From the OSBA (which is not exactly a horribly progressive group):A school board member:
* Understands that the board sets the standards for the district through board policy. Board members do not manage the district on a day-to-day basis.
* Understands that the board makes decisions as a team. Individual board members may not commit the board to any action.
* Respects the right of other board members to have opinions and ideas that differ.
* Recognizes that decisions are made by a majority vote and should be supported by all board members.
* Makes decisions only after the facts are presented and discussed.
* Understands the chain of command and refers problems or complaints to the proper administrative office.
* Recognizes that the board must comply with the Public Meetings Law and has authority to make decisions only at official board meetings.
* Insists that all board and district business is ethical and honest.
* Is open, fair and honest -- has no hidden agenda.
* Understands that he or she will receive confidential information that cannot be shared.
* Recognizes that the superintendent is the board’s adviser and should be present at all meetings, except when the board is considering the superintendent’s evaluation, contract or salary.
* Takes action only after hearing the superintendent’s recommendations.
* Refuses to use board membership for personal or family gain or prestige. Announces conflicts of interest before board action is taken.
* Refuses to bring personal or family problems into board considerations.
* Gives the staff the respect and consideration due skilled professional employees.
* Presents personal criticism of district operations to the superintendent, not to district staff or to a board meeting.
* Respects the right of the public to attend and observe board meetings.
* Respects the right of the public to be informed about district decisions and school operations as allowed by law.
I am going to leave the subject of deciding by who and how often these are violated up to someone else. Preferably, everyone will reach their own conclusion. Lord knows I certainly have reached some of my own.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Oregon School Board Association: This is what it takes to be a good board member
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
W-o-w...No WONDER we are having these problems!
So, are they requirements? What happens if they are violated? Some, obviously, like the open meetings are law, but not the day to day management. I think the board gets to decide how interactive and hands on they'll be. A lot of stuff the board does is not real smooth, but I am not sure I have seen anything provably illegal. Their current management may be based on the particular administrators on during their tenure.
I believe they are guidelines, not requirements.
I am generally less interested in legal claims than ethical claims. The OSBA guidelines are far more of the latter.
But ethical claims seem so much more vague than legal. My ethics on a few things may be viewed differently than yours.
True - which is one of the reasons it's important to pay attention to them. Differing beliefs around the ethical correctness of actions of LCSD board members and Robinson are at the heart of this just as much as differing interpretations of the law.
Different understandings of the law can be resolved by a judge or an attorney. How do we resolve differing claims around whether or not something was ethical, given that we don't have something like the law to call on as a judge?
Most large cities have an ethics commission. They usually have an 800# and accept anonymous complaints, investigate and if found guilty impose fines. It gives people a place to call to see if something they intended to do would be unethical. Maybe we should have one at the county level.
If you really think everyone should just do whatever they think is right with no ground rules you can kiss any kind of forward movement goodbye.
Would your favorite sport benefit from the same thinking?
Generally, it should be decided by rational human beings engaged in a productive dialog. That pretty much excludes the current groups at Lebanon, and I mean both the board and the administration. Too much lack of respect and maturity on both sides anymore. That's why we may need to just start over with all of them.
anonymous @ June 20, 2008 10:46 PM
Basically you are saying:
"Throw the bums out!"
I keep hearing this mantra.
Who would you put in their place?
No, I wouldn't throw them all out, but one at a time, we may need to look at it. But, that means we have to choose sides, and that will be hard not knowing all the info. But when I see Debi go onto the board, and going in as a moderate person, yet now coming out more unhappy with the administration, you have to wonder. Maybe she learned more about how the administration works, and didn't like it. I think we all agree something may need to change, but if one side or the other absolutely refuses to work with the other, that side may need to go. If Mr. Robinson is completely opposed to working with the board, that is impractical and he may need to go. Yes, the board should not micromanage, but they are expected to manage. I have a good boss, who lets me work, but when he disagrees with me, he wins.
"No, I wouldn't throw them all out, but one at a time, we may need to look at it."
This actually is what's happening. Kim Fandino won't be the LEA President next year. She played a major roll in all the conflict in our community. Regardless of the outcome of the recall I see no possibility of Rick and Josh being re-elected a year from now. Sherrie has already moved on and Chris said he doesn't plan to run again. A year after we have almost an entirely new board, Jim's contract runs out. I realize two years seems like a long time but I see it as a positive way to end the conflict. I certainly don't want Rick and Josh involved in the hiring of the next Superintendent. With them off the board we might have a shot of getting good applicants. It would give the new board a year to get up to speed with the current Superintendent. They would know what qualities they did or didn't want in the new one.
I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that Robinson's contract needs to be non-renewed at least one more time before it expires.
Unless that, somehow, this year's non-renewal will stop the process from even occurring next year, though I don't think that's the case.
The other thing I would add is that the conflicts that are taking place are not driven solely by the personalities of the participants. Personalities may have become dominant recently, but I still think underlying everything is a genuine set of disagreements about a) the role of the school board and b) the future of education. Until those things are addressed (notice I did not say 'solved'), especially the latter, even the most level-headed people on the board and in the DO are going to find themselves in conflict with each other, teachers/staff and the public precisely because there is a real & honest disagreement there.
How they - and we - handle that conflict is going to count for a lot.
Thank you all for commenting - and just because I weighed in, don't stop!
Interesting ethic guidelines. I agree with all the above recomendations of course.
And...I'm thinking about running for school board. I'm 19 about to be 20, lived in same district all my life and can self finance. You think I have a shot? My platform is taxpayer advocate, promoter of special ed, and budget watchdog.
Anon @ 4:54, it really depends on the district. In the abstract, yes, I'd say you have a chance.
What are the characteristics of the district?
Post a Comment