(49 Questions to Ask Your Board)
It would have been easy to say our personalities clash and that’s why we didn’t get along with each other, but that excuse wouldn’t hold water. We chose to devote a full weekend to settling our differences. So deep seated were our problems and feelings that we asked the executive director of the state school boards association to attend and facilitate. At this meeting we vented our feelings, mistrust, and allegations of all kinds. Everything was laid out squarely on the table. For a full 24 hours, we really communicated. We began to see each other’s views for the first time. We were able to share our frustrations with each other, as well as our good feelings, ideas, and other experiences. As the weekend moved on, we began to feel a sense of unity, a feeling of hope, and a sense of duty. We left the weekend as friends who had vowed an increase in trust, sincerity and most of all, communication.
― NSBA1
The above experience from a board retreat shows a healthy response to board member monitoring.
Scenario: Karl was giving board colleagues fits, directing accusations of incompetence and dishonesty against staff and board colleagues alike, and sending meetings into an uproar. The board brought in a facilitator for team-building retreats. Together they identified out-of-bound behaviors and held frank discussions in a semi-secluded setting. Board members called on Karl to tone down his rhetoric so that board business could proceed. Although its menu of available choices was not extensive, the board didn’t take any of the actions that were available. For example, it was unwilling to take a public censure vote or remove him from board office or committee assignments. Karl played to the public, leaking executive session information to the press, and challenged the board to go ahead and censure him, because he would use that to inflame public opinion about their ‘high-handedness.’ When new members arrived in the next election, they tried to coopt him, electing him as president. That move backfired, because it allowed Karl to delay, deflect, and otherwise disrupt district and board progress.
This board failed to fulfill its duty of responding to the board member’s violation of its boardsmanship expectations. Rather than confront his behavior, their timidity only reinforced his acting out.
Using the self-discipline inherent in public self-monitoring, and intentionally addressing even minor board member protocol violations, an effective board holds its members to a high standard, which in turn contributes to overall board effectiveness.
Scenario: During a staff report to the board, an academic report on the math curriculum by the Director of Instruction, Geno began a side conversation with Sally. Tom interrupted the briefer several times, accusing him of hiding information from the board. At the end of the meeting, the board called on Bill, a board member who had been designated at the beginning of the meeting to assess the meeting. Bill listed several examples of observed behaviors that were in violation of the board operating protocol. Geno and Sally acknowledged their transgression. Tom defended his behavior as an important part of the watchdog role. Discussion ensued about how to receive and respond to staff reports, and board expectations for courteous treatment of staff, even while asking tough questions.
By dealing with boardsmanship issues in just one or two minutes at the end of a board meeting rather than waiting until a retreat that might not occur for another six to eight months, the board can straighten out errant behaviors with a self-correcting feedback cycle and in a formative way it shapes its members’ future behavior with regular reminders of expectations written in board policy.
When dealing with its members’ behavior and enforcing its protocol, a board that is willing to discuss board member behavior in a public forum sets an example for transparency, and perhaps paradoxically enhances public confidence, because the board is seen to be holding itself to high standards of performance and can be expected to hold the district to similar high expectations.
The effective board links accountability and growth. The board makes time for professional development on boardsmanship. It orients and mentors new members in their role. It engages in self-assessment conversations during open public meetings, viewing self-criticism as an opportunity for growth. It confronts violations of their commitments by individual board members. The board responds to self-monitoring, judging whether board members are complying with the board’s boardsmanship expectations, and signaling clear intent for future improvement. It enables the public to judge board member performance based on the board’s own self-assessment process.
NOTE: Please feel free to comment. The opinions expressed in these blog entries are informed by references cited herein, and the experiences of the author. Your comments are welcome additions to the conversation.
ALSO: Please feel free to register in order to receive future posts like this one as soon as they are published.
Excerpt from:
- A Framework for School Governance (2017), Rick Maloney
Additional References:
- 1Becoming a Better Board Member (2006) NSBA