Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Policy Governance - Who’s in Charge? Lake Washington School District University Place School District Lake Washington School District University Place.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Policy Governance - Who’s in Charge? Lake Washington School District University Place School District Lake Washington School District University Place."— Presentation transcript:

1 Policy Governance - Who’s in Charge? Lake Washington School District University Place School District Lake Washington School District University Place School District November 12, 2004

2 2 Today’s Agenda Understanding Policy Governance (LWSD) Background Background Description of John Carver’s model Description of John Carver’s model Comparison of PG to the traditional model Comparison of PG to the traditional model Benefits & Concerns Benefits & Concerns Implementing Policy Governance (UPSD) Conditions leading to PG: Why change? Conditions leading to PG: Why change? Preparatory work: Get ready Preparatory work: Get ready 1st year of implementation: Go 1st year of implementation: Go Alternatives in time/cost Alternatives in time/cost Q & A (Both) Understanding Policy Governance (LWSD) Background Background Description of John Carver’s model Description of John Carver’s model Comparison of PG to the traditional model Comparison of PG to the traditional model Benefits & Concerns Benefits & Concerns Implementing Policy Governance (UPSD) Conditions leading to PG: Why change? Conditions leading to PG: Why change? Preparatory work: Get ready Preparatory work: Get ready 1st year of implementation: Go 1st year of implementation: Go Alternatives in time/cost Alternatives in time/cost Q & A (Both) Fred haley

3 3 Background Fred Haley -Tacoma School Board, circ 1980 Fred Haley -Tacoma School Board, circ 1980 Alternative - Micro-management example Alternative - Micro-management example Who is right? Who is right? Fred Haley -Tacoma School Board, circ 1980 Fred Haley -Tacoma School Board, circ 1980 Alternative - Micro-management example Alternative - Micro-management example Who is right? Who is right? Drucker

4 4 “Life on the board is not juicy and exciting. Rather, it is dull. Board members are more often bored by routine than stimulated by manipulating the levers of power.” Peter Drucker The Bored Board Carver

5 5 “Very competent individuals can come together to form a very incompetent board.” John Carver Boards that Make A Difference steps

6 6 Management Steps vs Ownership CEO Board $ vs Owner

7 7 Dollar Driven vs. Owner Driven CEO Board $ $$ $ $ $ $vs Owner

8 8 Dollar Driven vs. Owner Driven CEO Board Owner vs customer

9 9 Owner vs. Customer CEO Board Customers Chart

10 10 Ends Board/CEO Relations Governance Process Executive Limits EL GP Ends B/CR Policy types

11 11 Policy Types Ends: What good, for whom, at what cost or priority Ends: What good, for whom, at what cost or priority Executive Limitations: What the CEO is not permitted to do in day-to-day operations Executive Limitations: What the CEO is not permitted to do in day-to-day operations Governance Process: How the board will do its job Governance Process: How the board will do its job Board-CEO Relations: How the board and CEO will operate with each other Board-CEO Relations: How the board and CEO will operate with each other Ends: What good, for whom, at what cost or priority Ends: What good, for whom, at what cost or priority Executive Limitations: What the CEO is not permitted to do in day-to-day operations Executive Limitations: What the CEO is not permitted to do in day-to-day operations Governance Process: How the board will do its job Governance Process: How the board will do its job Board-CEO Relations: How the board and CEO will operate with each other Board-CEO Relations: How the board and CEO will operate with each other End v Means

12 12 Ends vs. Means Ends are a statement about your customer(s): Ends are a statement about your customer(s):  They describe a result, and  They state a priority or cost. If it is not an Ends statement then it must be a Means. (Means are methods to accomplish Ends) If it is not an Ends statement then it must be a Means. (Means are methods to accomplish Ends) Ends are a statement about your customer(s): Ends are a statement about your customer(s):  They describe a result, and  They state a priority or cost. If it is not an Ends statement then it must be a Means. (Means are methods to accomplish Ends) If it is not an Ends statement then it must be a Means. (Means are methods to accomplish Ends) Proscribe vs

13 13 Proscribe vs Prescribe Establish what the board is worried about, and Establish what the board is worried about, and Prohibit those activities or events. Prohibit those activities or events. This is easier than listing all the things you want. This is easier than listing all the things you want. Establish what the board is worried about, and Establish what the board is worried about, and Prohibit those activities or events. Prohibit those activities or events. This is easier than listing all the things you want. This is easier than listing all the things you want. Contrib

14 14 Carver’s Key Contributions Governance is a step down from ownership, Governance is a step down from ownership,  Not a step up from management. Clear definition of the board’s role vs. CEO’s. Clear definition of the board’s role vs. CEO’s. The board’s primary work is CEO accountability, The board’s primary work is CEO accountability,  Accomplished through monitoring reports. The board’s primary work is ENDS definition, The board’s primary work is ENDS definition,  Accomplished through ownership “linkage.” Proscribe CEO duties (not prescribe). Proscribe CEO duties (not prescribe).  Any reasonable interpretation is accepted. CEO is clearly accountable. CEO is clearly accountable. Governance is a step down from ownership, Governance is a step down from ownership,  Not a step up from management. Clear definition of the board’s role vs. CEO’s. Clear definition of the board’s role vs. CEO’s. The board’s primary work is CEO accountability, The board’s primary work is CEO accountability,  Accomplished through monitoring reports. The board’s primary work is ENDS definition, The board’s primary work is ENDS definition,  Accomplished through ownership “linkage.” Proscribe CEO duties (not prescribe). Proscribe CEO duties (not prescribe).  Any reasonable interpretation is accepted. CEO is clearly accountable. CEO is clearly accountable. Benefit

15 15 Benefits Small policy document. Small policy document. Board committee limitations, Board committee limitations,  Committees do board’s work only. Clear owner vs. customer distinction. Clear owner vs. customer distinction. Board speaks with one voice. Board speaks with one voice. Board spends time on the right things, Board spends time on the right things,  Less micro-mgt. Carver COP keeps board on track. Carver COP keeps board on track. Small policy document. Small policy document. Board committee limitations, Board committee limitations,  Committees do board’s work only. Clear owner vs. customer distinction. Clear owner vs. customer distinction. Board speaks with one voice. Board speaks with one voice. Board spends time on the right things, Board spends time on the right things,  Less micro-mgt. Carver COP keeps board on track. Carver COP keeps board on track. Concerns

16 16 Concerns Language (EL’s, B/CEO Relations, Linkage). Language (EL’s, B/CEO Relations, Linkage). Perception board is not running operation. Perception board is not running operation. Sustainability (turnover). Sustainability (turnover). CEO makes more decisions. CEO makes more decisions. CEO Resistance to added accountability. CEO Resistance to added accountability. Does not make a bad board good. Does not make a bad board good. Language (EL’s, B/CEO Relations, Linkage). Language (EL’s, B/CEO Relations, Linkage). Perception board is not running operation. Perception board is not running operation. Sustainability (turnover). Sustainability (turnover). CEO makes more decisions. CEO makes more decisions. CEO Resistance to added accountability. CEO Resistance to added accountability. Does not make a bad board good. Does not make a bad board good. comparison

17 17 Comparison Traditional Board Policy Governance Board Policies have narrow focus, issue orientedBroader, more encompassing Policies are numerousFewer, memorable Board action: Based Upon CircumstanceBased Upon Values Discussion Focused on Operations Focused on End Results Tends to Direct all Employees Directs CEO/Supt only Prescribes Means (Micro-Management)Proscribes Means (sets Limits) Frequent meetingsLess frequent need for meetings Confuses Role of Board/Supt Clarifies Roles Potentially Stagnant (ref: Peter Drucker) Dynamic, Effective One of Many DriversSingle Driver of Actions Stifles CEO creativity Promotes CEO innovation Owners opinions may be missedSystematic linkage to Owners Traditional Board Policy Governance Board Policies have narrow focus, issue orientedBroader, more encompassing Policies are numerousFewer, memorable Board action: Based Upon CircumstanceBased Upon Values Discussion Focused on Operations Focused on End Results Tends to Direct all Employees Directs CEO/Supt only Prescribes Means (Micro-Management)Proscribes Means (sets Limits) Frequent meetingsLess frequent need for meetings Confuses Role of Board/Supt Clarifies Roles Potentially Stagnant (ref: Peter Drucker) Dynamic, Effective One of Many DriversSingle Driver of Actions Stifles CEO creativity Promotes CEO innovation Owners opinions may be missedSystematic linkage to Owners Proflow mt

18 18 Board Meeting Agendas More time on key issues More time on key issues More time discussing owner’s opinions More time discussing owner’s opinions Improved focus on monitoring reports from CEO Improved focus on monitoring reports from CEO More time on key issues More time on key issues More time discussing owner’s opinions More time discussing owner’s opinions Improved focus on monitoring reports from CEO Improved focus on monitoring reports from CEO Before PG After PG Before PG After PG Issue #1 Issue #6 Issue #7 Issue #8 Issue #9 Issue #10 Issue #11 Issue #12 Issue #13 Issue #14 Issue #3 Issue #4 Issue #2 Issue #5 Minutes Issue #14 Monitoring / Linkage / Ends Development Issue #15 Consent Agenda (Issues #1 to #13) Consent Agenda (Issues #1 to #13) Random Q & A Minutes Structured Q & A GP 8

19 19 Monitoring Schedule Sample Monitor rpt

20 20 Monitoring Reports Policy Interpretation Supporting Information and Data In Compliance (or Not) Implementing

21 21 Implementing Policy Governance How we got here How we got here  What we’ve done  What we’ve not done Lessons learned Lessons learned Alternatives in time/money Alternatives in time/money areas -for more work Preceding

22 22 Conditions Preceding PG Leadership roles: ‘Who’s in charge?’ Leadership roles: ‘Who’s in charge?’ Board concerns Board concerns Superintendent concerns Superintendent concerns Superintendent evaluation Superintendent evaluation 1 st Interest

23 23 Initial Interest in the Model Spring NSBA Bookstore Spring NSBA Bookstore  School Board Leadership 2000 Reading Reading  Passed book around  Shared reactions  Discussed possibilities Incubation period Incubation period Deciding

24 24 Deciding to Use PG Board must understand the model Board must understand the model  Committee work; Reading; Study Staff must understand the model Staff must understand the model  Year-long board discussion w/staff Deliberations & Decision Deliberations & Decision  Public commitment; Resolution Orientation & Training Orientation & Training  Workshop (AASA/Aspen Group) Preparing

25 25 Preparing to Adopt PG 3 Products: Linkage, Policy, Performance 3 Products: Linkage, Policy, Performance Reading: Articles – Books – Pamphlets Reading: Articles – Books – Pamphlets Policy Development (work-study) Policy Development (work-study)  Means (GP, B/SR, EL) – using templates  Ends (E) – from scratch  Annual Agenda – w/ Linkage Meetings Consultant vs. Self-help Consultant vs. Self-help Flip Switch

26 26 ‘Flipping the Switch’ Formal ceremony – public commitment Formal ceremony – public commitment Public/staff informed Public/staff informed  Change expectations - ‘board business’  Educate: Roles, Procedure Meetings change radically Meetings change radically  Full year’s agenda - linkage meetings  Agenda item: “Is this board business?”  Consent agenda for superintendent business 1 st Year

27 27 1st Year of PG Implementation Linkage – with ‘owners’ Linkage – with ‘owners’ Monitoring – to assure performance* Monitoring – to assure performance* Policy – review policies Policy – review policies September February March April May June July August November December October January August Supt Eval E-2/NCLB Linkage E-3&4 Linkage E-5&6 Linkage * * * ** * Adop- tion * July Lessons

28 28 Lessons Learned Discipline Discipline Evaluation Evaluation Monitoring Monitoring Linkage Linkage Meetings Strategic Plan Budget Existing Policy 1 st Year of PG Implementation Self-discipline

29 29 Board (Self-)Discipline “Boards are the least disciplined, least rational, and most disordered element in any school system.” Gene Royer - School Board Leadership 2000 Decide group expectations about: Decide group expectations about:  Attendance – Individual authority  Meeting Preparation – Conflict of interest Everyone enforces GP policies Everyone enforces GP policies  Board Chair not the enforcer  Individual member responsibility 1 st Year of PG Implementation Supt Eval

30 30 Superintendent Evaluation ‘Behavior/style’ eval checklist at end of year vs. systematic gathering of judgments on monitoring reports throughout the year ‘Behavior/style’ eval checklist at end of year vs. systematic gathering of judgments on monitoring reports throughout the year Accepting reports not good enough Accepting reports not good enough Only evaluate against written criteria in policy (Ends and Executive Limitations) Only evaluate against written criteria in policy (Ends and Executive Limitations) To what extent does the organization… To what extent does the organization…  Achieve what is to be achieved, and  Avoid what is to be avoided? “Any reasonable interpretation” rule “Any reasonable interpretation” rule 1 st Year of PG Implementation Self-eval

31 31 Board (Self-)Evaluation Regular self-evaluation of meetings (rotating the duty - not the chair) Regular self-evaluation of meetings (rotating the duty - not the chair) Is the board following the model? Is the board following the model? Are meetings dedicated to board work or are we still doing staff work? Are meetings dedicated to board work or are we still doing staff work? Annual self-evaluation Annual self-evaluation 1 st Year of PG Implementation Monitoring

32 32 Monitoring Delegation w/o monitoring is abdication Delegation w/o monitoring is abdication Write performance criteria into policy Write performance criteria into policy Set method/frequency of monitoring Set method/frequency of monitoring  Internal Reports  External reports  Direct Inspection Board makes judgments about data Board makes judgments about data  Were prescribed Ends achieved? Criteria?  Were Means within limitations? Criteria?  Do we need to refine policy/criteria? 1 st Year of PG Implementation Ends/Link

33 33 Ends & Linkage “The most frequent dialogue of boards should be with the public, not with its staff” John Carver Planned input Planned input Focused not random Focused not random Owners - not just customers Owners - not just customers Validate owner input by deliberating Validate owner input by deliberating 1 st Year of PG Implementation Meetings

34 34 Board Meetings: Board Business Old: Link with staff Link with staff Receive staff reports Receive staff reports Approve staff work Approve staff work Agenda prepared by staff, ad hoc items added by board Agenda prepared by staff, ad hoc items added by board Q: “What’s going on?” New: Link with ‘owners’ Monitor performance Revise policies Agenda prep by board in annual plan and written in policy Q: “What’s important?” or “How did we do?” 1 st Year of PG Implementation Strategic

35 35 Strategic Plan Traditional strategic plan Traditional strategic plan  Primary focus on means: Plans & Programs  Less emphasis on fully defined Ends: What result, for whom, at what cost/priority Strategic planning changes Strategic planning changes  Board retains small (critical) part: Ends policies – Executive limitation policies  Superintendent gets the remainder: Strategies that must meet criteria established in policy  Board controls through policy/monitoring 1 st Year of PG Implementation Budget

36 36 Budget Board prioritizes spending in Ends Policies Board prioritizes spending in Ends Policies  Here ‘meddling’ on behalf of ownership is ok Means criteria in Exec Limitations policies Means criteria in Exec Limitations policies  Debt – Fund Balance – Spending Limitations Frees up Superintendent to plan the budget Frees up Superintendent to plan the budget  No board ‘meddling’ in the Supt’s plan  Hard to do – the public expects meddling Board retains control by monitoring frequently against policy criteria Board retains control by monitoring frequently against policy criteria 1 st Year of PG Implementation Existing

37 37 Existing Policy Manual Detailed directives/rules (305 policies) Detailed directives/rules (305 policies)  Means are prescribed in great detail  Very little expressed in values terms Hand-off to Superintendent… Hand-off to Superintendent…  Anything not prescribed in Ends  Nor proscribed in Means Supt may modify, delete, add as needed Supt may modify, delete, add as needed  Board approval via consent agenda 1 st Year of PG Implementation Good-Fast

38 38 Alternatives Cheap GoodFast Time

39 39 Alternatives Time (incremental vs policy blitz) Learning & Preparation - 1 year + Learning & Preparation - 1 year +  Means Policies - 2 days +  Ends Policies - 1 day + Implementation – 1 year Implementation – 1 year Money

40 40 Alternatives Money 2002/3 (Preparing to implement) 2002/3 (Preparing to implement)  Reading materials, Travel, Training  $8, /4

41 41 Alternatives Money 2003/4 (1 st year of implementation) 2003/4 (1 st year of implementation)  Training, Consultation, Survey, Mailing, Printing  $6, /5 (2 nd year) 2004/5 (2 nd year)  Consultation = $7,000 Total $

42 42 Alternatives Money 2002/3 - $8, /3 - $8, /4 - $6, /4 - $6,700  Total for implementation: $15, /5 - $7, /5 - $7,000  Total to date - $22,600 Final

43 43 Final Thoughts Who’s In Charge? Who’s In Charge?  For board business: The board is in charge, and must do the work.  For all other business: The superintendent runs the show & is accountable for same. Questions

44 44 Questions? Prompt


Download ppt "Policy Governance - Who’s in Charge? Lake Washington School District University Place School District Lake Washington School District University Place."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google