Printer Friendly Versions of below materials
|
MS Word Format |
|
Acrobat Format |
| 1. The policies are the criteria. | Only criteria stated in policy is monitored. The policies are the criteria for organizational performance. |
| 2. The monitoring of criteria is a passive process that is different from the setting of criteria. | Monitoring in Policy Governance is simply the comparison of what is to the Superintendent’s interpretation of what was required. The only judgment applied to true monitoring data is simply to determine whether the data demonstrate accomplishment of a reasonable interpretation of the requirement set out in policy. |
| 3. "Any reasonable interpretation" means just that. | The question a board must answer is, "Is this a reasonable interpretation?" Board members do not ask, "Would I have made that decision?" because that compares the Superintendent’s performance to an individual’s personally determined criterion rather than to the board’s previously stated expectation. |
| 4. Policy violation can mean one of several things. | If the Superintendent has not accorded a reasonable interpretation of a policy, the board must reject the interpretation. If the Superintendent has made a reasonable interpretation but has failed to accomplish it, the board must decide if this is a temporary and insignificant blip that will be righted immediately or if the Superintendent is performing below the level required by the board based on a pattern that emerges through monitoring. |
| 5. The Board is not there to help the Superintendent but to instruct and monitor the Superintendent. | If the board finds that the Superintendent is performing below the required standards, the board must continue to hold the Superintendent accountable and not help him fix the problem. If the Superintendent cannot restore performance to the required level within the time allowed by the board, the board should consider replacing the Superintendent. |
| 6. The relevant question must be answered. | The Superintendent must provide the relevant data to the question the policy is asking, and not provide more data than is needed to answer the question. Further, the board must not accept a report that confirms compliance without providing data. |
| 7. The monitoring report should contain both the Superintendent’s interpretation and the relevant data. | See sample monitoring report. |
| 8. Monitoring reports should contain only monitoring information. | The board may wish to receive other information from the Superintendent such as decision information or incidental information, but it should not be included in the monitoring report as these types of information have a different focus. |
|
9. If a policy is worth stating, it is worth monitoring. |
If rules are set, they must be checked.. The board states at what frequency it wishes to monitor each policy. There is no need to monitor a policy at a high frequency if a lower frequency will suffice. |
POLICY WORDING
2.2.2: The Superintendent
shall not retaliate against any staff member for non-disruptive expression of
dissent.
SUPERINTENDENT’S
INTERPRETATION:
Expression
of dissent is any statement by an employee that indicates disagreement with a
decision made by management. Such expression is non-disruptive when:
·
There
is no refusal to perform work,
·
There
is no encouragement of others not to perform work,
·
It
is made in a courteous and private manner, and
·
It
is not made publicly including to the media.
Employees
who disagree non-disruptively (as defined above) with management decisions may
not experience retaliation from the Superintendent or any other member of
management such as firing, reassignment to less desirable jobs or job hours, or
initiation of a formal discipline procedure. 95% if staff should be able to
report that no such retaliation occurs. This percentage is chosen because HR
research at (name the credible source used as a reference) indicates that 5% of
staff will always complain that management has erred or will err, regardless of
the facts.
Responders
to an anonymous stratified random sample were asked to report on retaliation as
defined. 100% of respondents said that they were aware of no occasion in which
a staff member was fired for disagreeing with management as defined. 97%
reported no experience of job reassignment, and 96% reported no knowledge of
formal discipline proceedings. I therefore report COMPLIANCE.
Board
questions that need to be answered:
1.
Can
I tell whether the board policy has been reasonably interpreted?
2.
Does
that data submitted demonstrate that the Superintendent has accomplished the
interpretation?
From:
Reinventing Your Board, Revised Edition,
by John Carver and Miriam Carver
Evaluating ENDS
|
Why
evaluating ends is important: |
§ It discloses unacceptable
deviation from desired values § It enables the board to relax
about the present and focus on the future § It keeps board policies
constantly in the spotlight so that they’re more likely to amended as they
grow out of date |
|
Well-placed
concerns about evaluation: |
Nonprofit
and educational organizations do not produce services; they produce results
in people’s lives by using
services. Services are means, not ends. Evaluation
of ends not only assess
whether organizational activity is effective, but also whether it is
sufficiently effective to be worth the cost. |
|
Misplaced
concern about evaluation: |
Sometimes
a board will say it can’t have a particular end because it can’t evaluate it.
It is more important to have the right ends than the right evaluation. Don’t
focus on evaluation until after your ends are developed. |
|
Other
thoughts about ends evaluation if a board is feeling challenged: |
No
formal evaluation:
State what the organization is to contribute to the world, what condition is
worth achieving, and what you would evaluate if you could. An
authoritative, clear statement of what is to be accomplished has a powerful
effect on organizational behavior, even if the results are never evaluated. Evaluating
the wrong things:
Measuring the wrong things is damaging in two ways:
|
|
Evaluating
the right things |
Only
when the board knows what it wants the organization to accomplish can it
intelligently discuss evaluation. The
issue of evaluation is just this: What is the most convincing evidence that a
reasonable interpretation of what the board sought is being produced? An
evaluation requires reasonable assurance of the swap of results for cost, not
scientific accuracy. A
crude measure of the right thing beats a precise measure of the wrong thing. The
most important real world evaluation in almost all non-profit and public
organizations – public judgment of an organizations’ worth – is extremely
crude. The board's task it to make that judgment explicit. Ultimately,
the board needs to answer the questions: “What did we want to accomplish? Are
we achieving it?” |
|
Remember: |
The
only judgment that takes place in monitoring is whether actual performance
matches a reasonable interpretation of the pre-established criteria (ends). |
Source: Carver, John. Boards That Make a Difference, Third Edition. Jossey-Bass.
Board
Self-Assessment
The Board may use one of the following self-assessment instruments to evaluate its performance during meetings.
Rate the Board’s general meeting behavior by assigning a numerical rating using the following scale:
1 2 3 4 5
We failed Unacceptable
Acceptable Commendable Met
our best
expectations
General meeting behavior:
_________ The Board followed its agenda and did not allow itself to get sidetracked. __________ The agenda was well planned to focus on the real work of the Board
_________ The meeting was well attended
__________ The meeting proceeded without interruptions or distractions.
__________ The
Board’s decision-making processes were understood and were
implemented
appropriately.
_________ Participation was balanced. Everyone participated, no one dominated.
__________
Members all listened attentively as each participant spoke. Board members
avoided side
conversations.
__________ Work was accomplished in an atmosphere of trust and openness. __________ Meeting participants treated each other with respect and courtesy.
Governance principles review:
__________ Most
Board actions occur at the policy level rather than at the operational
level.
__________ Any stand-alone resolutions considered by the Board were
clearly the
Board’s work.
__________ The
Board reviews what it has already said in its policy about each specific
topic before
discussion on that issue.
__________ In writing additional policies, the Board starts with a
broad statement and
becomes more
detailed in a logical sequence.
__________ The
Board uses less than 15 percent of Board meeting time monitoring past
performance.
__________ The Board routinely spends time monitoring and improving its own process.
__________ The
Board works on clarifying Board priorities/values among the range of
potential outcomes,
beneficiaries and costs of outcomes.
__________ Ends policies are clearly and logically stated and support the mission.
__________ The
Board follows an annual calendar based on a plan for accomplishing its
job.
__________ The
Board Chair helps the Board get its job done rather than supervising or
becoming involved
in staff work.
__________ The
Board spends most of its time debating, defining and clarifying its
vision and in
linking with its owners and public as opposed to “fixing
things”
__________ The
Board supports the superintendent in any reasonable interpretation of
applicable Board
policies.
Board Effectiveness Feedback
Date: _______________
In your opinion, did every board member:
YES NO
1. Study the agenda prior to the meeting? ______ ______
2. Participate in the meeting, with no one dominating? ______ ______
3. Listen
attentively as each participant spoke,
avoiding side conversations? ______ ______
4. Treat each other with respect and courtesy? ______ ______
5. Contribute to an atmosphere of trust and openness? ______ ______
6. Avoid micromanaging? ______ ______
7. Appear to
have contacted the Superintendent or chair
in advance concerning questions about
agenda items? ______ ______
8. Follow the agenda and not get sidetracked? ______ ______
9. Was
information provided in a manner that
made it easily understandable? ______ ______
10. Was the
agenda well-planned to focus
on the work of the Board? ______ ______
Comments: (If you answered “No” to any of the above, please explain.)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Monitoring Method: Board self-assessment Monitoring Frequency: Quarterly