the film policy and the artificial turf decisions as cases in point.

They then began brainstorming ways to make these positive situations more frequent. One suggestion, with which they all agreed, was to have regular celebrations/recognitions of staff, students, and school activities at Board meetings. Most of the discussion focused on ways to restructure the meetings themselves. The superintendent suggested restructuring the public input portion of the meetings by calling the meetings to order and then immediately sending Board members out into the audience to listen to public comments. They would then have an expedited business agenda followed by a work session in which they could discuss the issues or concerns raised by members of the public. This would allow the public to feel that their concerns had been heard and were being considered.

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the potential restructuring. On the one hand, it seemed that Board members do have a genuine desire for more positive interactions with the public and that they would like to know what we have to say. On the other hand, some of the comments, particularly by the superintendent, made it clear that one "benefit" of this new system would be to keep the public away from the microphone and deny anyone the opportunity for what the superintendent characterized as "political grandstanding." (While he was no doubt thinking primarily about people like me, it inevitably includes, unfortunately, all those kids with their heartfelt pleas to save P.E. and music.)

The facilitator strongly suggested that, if the Board changes the meeting format, a brief survey be handed out periodically to see what members of the audience thought about the new process. I think that is a terrific suggestion and would like to see it expanded to every Board meeting and to allow input regarding the entire meeting. I also think they need to set up a procedure that would allow the public to ask questions or make very brief comments during the business portion of the meeting since the public does not know what is going to be discussed ahead of time. Only Board members get to vote on these issues, all the more reason to hear what their constituents have to say first.

Another issue that came up was the issue of being surprised by new questions at meetings. The superintendent does not like being caught off guard by questions that Board members have not shared with him beforehand. Board members also pointed out, though, that they don't always think of particular questions ahead of time and that it is important for the public to hear both the questions and the responses. I would have liked to hear a parallel request from the Board to the superintendent. They are not always informed ahead of time and even in the best of circumstances only get the Board packet, with all of the accompanying information, the weekend before the Monday meeting. It's very difficult to read all of it, reflect on it, and ask the right questions under those circumstances. One recent case in point concerns the superintendent's new contract. Most Board members had not seen it in advance of the meeting. I also think more information needs to be made available to the public. The packet of information distributed to the public generally lacks the detail and documentation given to the Board. This discourages public participation and increases public antagonism.

There was some discussion about how Board members could suggest items for discussion at meetings. Although the superintendent is supposed to work with the chair to create each month's agenda, in practice it is under the control of the superintendent. Board members expressed some frustration in getting their concerns on the agenda and the feeling that it was a "top-down" process (although they are at the top of the organizational chart they clearly feel that they are below the superintendent). The policy calls for them to use "Robert's Rules" during Board meetings to suggest items for future meetings. The superintendent then determines whether that request is appropriate. The sad reality is that it is very difficult for Board members to raise issues that the superintendent does not want to discuss. It can happen but they will need to be very tenacious. A case in point: When Karen Ross was still on the Board, she moved to place on a future agenda a discussion of eliminating the zones used for Board elections. This came from a suggestion by a member of the public that had been reiterated several times in various meetings. Karen's motion was seconded and approved and so "Election from Zones" became an "Item for Information/Action at a Future Meeting." It never made it onto an actual agenda and has since been dropped altogether. In my opinion, if a Board member, through the appropriate procedures, has requested an item for future discussion, it needs to appear on the agenda as soon as possible, generally at the next meeting.

The superintendent spent some time reiterating the policy governance (first time I ever heard him call it that!) model and the division of responsibilities between the Board and the superintendent. The Board is to: set a district vision, adopt a mission statement, create district goals, adopt policies, and appropriate funds. The superintendent is to: create an action plan, adopt administrative regulations, hire staff, authorize expenditures, organize staff, oversee curriculum and instruction. The Board is in charge of establishing the end results; the superintendent is in charge of means (methods) for achieving those ends. It was said repeatedly, "This is our policy." But policy is up to the Board and they can change their policies at any time. It may require a renegotiation of the superintendent's contract but it is up to the BOARD, not the superintendent, to determine what their relationship will be. I would really like to see the Board research and evaluate alternative models of governance. Don't just say "Well, that's our policy" as if it is written in stone - it's not! Carefully consider alternatives. If the Board does decide to stick with the policy governance model, it is absolutely imperative that they use the whole thing. One danger of policy governance is that the very people legally responsible for the district end up "out of the loop" and quite ignorant of how things are really going. The solution, built into the model itself, is on-going detailed oversight. We don't have that. Right now we have only half a model. It's kind of like putting only half the wheels on an automobile - it will be unbalanced and it won't get you where you need to go.

They also spent some time establishing goals for the coming year and making plans for an annual Board self-evaluation. They did not discuss any changes to the superintendent's evaluation.

I did come away from the work session with the sense that the Board would really like to improve their relationship with the community. They want a larger role and they want more honest communication. They are discussing concrete ways to make that happen and to evaluate the results of their efforts. If you have suggestions, now would be a good time to contact them. Let's give them the lively conversation they desire!