Question #31 – Does Your Board Facilitate Governance?

Rick Maloney

(49 Questions to Ask Your Board)

“Where previously such admonition from the chair had to come from that person’s own belly of conscience, this policy gives them fodder for the canon of board leadership, to call to task any trustee who has trodden from the path of policy proviso and gotten off into areas which the board has agreed are off limits.”

― Gene Royer1

The above is a description of board policy that grants authority to the board chair and defines the duty of a board chair to quote the board’s own words back to it whenever the board strays from its commitments. With support from the board, the role of the chair is that of facilitator of board behavior to help it become the most effective board it can be.

Royer is recommending, of course, that the board first establish such a policy. Then, he recommends that the chair take on both a facilitating (servant) and an enforcing (leader) role. It is the responsibility of the board as a whole to define this balanced role for the chair rather than rely on each chair to define it for himself upon taking office. This assures that the chair is not assuming an authoritarian role as supervisor of fellow board members but acts on behalf of the board in asserting the board’s authority over colleagues.

Scenario: The board meeting began routinely, but when an agenda item covering a “hot topic” was brought up, two board members with opposing views raised their voices, attributing to one another the worst possible motives, reacting with the most extreme interpretations of what was being said, and resorting to name-calling. The board chair interrupted with a recitation of board policy that guides debate, describing how the board expected that members can “disagree without being disagreeable.” After a break, board members varied from giving advice to the superintendent to discussing setting a new policy to handle the situation in the future. The board chair intervened again, reminding them of policy that already exists, asking them “Are we following our policy that already addresses this kind of situation? Who does our existing policy authorize to handle these situations? Have we considered whether they are already dealing with it in compliance with that policy?”

What if the chair takes action that undermines the board’s effectiveness, or its credibility?

Scenario: Fred, the school board president, wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, asking them to reassign their reporter Fran and assign a new reporter who was not biased against the district. He itemized a dozen concerns about Fran’s reporting, ranging from relatively innocuous typos to broader concerns about fairness and perceived lack of commitment to covering the day-to-day district activities. “We’re tired of her lopsided, inaccurate reporting,” which “portrays a negative image to the public.”

It is a board responsibility to prevent the chair, or any individual board member for that matter, from taking over and assuming a larger leadership role than is called for to accomplish responsibilities of chief governance officer role. In the above case, Fred appears to have overstepped his role of being the board spokesman when he gave vent to his personal feelings. Similarly, the board-as-a-whole should be vigilant to ensure that its work is not hijacked by a board minority. The voice of the minority should be protected, and it should be heard during deliberations, but normal board process should not be obstructed by a misguided desire for consensus at all costs.

The effective board assigns responsibility and delegates authority for managing its governance process. This role is fulfilled by the chair, acting as chief governance officer. The chair ensures that board process is facilitated in accordance with policy but as a board official remains a subordinate, in service to the whole board. The chair responds to disruptions or interruptions by aligning members’ behavior with the established work of the full board. Board behavior in meetings respects the difference between the voice of the board (the true authority) and individual board members’ voice or vote. The chair sets the agenda, focusing it on strategic goals, and plans meetings for the year in accord with the board’s plan, mapping out when major topics will be addressed. The board ensures that the board chair and superintendent are guided by the plan, preferably one that has been approved by the full board at the beginning of each year.

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:

Additional References:

Next: Question #32 – Does Your Board Give the Superintendent Management Guidance?