Duties of the Board

A curious thing happens when one reads the policies adopted by the Central School Board and compares them to the legal references handily provided at the end of each policy. One quickly realizes that THEY DON'T MATCH! As I discussed in my earlier post, the Board has been advised by its legal counsel to adopt the policies recommended by the OSBA "as is" since the policies have gone through a long process of development and vetting by OSBA policy experts and legal staff. Board members rarely think to ask whether the policies and the details contained therein are in fact required by or consistent with Oregon Revised Statute. Yet it is those statutes that create and empower school boards and specify their authority and responsibilities.

The first two pages reproduced above are cut and pasted from the Oregon Revised Statutes that establish school boards as legal entities. According to the statutes, school boards are responsible for the transaction of all district business and for educating the children of the district. According to law, the Board "may" hire a superintendent while according to the adopted policy titled "Superintendent-Clerk" it "shall." What is optional in the law becomes a requirement in the OSBA policy. Moreover, if one looks at the policy "Qualifications and Duties of the Superintendent" (which can be found on the 13J website) the duties of the superintendent are actually ones that according to Oregon Administrative Rules are the duties of the district, i.e., the Board. The OSBA has essentially convinced school boards to give away their authority and prerogatives through policy and contracts with superintendents.

There are many, many other examples where the policies do not align with the legal references and administrative rules cited. If we look at "Policy Development" (reproduced above), about half-way down it says that "The formulation of and adoption of policies, recorded in writing, will constitute the basic method by which the Board will exercise its leadership in the operation of the school system." This is obviously a very circumscribed version of transacting "all the business of the district." At the bottom of that policy are the legal references ORS 332.107 and ORS 332.505. The text of those statutes is part of my cut and paste review of statute above and NOWHERE in the statutes cited is any mention of policy formulation as the basic method of Board governance.

So where do these interpretations, that become enshrined in policy, originate? What accounts for these discrepancies? I think a lot of it is the result of the rather dim view that educational bureaucrats "educrats" have of school boards generally. They see boards as archaic vestiges of an earlier era in American education; as inexperienced and unknowledgable collections of bored housewives and retired people. School boards are regarded as a necessary evil that cannot be allowed to interfere in the work of the educational professionals. Given this view of school boards generally, it is not surprising then that the main goal becomes to box school boards in, to allow them only a narrowly defined role, and to limit the damage they might do if they became truly involved in the business of the district. It is part of what has become known as the "policy governance" model in which there is rigid divide between governance and management . [There are many good articles on the policy governance model that can be found on the web if anyone is interested in reading more.]

The OSBA has been busily promoting this model without ever being up-front about it. I've never even heard them mention "policy governance" although reading about the model and comparing it to the policies espoused by the OSBA makes it pretty clear where they are coming from. While this is but one model, they have told school boards that this is the way it MUST be, even though it is not required by statute. The one thing that is missing from the OSBA model, which is a central part of policy governance as it was originally developed (and trademarked!), is rigorous oversight. In true policy governance, boards spend a great deal of time scrutinizing budgets and reports and ensuring that the goals of the organization are being met and that relevant laws and polices are adhered to. In our district, however, any attempt by Board members to engage in this type of scrutiny is regarded as unlawful "meddling" in the management of the district. This hybrid model of governance, foisted on us by the OSBA and embraced by the superintendent, goes a long way, in my opinion, to explaining why communication is so poor, why questions by Board members are met with stone-walling, why Board members often seem clueless as to what is really happening in our district. The Central School Board has only been taught one-half of the model, and no alternatives to it, with predictably negative results.

This Wednesday, August 18th, the Central School Board will be meeting for its annual work session. At this work session Board members will be setting the goals for the district for the coming year and discussing the Board's role and evaluation processes. It is a public meeting although members of the public are not allowed to participate. I will be attending and invite others of you to do so with me. It is a good opportunity to see them at work in a less formal setting. It will also give you a chance to judge for yourself the accuracy of my assessments. The work session will be held at Traci Hamilton's home; it begins at 8:30 and goes til early afternoon. As a courtesy to Traci, it would probably be a good idea to let her know if you plan to attend and to bring your own refreshments and seating.

Hope to see you there.