Is there a free speech concern under policy governance for members of the North Kitsap School Board?
August 28th, 2009 by marietta nelsonWarning: constant() [function.constant]: Couldn't find constant TT_TH8US_LEN in /home/psblogs/public_html/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this.php on line 1821
Warning: constant() [function.constant]: Couldn't find constant TT_TH8US_LEN in /home/psblogs/public_html/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this.php on line 1821
Warning: constant() [function.constant]: Couldn't find constant TT_TH8US_LEN in /home/psblogs/public_html/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this.php on line 1821
Warning: constant() [function.constant]: Couldn't find constant TT_TH8US_LEN in /home/psblogs/public_html/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this.php on line 1821
Warning: constant() [function.constant]: Couldn't find constant TT_TH8US_LEN in /home/psblogs/public_html/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this.php on line 1821
The North Kitsap School Board has deferred a decision to adopt policy governance as its new method of operations. See this story in today’s paper.
For more background, see the 32-page policy governance report on NK’s website and a story that was in the paper earlier this week.
From the Thursday night meeting, board member Ed Strickland’s concern about policy governance’s code of conduct for board members seems like it needs a public airing.
Under policy governance, board members agree to 10 principles and to adhere to a code of conduct. Most of the 10 princples seem reasonable. The principles state that board members “stand in” for constituents who “own” the district. They also state that the board instructs the superintendent via written policies and can evaluate the superintendent with those policies.
It’s #2 on the principles list that gives pause: “The board shall speak with one voice.”
Strickland said Thursday night that #2 inhibits dissent. He said he would not adhere to it, choosing instead to continue to fight for his principles and to represent the voices of the people who elected him. Board member Val Torrens tried to reassure Strickland that #2 was really meant for after decisions are made – that board members who dissent on majority decisions should not go into the community speaking against them. But that’s the part Strickland did not like.
A few things in the code of conduct give pause as well:
#1 The Board will represent the interests of the ownership and the whole organization. This accountability supersedes:
a. any conflicting loyalty to other advocacy or interest groups
b.loyalty based on membership to other boards or staffs
#2 b. The board president speaks on behalf of the board. Members’ interaction with the public, press or other entities must recognize the same limitation and the inability of any board member to speak for the board, except to repeat explicitly stated board decisions.
#2 c. Members will not publicly make or express individual negative judgments about superintendent or staff performance in an open session
Under covenants of the board there are a few other interesting tidbits. While the covenants require decency, civility and a more well-developed sense of trying to understand others (which is positive, considering what several local school boards have been through in the not-so-recent past,) again there are a few things that give pause:
9. Criticize privately, praise publicly
15. Give directions as a whole, not as individuals
16. Make every reasonable effort to protect the integrity and promote the positive image of the organization and one another.
Management expert John Carver created policy governance and from the literature I read on it, Carver’s audience tended more toward for-profits and non-profits, such as charities and churches. For those bodies, the principles and code of conduct described above makes sense. But is it appropriate to ask an elected official to adhere to the same things?
Tags: North Kitsap
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
August 28th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Marietta, thank you very much for this. These are major issues that parents and the public should hear, discuss and comment on before any adoption is completed.
Thank you Mr. Strickland for standing your ground on this.
North Kitsap here is a tale of caution for you before you allow the district to adopt this method of governance.
This past school year the majority Bremerton School Board, during the Bette Hyde retire/rehire issue, took it upon themselves to try to eliminate dissent and disagreement amongst themselves by holding too many discussions amongst themselves away from the public and then requested a dissenting and critical board member remove them self from the board in an attempt to force members to “Speak with one Voice”. This has caused the Bremerton School District to have a dysfunctional school board for most of the year. An enormous amount of time is having to be spent on both sides to repair the relationship and trust with the community.
North Kitsap, you do not want to head down this path. Increased means of communication and interaction with the public can be adopted and implemented by your school board WITHOUT using Mr. Carver’s flawed method. Of course I do not want a School Board Director out there trashing the rest of the board. But an existing ethics policy can control that. But if they do not agree with a policy or decision by other members of the school board, I want to be able to have that conversation with them if I so choose. Has common sense completely gone away?
Not to mention putting a great deal of less than transparent power in the hands of the Superintendent is a double edged sword. From the Bremerton perspective, when I think of putting that much power in the hands of our former Superintendent Hyde, I shudder to think of how much MORE damage that situation could have caused us as a district. Now to think about putting that much power in the hands of our current Superintendent Mr. Herndon who is brand new to the job of Superintendent, has no experience what so ever with this position and will need constant oversight until he proves he can do the job, horrifies me.
You guys need to be VERY careful here. Make sure this is exactly what you want and certain levels of protection are put in place.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:00 am
The rule against ever again expressing disagreement with a policy decision once the board votes and a director finds himself in the minority on the vote would preclude any change ever again occurring no matter what, wouldn’t it?
Speak now and then forever hold your peace and always toe the party line may work for tightly controlled political parties, but how can it work for a group of directors elected by the voters and given the responsibility to exercise their own best judgment in representing the people who elected them?
It’s one thing to ask your fellow directors not to sabotage the implementation of a chosen policy by constant griping and backbiting.
It’s an entirely different thing to say that no board member can ever again raise any question or criticism of the chosen policy.
The first is common sense.
The second would be a “zero tolerance” lack of any sense at all. No policy could ever be revisited or revised once the vote is taken, since the board must “speak with one voice” and otherwise shut up once the policy decision has been made.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Thanks Bob! You said it better than I could…you usually do (smile).
August 28th, 2009 at 11:35 am
School boards (and any other sort of board) take ACTION with one voice. It is a fundamental premise of democratic process that once a vote is taken, the lawful decision of the voting body, whether split vote or unanimous, is what moves forward. That doesn’t prevent an elected official from speaking their mind on the issue. What it does is gives the employee(s) clear direction on how to proceed (based on the vote). The authority to ACT is vetted in the board, not a single individual on a board… not even the board’s president except as prescribed by policy adopted by the whole board.
Board members often have disagreements on how it is best to proceed. But once the body has made a decision, it is incumbent upon the whole body to work to make that decision a successful one… so long as it is within the realm of acceptable/lawful behavior.
Policy governance, adapted as needed for elected bodies and local needs, is a move to empower boards. Many boards are working towards this positive model and every one will have questions and concerns along the way which should be vetted and taken seriously. That doesn’t mean policy governance is bad or one is bad for having concerns. For school boards, it means that boards are looking at strategic methodologies that will empower them to do their jobs effectively and provide the influence to improve the quality and efficiency of K-12 education.
Now, all this being said, this is the voice of one school board member and not necessarily the voice of the SKSD board as a whole.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
August 28th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Almost sounds like they are trying to make people work together. Group think and participation is quite popular in academia. Grading in groups, doing reports and assignments in groups , individualism is sometimes seen as something that gets in the way . Thank God for individuals !!!
Of course we should try when it is in the best interest of the school district to move forward . But we have elections to choose those people to do so , and we also have elections to make sure we have people who may find a policy that was voted upon and approved to be changed . This is just one more step of many making school boards irrelevant. The government mandates and policies provide little ability for school boards to change much , making them be quiet when they know in their individual heart something is harmful is just wrong . Regardless if they are right or wrong on the issue .
August 28th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I completely see and hear what you are saying Kathryn. I am all for School Boards exploring options and acquiring tools that will empower them to do their jobs effectively and improve quality.
But strategic methodologies? That has an undertone to it I do not like at all. My experiences with that at the corporate level have not been good. First it starts with something like this which provides for pre-vote discussions, debates, counterstatements and dissentions, then a move forward with restrictions after the final decision with the one voice. Then a certain amount of complacency and apathy with these types of discussion limitations sets in. Then Directors or workers start to think why even has a conversation of disagreement or dissention if I think I know how certain people typically vote on issues. Then it moves to why even vote against something, I will just save time and energy and vote with the herd. Why even participate any free or outside the box thinking or new ideas if it will only be rejected and not really make a difference anyway.
This is a slippery slope. Education has enough hoops, strings and restrictions on it at every level. Adding another layer like this to confounds me.
I can tell we are going to disagree on this one. That’s ok. You know I still appreciate you and your opinions.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
[...] on the Kitsap Education blog Marietta Nelson raises questions about the North Kitsap School District’s discussion of [...]
August 28th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
There is merit to some of what you are saying, Colleen. But that is exactly why we need to be very careful and intentional about who we elect to represent us… whether on school boards, in the Legislature, or in the United States Congress.
Anything can have a slippery slope. But that shouldn’t stop us from doing what is right and responsible.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
August 28th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I know, but you and I both know that bully tactics and power corruption have a place in this process where it should not. My faith and trust in several of the current individuals I have to work with and their ability to do “what is right” has been shaken to its core this past year.
While the premise of this Policy of Governance is a good one, I would really want to see more in the way of safeguards and oversight measures before adoption. And also the ability to both easily raise the red flag and then act upon it.
August 28th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
One problem that I’ve seen with ongoing disagreement and dissension: nothing gets done.
One side battles the other and the project doesn’t go anywhere. The folks on each side is intent on stopping the other side and the focus is lost.
They can’t move forward for the greater good.
How many years did the SK/PO park difference of opinion go on? If memory serves, the ‘side’ that finally conceded is the side I agreed with and they cared enough to let go…some with great personal loss.
I think different opinion and input is invaluable for success of any project.
The problem comes when the differences sink into personal attacks and vendettas…the main goal is lost.
Nothing has beat the teacher’s union so far…so if you have a school board loaded with members or close friends with the teacher’s union and their my way or the highway, the main goal gets lost and the kids lose again.
At some point, these people must/should work together…IF they have the same goal but a different approach to getting there.
Official medication should come into play BEFORE the ugliness begins.
Why can’t school boards work like businesses such as Microsoft and Apple?
Seems to me they encourage their employees to think freely and work together toward a successful product – it seems to work for them.
For schools, that product is/should be the best education possible for the kids and NOTHING, including unions, should stand in the way.
Sharon O’Hara
August 28th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Why have a school board? If the process of making decisions is so difficult and ridden with conflict, why do it? Look at the cost to the Bremerton students when they have a poorly functioning school board. Use Sharon’s idea. Get rid of elected members, hire a business manager, public affairs person, and management expert. Task them with running the school district, setting the standards, and creating the vision for the students. The Superintendent, principles, teachers, etc. would be effective or be fired. Run it like a business. Few companies will keep ineffective workers nor will they stay in business long producing an ineffective or defective product. As for policy governance, I am not sure if an elected board can effectively represent its constituents by following the rules I have read regarding the subject. In a specific type of business setting as it may have been intended by Carver it may help, but for elected officials who must answer to the voter, I think it is more of a slippery cliff than a slope.
Just a thought.
Roger Gay
South Kitsap
September 4th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Kathryn is spot on here.
Besides, a board member still has the option of raising an issue and calling for discussion and a vote on a matter. If they lose and there are no ethical or legal violations, it is time to move forward as an entity vs. having a saboteur with his or her own agenda.