Sufficient Oversight on a School Board

May 26, 2010

Sufficient Oversight on a School Board

One of the dangers of using a particular governance model is that one can become orthodox in its application.  For instance, I am a trained Policy Governance consultant, meaning that I was personally trained by John and Miriam Carver, John having created Policy Governance and Miriam as one of its leading theorists. However, once we leave the Policy Governance womb, we have to make decisions as to whether the model is producing the benefits for which it was created.  When Policy Governance is employed, does it serve the interests of the “moral owners” of the organization?

In her recent critique of Policy Governance as employed by the Clark County School Board in Nevada, http://npri.org/publications/it-makes-us-all-look-ridiculous, Karen Gray  that Policy Governance is not working well and rises specific instances where she argues that the level of oversight is insufficient.  Let’s look at her argument and see what we learn.

Staff raises

According to Gray,

Recently, trustees received public criticism and what amounts to an implicit scolding from legislators for approving approximately $100,000 in additional benefits for Clark County’s top five ranking employees during the current deep recession while also calling for “shared sacrifice.” Then it was revealed trustees never even looked at the employee contracts prior to approving them.

The first thing one does when addressing an issue from a Policy Governance perspective is to review the current policies regarding compensation.  Currently those policies say:

With respect to employment, compensation, and benefits to employees, consultants, contract workers and volunteers, the Superintendent will not cause or allow jeopardy to fiscal integrity or to public image.
Further, without limiting the scope of the foregoing by this enumeration, he or she will not:
1. Change his or her own compensation and benefits, except, as his or her benefits are consistent with a package for all other employees.
2. Promise or imply permanent or guaranteed employment.

The Superintendent is required to provide a report to the Board demonstrating compliance with this policy.  His report had better show that his compensation and benefits are consistent with a package for all other employees.  If he cannot reasonably do this, he is out of compliance and should be held accountable.  In addition, a negative article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal claiming that the legislators admonished the Superintendent, raises the possibility that his actions have led to “jeopardy to public image” which he is required to protect.  Of course, the Superintendent may argue that a negative press about the raises were not directed at him.  In fact, it was not the legislature that was directing their criticism at the Clark County School District, it was Stephen Augspurger (see below).

But controversy over the Clark County School Board’s decision to award its top staff more than $100,000 in new benefits was likely part of the motivation behind the mandate, said Stephen Augspurger, executive director of the Clark County Association of School Administrators and Professional-technical Employees. (Emphasis added)

When the Superintendent submits his monitoring report to the Board, demonstrating that he has not caused “jeopardy to the public image,” the Board may choose to admonish, scold, or even fire him if they feel that his actions were not in keeping with a reasonable interpretation of their policy.  This seems to be an appropriate mechanism for oversight, if it is actually used by the Board.

Ms. Gray would argue the cow out of the barn.  If the Board chose to admonish the Superintendent, wouldn’t it be too late?  This is a valuable criticism to consider and is a recurring theme which I will address below.

Unilateral suspension of a school policy

Gray makes in interesting assertion.

When the board finds the superintendent — or the board, itself — has acted contrary to the board’s intent, the board must amend, adopt or repeal board policy to give new instruction.

For example, after Clark County School District Superintendent Walt Rulffes in March unilaterally suspended a school district policy to convert 12-month schools to nine months, trustees eventually revised policy GP3 to require that any waiver of school district policies or regulations be approved by the board.

If, as Gray accuses, the Superintendent “unilaterally suspends” the Board’s policy, then the Board is well within its rights to admonish, punish, scold, or fire the Superintendent.  But that is really not what Gray is saying.

It is inaccurate that the Board cannot act if the Board finds that the Superintendent has acted contrary to its policy.  I believe she is pointing out that if the Board fails to write a policy that clearly expresses its intent, the Board can’t hold the Superintendent responsible for failing to read the Board’s mind.  If the Board wants to say something, then it should say it clearly and put it in writing.  Imagine that the legislature passed a law saying that people could not water their lawns more than once a week.  You, being a law-abiding citizen, choose to water your lawn on Thursday.  On Friday, you receive a citation for breaking the law.  You complain to the DA, “We were told we could water our lawns once-a-week.  I only watered my lawn on Thursday.”  The DA tells you that the legislature intended the law to mean that you could only water your lawn on Saturday, since there is only one Saturday in a week.  You protest, “You can’t hold me accountable for a law that is unclear.”  But that is exactly what Karen Gray is complaining about.  If the Board does a poor job legislating (creating a policy) and the Superintendent reasonably interprets and abides by the policy, Gray wants to blame him, rather than simply fixing the policy.  If the Board’s policies were inadequate, Gray has a legitimate complaint against the Board.  But why is she complaining about Policy Governance?

Prevent Every Problem Before It Happens – Good luck with that.

Karen Gray brings up a tension that is inherent in any situation where authority is delegated to another person.  Whenever a Board delegates authority a Superintendent, it must decide how closely they wish to scrutinize his decisions.  If the Board requires that every decision is scrutinized before the decision is actually made in order to prevent problems from occurring, then the Board has all but seized the Superintendent’s power (the classic definition of micromanagement).  This happens where there is no trust between the Board and the Superintendent.  If a Board does not trust their superintendent then they would want to keep him weak to limit the damage that he may produce. By the Board monitoring the Superintendent’s decisions after they are made, they create a strong superintendent by providing broad authority while maintaining a reasonable degree of oversight.  There are two questions that emerge from when to monitor a superintendent’s actions: 1) How important is it to have a strong Superintendent?  2) Are there any decisions that are so important that the decision must be monitored before the decision is executed?

Strong Superintendents

There are several important benefits for having a strong Superintendent.  With a strong Superintendent who has the authority to make decisions, the Board can hold the superintendent accountable for the decisions that he makes.  If a decision is left to the Board ask a whole, it is much more difficult for the public to hold an individual Board member accountable for a bad decision or for lack of achievement.  Second, if authority to make decisions is maintained by the Board then every decision can become increasingly political.  After all, the Board is a political body.  When management decisions are made with political considerations, we often get poor results.  (I’m writing from Dallas where the Dallas Independent School District management decisions have often been infused with political considerations because of the direct meddling of the DISD Board).

Approval Before Execution

I do believe there are times when certain decisions are so important that a Board would want to review them before they are executed.  These decisions might center around risking significant assets of the district, for instance, purchasing land.  Because the amount of money is so great, the Board may want to ensure that the decision is prudent.  The wrong way to do this would be for the Board to examine a proposal and then give it an up or down approval.  A better way to do this would be to create a policy that sets standards for how decisions should be made.  For instance, if there was a policy about purchasing new buildings, it might say:

No building may be purchased until the Superintendent has demonstrated the following to the Board:

• There is clear plan to pay for this building as evaluated by an independent financial professional with expertise in the financing of school buildings.
• There is a clear educational need for the building that furthers the ends (educational results) directed by the Board.
• The building has been inspected by an independent expert who has determined that it can serve the functions for which it is intended.

While it goes against Policy Governance orthodoxy to demand a monitoring report before an action, by using this policy, the Board is not second-guessing the purchase of the building; nor are they approving whether one building is preferred over another.  The Board is ensuring that the Superintendent is making a reasonable and prudent educational/business decision based upon his professional judgment and the judgment of other independent professionals.  This is a way to address the concerns brought up my Karen Gray while maintaining the benefits of a Policy Governance approach.

Barry Diamond is a governance consultant in Dallas, TX.

He can be reached at Barry@TheSandbarGroup.com or (972) 392-1200

Permalink