The Board Evaluation

The evaluation was requested by the Board itself.  It was done by the Mercer Island Group and they apparently did interviews with the Board and Cabinet (with an additional online survey of the Board) but it is unclear to me what questions they asked or if they just used an attribute list for the respondents to vote on and then, asked for their comments.  (Also, Appendix Four isn't quite clear as to who made the statements in this section.)

(The cabinet consists of Jose Banda, Bob Boesche, Ron English, Michael Tolley, Duggan Harman, Pegi McEvoy and Paul Apostle.  I have to wonder what the Board might have said about how the Cabinet works but that was not part of this evaluation.)

I'll let you read the whole thing and be the judge.  But here are some thoughts (followed by what was said at the meeting):

- my biggest surprise was not the comments but the ratings the Board gave itself.  They were pretty low.  I have to wonder if it is really about morale or maybe about a few people trying to skew the results.  Or both.

There were 29 attributes - 18 had "meets expectations or higher" but not one had "exceeds expectations" or "outstanding."  They did best in areas of responsibility, maintaining a strategic plan and laws/regulations and communication protocols.

Their two highest scores for themselves?

-Uphold all applicable federal and state laws and regulations.
-Maintain a strategic plan for the district that clearly defines success and accountability for the Board, the staff, and our students.

Their lowest scores for themselves?  (Of the 29 attributes, 11 had a rating of below "meets expectations.")  They had the lowest scores for working effectively with each other, the superintendent/staff and communications.

- Is the Board working together effectively?
- The Board maintains a close relationship of trust with the Superintendent and strives to facilitate district success.

That last one was a surprise because I thought the Board was doing those things.  But, looking at what they think works and what they think doesn't work, you see a clear conflict.  Meaning, they feel they do well on communications protocols but not communications.  Hmmm.

They did have good marks for themselves (in unity except for one abstention - no idea who that was) with budget development, audit response and policy review.

So what did the Cabinet think of the Board?

Good - passionate and dedicated, focus on students, do homework/come prepared,making efforts to improve, in-tune w/community, respectful and appreciative
Bad - Board needs to address its dysfunctions, engage in "appropriate lines of communication and adhere to Policy 1620", provide a unified front/collectively define "the role of the Board",  and several others.

The overwhelming issue seems to be trust, both within the Board and between Board/Cabinet.

Both groups believe the Board needs to work on trust issues, have a unified purpose and move past differences and start anew.  One interesting item that both groups feel the Board struggles with (and rightly so) - "find a balance between regional advocacy and big picture focus."

Please consider this going forward with the School Board elections.  It has been a constant source of confusion for candidates because the RCW says one thing BUT every Board director in this state probably has his or her own ideas about what ELSE a director can/should do.

Understand that while you elect a director from a region, they are truly city-wide directors.  So this yin and yang of regional advocacy and big picture focus is one they all have to make peace with. 

As I mentioned previously, the Cabinet feels "past controversies have left the Boad hesitant to trust the Cabinet."   Some quotes:

"They feel because of past indiscretions and scandal that they can't trust staff.  It doesn't make it a great place to work."  

"Staff feels threatened by Board"  

"We have all made mistakes and sinned.  But what can we do to make a fresh start and move forward?"

"Moving forward"- I've heard that many, many times.  I think it is a difficult thing for a Board member for a couple of reasons.  One, mistakes - big mistakes - keep happening over and over.   Staff makes excuses and yet things keep happening.  Two, it is the Board's job - whether a new or continuing director - to give oversight.  Sorry, every single person has a boss and, if you work in government, likely also an elected official who also is charged with oversight.  There is no getting away from it.

You'll have to read all the comments.  They are telling.  I will again say that I believe that a few Board members and Cabinet members may have overstated or expanded on their thoughts for effect.  It is especially telling in the Board members remarks (and you can play a parlor game of "who said it?" as you read along).

For example, some in the Cabinet feel the Board comes prepared and asks good questions.  Others say, "the unnecessary requests for data or meetings...need to stop."  Another Cabinet member says, "They ask questions.  And they should."  Adjustments of volume of data or timing, sure, but don't get peeved at the Board for doing their jobs.

One Board member says, "We used to have meetings with the City Council."  I can guess who said that but I was told, by more than one councilmember, that they got tired of the dog and pony show the staff would put on instead of consulting the Council on ways to help the district.  I'm not sure it had anything to do with personalities or Board dysfunction.

The Cabinet feels the strains between Board members - "open hostilities", concerns over "committee assignments", "I hear but don't see" that Board members don't like each other and "sometimes they disagree with each other just for the sake of disagreement." 

About the public.  Some Cabinet members give them a lot of credit - "take it seriously", "want to hear from constituents", "listen to parents in their district and are advocates".   But then there was this - "They feel they have to represent their constituents and they respond to the bloggers as well."  Well, in our defense, some of the bloggers are SPS parents and all of us are Seattle taxpayers. 

The Board also disagreed about their own role.  One said lined up the duties like this "policy and governance, ambassadors at large and being the best possible advisor to the superintendent without directing him or her."  

Meanwhile, another Director had this to say, "Governance should only be three things: making policy, performing oversight (that is not looking over the staff's shoulder all the time - it's once a year looking at performance) and budget (we approve the budget - so we need a formal process for prioritizing what is cut and what new spending goes to.)"  He/she continues on, "The other thing - which is a little more abstract - is advocating for SPS.  But that is not a primary responsibility.  It's an optional area that some Board members pursue."  

Clearly, that Director goes by the RCW but it is quite surprising that he/she doesn't think advocacy is an important part of the job.  I'll bet he/she didn't say that on the campaign trail.  

Other thoughts:

- on trust, someone on the Cabinet said this, "I wonder if the mistrust and fall out that came from the undisclosed previous review (by the Alliance) was worse than the actual sharing of that review."  Right this minute, I am blanking on what review is being referenced here; I'll have to ask.

Someone on the Board said this, "Who do Board members listen to for advice and insight?  This is a problem we have as a Board.  The majority of the Board feels inclined to listen to outside entities rather than trust the other Board members and the staff."  

That's a big statement and one that is hard for me to believe.  I think the Board very much listens to staff.  I also don't know what the person means by "outside entities" which would make me think of groups rather than constituents.

From the meeting:

- Marty McLaren seemed flummoxed by the evaluation results.  She said the Board IS getting things done.  And, she's right.  They have and their votes have been more 7-0 or 6-1, than 4-3.

- Michael DeBell referenced some list that Bob Boesche had of Board micromanagement that Boesche presented at the Board retreat.  I'll have to ask for that one.  DeBell dramatically said that "Careers are at risk with this Board."  I think that is nonsense.

- Sherry Carr said this was tough but a "gift" to the Board for the feedback it gives them.  She agreed with Marty about the work they had gotten done.  

- Sharon Peaslee said she comes back to the micromanaging and that she keeps asking what that looks like or examples of it.  Facilitator Bob Ness said that Sharon had asked for this information before. 

- Kay Smith-Blum said they need to look for ways to support each other especially if they change roles (moving from Vice-President to President, for example).  

- Carr also called out her concern - and she has voiced this previously - that every committee needs an annual calendar and clear training/guidance for chairs.  

- Superintendent Banda said he felt the Board was courageous in asking for this feedback and looking for ways to do better.