ICCSD Governance Policies, Prologue

DRAFT ONLY – FOR ICCSD Board Members and Superintendent [Nicholas Johnson, November 5, 1999, Ver 2.2] Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) Board Governance Policies Prologue: Origins, Purpose, Scope

1. This document represents a prologue for the governance policies jointly developed by the Iowa City Community School District School Board during the fall of 1999.

2. Those policies are contained in four categories: Governance Process, Executive Limitations, Board-Superintendent Linkage, and Ends. The policies in each category are intended to be consistent, integrated and mutually supportive.

3. Although this prologue may assist in the interpretation of the policies, it does not modify them. Only the language of the policies constitutes Board policy.

4. The policies have been prepared for the guidance of the Superintendent of the ICCSD, and through him the staff of the District. They are also made publicly available for the information of all District stakeholders and anyone else who may be interested.

5. They have been drawn, in substantial part, from the model offered boards in the book by John Carver and Miriam Mayhew Carver, Reinventing Your Board (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997) – a continuation of John Carver’s earlier book, Boards That Make a Difference (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990). The Board expressly recommends that anyone interested in the purpose and intention of the Board consult those books. (The latter is now in a second edition.) Not only do they spell out the purpose and philosophy of this approach to governance, they also explain the way in which the Carvers’ terms, such as “Ends,” are being used.

6. This prologue is designed to serve a number of purposes. As a reminder to the Board members who drafted the policies. As a fuller explanation to interested parties who could not attend the meetings at which they were drafted. And, perhaps of greatest significance, for future Board members who may wish to operate under these policies, or modify them, but want more information about their origin and purpose.

7. As the Carvers explain, and the Board believes, the policies in general, and Executive Limitations in particular, are not the product of the Board’s lack of confidence in, or trust of, the Superintendent. Quite the contrary. They exist because the trust and confidence is so great that the Board is prepared to delegate all administrative responsibility to the Superintendent (subject to limitations explained below).

8. In brief, the Board establishes Ends. These may be thought of as measurable goals. Goals for the District also serve as the job description for the Superintendent. (An example of a possible End might be a goal of a 10% increase in third graders’ reading scores by the beginning of the following school year.) The Board also establishes Executive Limitations. (There are numerous examples in the Board’s Executive Limitations policies.) These are the means that the Superintendent cannot use. The Superintendent is then expected to achieve the Ends by using any means of his/her choice not forbidden by the Executive Limitations. This approach is designed as an alternative to, and to avoid the necessity of, the Superintendent coming to the Board for “approval” of every administrative policy, decision or action.

9. The Board does, of course, retain the responsibility, option and power to modify, or add to, these policies from time to time.

10. The Board expressly notes that in evaluating the performance of the Superintendent no negative weight is to be accorded decisions s/he has made that were based on reasonable interpretations of the Board’s policies. The Board may not like the decisions. They may be decisions the Board would not have made. The decisions may have inspired the Board’s perceived need to make additions to or clarifications of its policies. Nevertheless, only clear violations of policies in place at the time decisions are made will be considered in evaluating the Superintendent.

11. Board policies’ that refer to “the Superintendent” are intended to be applicable to all District staff. However, District-wide enforcement of the policies is the responsibility of the Superintendent. Indeed it is one of the standards by which the Superintendent’s performance will be evaluated. Monitoring that enforcement is the responsibility of the Board.

12. The expression and organization of the Board’s policies follow the suggestion and illustrations of the Carvers regarding layering or levels. That is, they begin with the most general propositions and then become increasingly precise.

13. The policies make reference to stakeholder relations. A stakeholder is anyone affected by the District and its policies, from students to property tax payers. Positive interpersonal relations between the District and its stakeholders are expected by the Board of itself, and all District staff, because,

(a) the District is a service organization of individuals employed by, and legally responsible to, its stakeholders,

(b) it helps create a better learning environment for our students at school and at home,

(c) it is, increasingly, the standard stakeholders have come to expect from all commercial and public institutions including school districts,

(d) this adult modeling is one of the best ways to educate students regarding the behavior we (and their future employers) expect of them,

(e) it is an element of the reputation the Board wants to create and maintain for this District, and deliberately last,

(f) public education is no longer the near-monopoly it once was.

The public education offered by our school district is increasingly but an option in a marketplace of parental choices involving, among other things, transfers into other districts, various private schools, and home schooling – along with growing public support for vouchers, charter schools, and other alternatives. We want quality stakeholder relations because it’s right; we need quality stakeholder relations because it’s essential in a competitive market.

14. Stakeholder relations are improved by including affected parties in the District’s decision making process as early as possible. It includes, but is not limited to,

(a) an ongoing affirmative outreach to, and communication with, those institutions and agencies with which the District shares a mission or program,

(b) especially those also engaged in the education of K-12-age children,

(d) parents and staff, and of course,

(e) students – if for no other reason because “It is difficult to teach democracy in an authoritarian manner.”

15. Positive stakeholder relations include, but are not limited to, a constant effort to ascertain stakeholders’ expectations and then exceed them. It includes a helping attitude that responds to others by dealing with, and when possible resolving, concerns, complaints and suggestions courteously and promptly.

16. Positive stakeholder relations also means the avoidance of the appearance, as well as the reality, of conflicts of interest, or favored treatment of any stakeholder because of such things as personal relationships, political or financial power. Especially is this true in matters of hiring, promotions and discipline. The Superintendent should exercise special caution with regard to any District dealing by or with Board members themselves.

17. Board policies refer to its desire to create and maintain an atmosphere open to an expression of a diversity of views. This is because

(a) It is consistent with the District’s educational mission. If there is to be a spirit of open inquiry in our classrooms, and students are to value the purposes of the First Amendment, there cannot be discordance with those values in the way in which the District is administered.

(b) The Board believes such an atmosphere will tend to promote more constructive innovation, and more rapid response to needed changes.

(c) Accordingly, it will look with disfavor on any documented instance of an employee sanctioned in any way (including being characterized as “disloyal” or “insubordinate”) for reasons reasonably believed to be related to the employee’s ethical and civil expression of facts, concerns, opinions or views.

18.Although Board members want to be generally informed about conditions in the District, and therefore welcome direct communications from staff and other stakeholders, they will normally merely refer complaints to the Superintendent without recommendation rather than take action on them, as such, as a Board or individual Board member. Normally the only exception to this practice would occur if the Superintendent has already resolved a complaint in a manner that the complaining party believes violates Board policy, or is indicative of the need for a revised or new policy.

19. Staff compensation.

(a) The Board is mindful of the external limitations on the Superintendent with regard to employee compensation, such as

(1) the law governing negotiations with employee bargaining units,

(2) the binding decisions of arbitrators,

(3) the comparable salaries and benefits paid to the staff of other school districts similarly situated, and

(4) the relatively rigid limitations on any school district’s potential revenue.

(b) It is aware that roughly 80 % of the District’s budget is personnel costs. Thus, even a relatively minor change in staff pay and benefits – without offsetting increases in revenue – can have a substantial impact on such things as programs offered, numbers of staff, and resulting average class size.

(c) The Board recognizes that there is not a perfect fit between the interests of the District and the interests of any given bargaining unit.

(d) Understanding these constraints, the Board would like the Superintendent to balance three – sometimes seemingly conflicting – goals.

(1) That negotiations be conducted with the maximum mutual respect and good will possible, recognizing that all parties are professionals and co-workers in a common enterprise, and that the Board wishes to attract and hold top professionals.

(2) That every effort be made to avoid increases in pay and benefits that are not offset by increases in revenue – and will, therefore, require employee layoffs, larger class size and cuts in programs.

(3) That disparity between the pay, benefits and perks of staff and administrators be held to the minimum necessary to hire and hold well-qualified administrators.

20. Communication.

(a) Individual Board members are free to pursue their own interests, inquiries, communications and conversations with any District staff member.

(b) However, the Board members have agreed among themselves to exercise sensitivity and restraint with regard to

(1) unwarranted and excessive demands on the time of staff members,

(2) failure to make clear they do not speak for “the Board” (unless authorized to do so by Board action),

(3) crossing the line into matters of administration and one-on-one Board member micro-management, or

(4) failing to inform the Superintendent and other Board members of personal activities of relevance to them.

(c) The Board expressly requests that if in the Superintendent’s judgment the requests or activities of an individual Board member are impeding the routine work of the Superintendent or other staff s/he will first discuss the matter with the Board member, and, failing mutual resolution of the conflict, present the matter to the full Board.