Unfortunately, it does not speak in clear, definite, or enforceable words. This policy is a puff of hot air without any meaning whatsoever.
There is a lot of detail in Policy 1010, Board Oversight of Management, but that detail is curiously deficient.
The stated goals of the policy are to:
Evaluate each Oversight Area’s implementation plans, goals and objectives.This is followed with exhaustive detail about information that must be included in annual reports to the Board from various departments. Review that detailed list of data points to be included in the various reports, however, and you will not find anything that speaks to the fourth goal of the policy: compliance with state law and Board policies.
Enable the Board to perform appropriate oversight of management of each Oversight Area by monitoring progress toward performance indicators.
Ensure the district has qualified personnel overseeing its programs.
Ensure compliance with state law and Board policies and procedures.
The process should focus the Board on each department's plans, performance, and personnel, but it fails to focus the Board's attention on policy. This fourth goal of the oversight effort, and the Board's primary governance opportunity, is absent from their process. In short, the Board's policy pays lip service to governance (policy compliance), but carefully refuses to take any action on it.
The Board delegates policy compliance to the superintendent. In Policy 1640, Responsibilities & Authority of the Superintendent, the Board charges the superintendent to:
Carry out and ensure compliance with all policies of the Board of Directors through administrative procedures.That might sound like a pretty good idea, except for two things:
1) Assuring compliance with state law and Board policy is an indelegable responsibility of the Board
2) When policies are violated, it is nearly always the superintendent who is violating them. The board is expecting the superintendent to police herself. That's bad policy.
Let's take an example.
Policy C56.00 Requires the superintendent to make an annual report to the Board on all program placement decisions. The report is required to provide the rationale for each decision and describe how the decision meets the criteria set by the policy. The policy also requires the superintendent to have a procedure for program placement decisions and to make that procedure available to the public. The superintendent did not make the annual report and required by the policy and the program placement procedure is not available to the public as required by the policy.
So now what? Does anyone really expect the superintendent to catch herself violating the policy and compel herself to comply with it? The superintendnet has made her choice. She has chosen to ignore the policy. Now it falls to the Board. The Board has been informed of the non-compliance with the policy, but they have taken no action. Indeed, what action could they take? They have no process for addressing policy violations. They have abdicated their governance responsibility.
So now we see that all of the talk about governance was just all talk.