Two new members, empty seat, affect the elected body’s dynamics
“Why do we have school boards?”
That was the question posed by Katie Klanderud, Minnesota School Board Association (MSBA) Director of Board Development, to members of the Mountain Lake Public School Board during a special meeting held Wednesday evening, February 5, in the high school’s Room #1. The question posed was just a small part of a MSBA training session entitled, “Mutual Expectations.”
On hand were the school’s six sitting board members, Chair Doug Standerwick, Vice-Chair Tim Swoboda, Treasurer Pam Hoek and Clerk Julie Brugman, along with Chad Pedersen and Matt Gohr, as well as Alisa Nickel, District Secretary. Absent due to illness was Superintendent Bill Strom. In addition, one seat remains empty following the December resignation of board member Julie Peters.
Klanderud, who had served on the Mankato Public School Board prior to working for the MSBA, answered the question by telling board members that the purpose of boards is to have people with different backgrounds, experiences, skills, passions and thoughts toss out ideas as a part of brainstorming – to be later hammered out by the board’s members.
She asked the question of the board when discussing an individual member’s response to decisions voted on and made. “Board members need to receive the information – the details to make decisions – and come to meetings prepared to discuss,” she explained, adding, “over time, each board member then has to come to a decision, a vote is held – and each member has to move on no matter on what side of the vote they fall. As a board member, you have to go with the board’s decision; this is the system. It is Robert’s Rules of Order. Until the minority can convince the majority to change – you must support the decision. If you are on the losing end of the vote, you have to give the decision a chance – you never know.”
On top of that Klanderud stressed to members that each one needs to focus on why they are there – “and that is student achievement.”
Using the Board Governance Model, Klanderud laid out the respective roles of the board and the superintendent. Under that model, the board governs, setting expectations and parameters. “The board sets the vision, the mission; they adopt the goals and policies.” Klanderud continued, “They ask, ‘What do we want to get done? What are we doing here?'”
As Klanderud spelled out, once the board adopts goals and policies – the rules – those are then handed over to the superintendent to implement. The superintendent, while providing leadership and supervision to staff, is responsible for monitoring progress related to the implementation – and can also develop plans and recommendations to present to the board. Following implementation and monitoring, the ball returns to the board’s court as they evaluate the results of the action – are goals being met – or not; is more time needed, etc.
Additional topics of discussion were provided by the board members themselves. These ranged from improving communication, proper communication member-to-member outside of a meeting, the micromanagement of administration, the role of the board and the superintendent, methods of handling the idea of agreeing to disagree, the role and formation of committees, when it is – or is not- right for a board member to talk to staff and other generalities concerning the Open Meeting law as well as clarifying what is a special or emergency meeting.
A number of board members also emphasized the need to improve the trust factor. The change in board seats, along with the one empty seat, has shifted the dynamics of the board. All echoed the need to learn to work together as a unit; to validate the all – not just the few.
Klanderud shared that all of those are common topics of examination among other boards as well. What is needed to work together, to build trust, have an open give-and-take and not make assumptions is “Time – and depth. And you get that from getting to know one another – but within the Open Meeting law. Occasions for that are at more meetings, at social gatherings, at training, or traveling to training or meetings. Relationships need to be built with each other – as well as with boards from other districts. That is why I am here, to talk about working together as a board at the table – and away from the table.”
For the benefit of the board, Klanderud defined the circle of board interaction and experience: “First, there is the “forming” stage, when the board first comes together – old and possibly new members; followed by “storming,” which deals with the absorption of information – info on being a board member and data on the decisions to be made. The longest – slowest – stage is “performing.” This point in time is when board members meet and adopt goals and policies to be implemented. “Deforming” is the final part of the circle, and relates to when someone new comes onto the board – creating, once again, a different make-up of individuals.”
By consensus, board members agreed that, at this point, they are between the “forming” and “storming” stages.
