Trust is the new Accountability

Trust Trust Trust

It's all you hear about these days, but no one will tell you what they mean by it.

Dr. Enfield writes: "Our immediate priority is to restore public trust in Seattle Public Schools."

The Times Editorial Board writes "New Seattle Schools Superintendent Susan Enfield must restore trust and order"

Crosscut writer Knute Berger is very concerned about trust.

I think about trust a lot also. A lot. It's my business. And here's what I know about trust: How do you get people to trust you?

--------------------------------By being trustworthy.

It's not a joke, it's a simple, powerful answer.

There are four simple steps to earning trust:

1. Say what you mean. Speak plainly and reveal your true intent. Don't hide your goals. No guile, no euphemisms, no spin.

2. Mean what you say. Don't make claims you won't back up. Don't weasel.

3. Keep your commitments. Do the things you commit to doing. If you can't, because sometimes all of us find ourselves in a situation in which we cannot keep a commitment, then come right out and acknowledge that you won't be able to keep your commitment. Don't deny the commitment or diminish it. And be contrite.

4. Speak the truth. No lies. And no lies of omission. Full disclosure.

Do these things and you will earn trust. That's a key point. Trust has to be EARNED. And you don't get to say when you've earned it; the people granting the trust get to say when you've earned it. And you haven't earned it from them until you meet their standard - not yours.

So let's not have any more talk about Trust unless people are talking about HOW the District can earn the public's trust. And that's going to require some talk about how the District lost the public's trust. It wasn't from a single scandal or even two. The District has no credibility because for the past ten years the District has about a 98% fail rate for keeping its commitments and about a 98% fail rate on the truth.

If Susan Enfield wants to earn the public's trust, here's a good place for her to start: Harium Martin-Morris' blog has a thread with about a hundred commmitments that the District hasn't kept. Fulfill those commmitments.

If Susan Enfield wants to earn the public's trust, here's a good place for her to start: publish a complete org chart with every central office employee and every department's budget. Tell that truth.

If Susan Enfield wants to earn the public's trust, here's a good place for her to start: Answer the questions. So when you're interviewed on KUOW and they ask you if you will apply for the superintendent job, just answer the question. Yes or no will do. Evading the very first question you're asked is no way to build trust.

When Dr. Goodloe-Johnson started with the District I meant to keep track of her statements and promises and see how many she kept. I have always regretted not doing it. Now I have another chance. Starting now I will keep a trust scorecard for Dr. Enfield. I will track how well she says what she means, means what she says, keeps her commitments, and tells the truth. So far she's starting out behind by evading the question on KUOW. That's a point against her. I'll go through the Seattle Times interview and score that next.

Comments

SeattleSped said…
Do you know what I'm SICK of hearing?!? When a CO staff member (or Superintendent) answers a question with "SO...." It is as if the question was but a branch hitting the window. Don't interrupt their standard menu of responses!

We get this ALOT at Spec Ed meetings.

It's like "La la la, I can't HEAR you!"
I think it might be good to make a list and submit it as suggestions.

One of the top ones on my list is correction of the "protoccol" that MGJ created whereby NO staff could contact the Board without notifying the top 4 in administration.

I understand the notion of not burdening the Board with many complaints or the Board hearing about issues and trying to micromanage the staff.

But, ANY staff member who has a serious allegation about a program or person in the district and who does not feel comfortable or safe in notifying their supervisor, should be able to come to a Board member who then can ask questions.

We had a bunch of people who either tried to come forward (and got nowhere and had nowhere else to go)or were afraid to come forward and didn't. That shouldn't happen.

That would go a long way to restore some trust among staff at headquarters.
mirmac1 said…
One thing that is top of the list is (Holly Ferguson's job of) "improving" the ethics policy. If you read any of the outside ethics counsel's (Treat's former coworker at the KC PA office)ethics reports, the threshold of unethical behavior was so high, you basically had to be an axe murderer, who was maybe an illegal alien, to be guilty of breaking the SPS ethics policy.
Anonymous said…
That is an unbelievable policy! I had no idea the staff was forbidden from contacting the board. Are the staff members not also constituents? (At least if they live in the city.) And why not leave it to the board members to decide if contact from any certain individual is unwelcome or burdensome?
seattle citizen said…
Melissa, there was a protocol that NO staff could contact the board without notifying admin?

hmm..

Anyway, that's moot, now, because Director Debell, bless 'im, at the Wednesday meeting, practically PLEADED with staff to contact him directly.

I hope he gets a lot of calls.
Anonymous said…
The good Dr. Enfield's first and highest priority in her newly acquired position, and for the districtas a whole, should by no means be to regain the trust of the community. Trust is not the goal. The goal is to serve the educational needs of the students under her care. This is not about communications, about public relations, or anything of the sort. It is about doing one's job. What is the primary condition for the practice of education and its propagation? Recognition of need. (If you'll pardon the paraphrased excerpt from a 1969 Charles Eames interview).

Oompah
Anonymous said…
Charlie,

Your post is right on target.

What I want to see is Strategies 360 out of the building. That was part of the promotional package that either Gates or Broad put together to further the ed reform agenda for our former superintendent.

We don't need them, Karen Waters basically, because we already have 3 PR people in place to handle what ever needs to be handled. In fact, we don't need those three folks. What do we need with any PR people within the district?

I am just beginning to see all of the rif-raf that are in the Stanford Center and from that I do believe that central district needs to be purged.

Also, when watching the people in central district who got front and center seats right in front of me at the board meeting, they don't seem to understand that it is all about the children. I got the distinct impression that they think that it is all about them.

That bit of culture needs to go right now.
Watcher said…
Let's see if we can trust Enfield to inform the district of an accurate administrative headcount at HQ.

I suspect she will continue to protect administrative positions while eliminating classroom support. I just know it.
Watcher said…
Sorry, I meant- Will Enfield give the board an accurate count of administrative positions at HQ?
anonymous said…
What is this, Dr. Enfield's 2nd full day on the job? A job that fell in her lap in the matter of a week or so? I think she deserves a bit of time to settle herself, regroup, and dig through what MGJ has left in her lap. I think it will take her some time to go through the budget, the bloat in the central office, and all of the other new duties she just inherited. And there will certainly be a learning curve for her. Let's give her a little bit of time and courtesy. And lets at least let her unpack her boxes.
She didn't just get here, you know.

Also, you might not know but she's already asking people for their thoughts. She's smart enough to have already sent that in motion.
Watcher said…
Guppy,
Enfield is part of the budget process. Enfield is keenly aware of administrative positions and costs.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Unknown said…
Please delete my last comment.
In this crazy world, some may
not realize that that was simply an ironic spin about hot seat of the past week. Thanks!
Anonymous said…
"watcher" is spot on.....This person is a continuation of same,sad to say...How could she not be....B.Patu had it right Wed. night.....Can you say whitewash,and "let's put this all behind us"....and/or ...."coverup"?...........JS
Charlie Mas said…
When Dr. Goodloe-Johnson prattled on nonsensically about accountability, it was like Gary Hart daring the reporters to follow him. So they followed him and they found him on the Monkey Business.

When Dr. Enfield and Director Sundquist prattle on nonsensically about trust it is the same. They are daring us to track their honesty. And, frankly, I don't think their honesty can stand up to the scrutiny. They simply are not particularly honest people.
Greg said…
Great post, Charlie. A lot of this comes down to transparency, honesty, keeping promises, and admitting failures.

Seems rather basic, I know, but it is not the norm for political leaders. What we need right now in our superintendent is a skilled manager and administrator, one focused on efficient and effective operation of the district, not a politician. I hope Susan Enfield is ready to roll up her sleeves.
Chris S. said…
Oompah said:
"Trust is not the goal. The goal is to serve the educational needs of the students under her care. "

True, but financial transparency will aid in both goals - increasing trust and enabling leaders to transfer more resources to the real goal.

True, trust should be much more than a PR project.
SP said…
Trust is even included in the questionable Communications Protocol that the Board and district approved in 2009 (see Eake's Independent Report, Exhibits R, K & L). This Protocol has not been posted anywhere on the SPS website that I've seen until this report came out.

From the 3 page Protocol, under "Board Committee Process and Protocol":
"It is the responsibility of the board to read all of the materials from the committee meetings and trust in the recommendations being presented. This supports the current committee structure in place."

The current Board actually approved this! "Just trust us, we're the district!" ...What happened to their role and responsibility of oversight?

This 3 page Protocol is really something- it even includes, "Board members agree not to contact the math manager, but go through Susan, Cathy or the Superintendent."
Does this give you that fuzzy warm feeling of trust?

Finally, under "Staff Questions" is a slightly differently worded protocol (than the one which went to district management staff):
"Board members should pose questions through the Superintendents Executive Management Team and any staff listed below. The Board agreed to copy the Superintendent, CFOO or CAO on all correspondence so we can be aware of any concerns or potential issues. We also agreed that we forward email to staff and not include email trails from constituents and or copy "all"."

Compare that to what was sent to the district management staff: "Communications Protocol: All communication with individual Directors or the Board as a whole must go through either the Superintendent or another member of the Executive Leadership Team. If time constraints require you to respond directly, copy the Executive Laedsrship Team member and the Superintendent in your response. Any responses by staff to inquiries by individual Directors will be shared with the entire Board."
Anonymous said…
Chris - you're right about financial transparency.

In my idealistic little world, a good administrator would gather information and make decisions based on the question of how choices, decisions and policies impact the students under her care. In a way those students are really who she is responsible to and for. (my bad grammer and all)

I like to think that financial transparency and lots of other good and responsible things would flow from that consideration. Like it has been said, you gain trust from being trustworthy - and it is not likely to come quickly or easily for the big beast in SODO based on past behavior.

Oompah
peonypower said…
The first statement on this post on trust says it all- people trust you for being trustworthy- which is something that you have to demonstrate. Students trust me because they know I will say exactly what I think. They trust me because if I say I will do X - I do X. Trust is a gift the other party grants you.

The first time Enfield came to speak to our staff she said "you can trust me" 12 times. Of course, given the administration at the time the overuse of this statement set alarm bells ringing. Not to mention this is not how trust works.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Enfield will have to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. To date my experience with the new sup. is that she evades the question and then never gets back to you.

Believe it when I see it.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

Who Is A. J. Crabill (and why should you care)?