From the Boardroom: Questions Many Boards Never Think to Ask (Part IV)

From the Boardroom: Questions Many Boards Never Think to Ask (Part IV)

February 18, 2018 Rick Maloney

This is the last of a four-part series. In Parts I, II and III of this post, we considered questions rarely (maybe never) asked by Board members regarding orientation and professional development of board members, the full Board, and Superintendent/staff, and questions about some strategic Board-level functions. In this part, we will review a couple of ordinary board functions that at first don’t appear to be very strategic, but are in fact key components of a strategic board role, so should inspire strategic questions for the Board.

About Turning Routine Board Functions Into Strategic Board Functions

  • Board meetings.

Q#1:  Does the Board take responsibility for planning board meetings?

Again, most boards think the answer is yes, because: (1) they routinely (even ritualistically) go through an agenda approval process at the beginning of each meeting; (2) members have an opportunity to propose agenda items before each meeting; and (3) members can propose amendments at the beginning of the meeting to whatever the Superintendent and board chair have prepared. The routine in most organizations is that the Superintendent prepares the agenda (calling it a draft agenda but filling it with items the Superintendent deems appropriate for the Board to discuss) then sends it to the chair to approve it.

But as a result of this kind of routine, the Board is really following the Superintendent’s lead in the planning and conduct of its meetings. Remember: meetings are the only opportunity the Board has to conduct its own business, so giving up the responsibility to plan its meetings is giving up the Board’s responsibility to control its work and its direction. The inevitable result is that staff work (the work that is most important to the Superintendent) takes a priority in board meetings, and occupies the vast majority of meeting time, so that board work (that which can only be done by the Board) is an after-thought.

Follow-up Q:  How does the Board change the status quo?

The routines and structures of board meetings can be guided by the Board’s own decisions, as documented in revised policy statements, directing how such meetings are to be planned and conducted. Topics that should be addressed in such guidance affecting board meetings include:

  • Agenda planning (including how the Board will use the consent agenda to prioritize the use of meeting time);
  • Preparation for meetings;
  • Member behavior during meetings as guided by boardsmanship protocol;
  • The chair’s role as chief governance officer and facilitator of board meetings;
  • Purpose of meetings, which shall be the focus of the Board’s attention during meetings;
  • What items the board wants routinely placed on its agenda, and which items should be routinely placed on the consent agenda;
  • The routines of board work;
  • How individual board members contribute to board meetings; and
  • How the Superintendent contributes to board meetings.

Opposing any desire to focus on the work of the Board during its meetings, there are myriads of opportunities available to tempt the Board into diving in (and distracting itself with) the work of the staff. If it succumbs to this kind of temptation, or allows the Superintendent to feed its insatiable appetite for examining the work of staff, the Board makes itself vulnerable to what superintendent consultants call (and advocate for) the “care and feeding” of board members. This paternalistic exercise in manipulation is a perfectly rational response to a Board that otherwise has no self-directed focus. It can also be a perfectly rational self-defense mechanism employed against an undisciplined Board. Still, it assures that the Board does not take responsibility for its own work.

Q#2:  Does the Board plan its own policymaking function?

Policymaking also can and should be guided by the Board’s own prior decisions as documented in writing. Providing guidance to all employees and/or students in the district is the traditional function of board policy. The Board should also set policy or protocol for its own conduct and that of its members.

But consider who really prepares the content of most policies (staff, as guided by the Superintendent; state law, as written by legislative committee staff; committees formed by the state school boards’ association to prepare model policies) and who is affected by most policy language (the operational staff). Since most policies in the typical policy manual impact district operations, and are not in any sense written at a strategic/board level, those operating policies are appropriately prepared by the Superintendent and staff, but they should in all reality be ignored by the Board because they fall outside the Board’s strategic role.

Policy written at a more strategic level is directed toward only two entities: the Superintendent, and the Board itself. This subset of strategic level policies should occupy the Board’s attention, and should not be outsourced to be written by the Superintendent or staff. Strategic level policies should be written by the Board, in support of the Board’s strategic needs. Period.

Follow-up Q:  How does the Board change the status quo?

Topics that should be considered when planning strategic-level policy include:

  • The process (and timing) for giving staff input to Board decisions;
  • The concept of locus of control and deciding what topics should not be directed by the Board because they should be delegated to the Superintendent;
  • Mandatory policies (often operational guidance that is dictated by state law) vs discretionary guidance (guidance the Board decides is actually needed); and
  • Assessment of whether policy language is aligned with the Board’s intended delegation of authority.

In recognition of current reality, the Board should clearly delegate operational policy to the Superintendent. Any matters delegated to the Superintendent as operational in nature should not be “delegated and forgotten” – that would constitute abdication of responsibility rather than delegation of authority. Rather, they should be regularly and carefully reviewed to ensure that they remain aligned with and controlled by strategic (Board level) policy. Delegation followed by monitoring is how the Board performs its strategic role, and this role includes the strategic use of policy to govern the district.