|
MARK-ALAN WHITTLE IT'S TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE AT THE SCHOOL BOARD From the Supervisors final report The most difficult aspect of supervision proved to be the inordinate effort required to maintain a cordial working relationship with the trustees while tolerating their continuing efforts to rid themselves of supervision. The supervisor decided early in his tenure that he would not create any new policies without the trustees' full participation as he was mindful of the value of having their experience and insights as well as the need to encourage their support for overseeing the implementation of critical initiatives that would be based on such policies. Accordingly, the trustees were invited to participate in all major initiatives, from strategic planning and 03/04 budget development to the recruitment and selection of new management staff. The lament of some trustees that they were kept "out of the loop" is without foundation. Meetings were held with the Board chair on an almost weekly basis up to the summer of 2003 and the predicted election call. The purpose of these meetings was to endeavour to achieve genuine two-way dialogue on issues of common concern and interest. For the most part, these were productive encounters. The supervisor accommodated every request for meetings with individual trustees and these were frequently held to discuss matters ranging from constituent concerns to the impact of current and future initiatives. Unlike other jurisdictions, the trustees were permitted by the supervisor to hold their regular monthly public meetings as well as in-camera sessions and other meetings whenever they so desired. The chair was permitted as well to meet on a weekly basis with the Director for information updates and to discuss any matter of the trustees' choosing. Trustees were encouraged to get information from senior mangers on some of the more technical aspects of the supervisor's various initiatives. Trustee attendance and participation at several information sessions throughout the year, both offered and requested, was generally quite good. In some cases, the trustees themselves decided upon the agenda for such meetings. Those few who refused to participate, invariably the same few disgruntled trustees, did so on the misguided understanding that the supervisor wouldn't be around long enough to implement his initiatives or as a demonstration of their opposition to supervision. To suggest that the trustees were not provided with every opportunity to be fully informed is factually incorrect and part of a campaign of misinformation spearheaded by a few recalcitrant individuals. These trustees had no interest in doing their basic homework, were extremely slow on the uptake of information provided or simply chose not to share relevant information with their colleagues when it was offered. As noted, many trustees did respond favourably to several requests from the supervisor - they recommended a better approach to achieving school closures and planning for future school accommodation scenarios, five trustees participated fully in the development of the new Strategic Direction document that was subsequently endorsed by all of their colleagues, and four trustees were involved in the creation of a new policy aimed at stimulating programs of choice for students with different learning interests. Their participation in these undertakings was most helpful and the supervisor's gratitude is noted elsewhere in this report. The trustees also responded positively to the supervisor's encouragement that they complete their work on establishing a code of ethics to govern their boardroom behaviours, that they develop a policy on the naming of schools rather than attempting to bring post hoc influence to bear, and that they define a protocol on trustee attendance at professional development conferences and a planning discipline to monitor their own expenditure lines. Difficult times bring out the best and the worst in people and the trustees are not an exception to that axiom of human nature. The behaviour of a few trustees was indeed exemplary. While it may have been difficult for them to accept government imposed supervision, it is to their credit that they were able for the most part put the well being of the system and its students first. These trustees sought to be helpful on projects that were of common interest, as have been identified above. The behaviour of other trustees, largely politically motivated, ranged from juvenile and mischievous (the planting of false information with the media and the making of deliberate misrepresentations to parents on a variety of matters) to reckless, egregious, unethical and even illegal actions. It is egregious to threaten retribution on staff, including their dismissal, for cooperating with the supervisor. It is unethical to canvass Board staff via Board e-mail to solicit substantial donations to one's re-election campaign. It is unlawful for a trustee to swear an affidavit in support of an application for judicial review against one's own board. Documentation and related evidence exists to support these and other observations. The supervisor's biggest regrets in dealing with the trustees were his failure to convince the trustees of the need to critically evaluate their approach to governance and his inability to facilitate a genuine spirit of partnership and mutual respect between the elected trustees and the professional administrators. Efforts were made on several occasions to engage the trustees in a discussion of governance effectiveness, specifically from the standpoint of public sector best practices. These efforts were fruitless and met with defensiveness, if not disdain. The relationship between trustees, despite what they might say, and board staff is not healthy. A paper on "Leadership and Governance" authored by David Reid, Director of the Toronto District School Board, was forwarded to the trustees inviting comment on the similarities and differences in how senior managers are viewed by trustees in the Hamilton jurisdiction - the supposition being that there is little difference. The trustees refused a response other than to express their outrage at the insinuation. The Board's "chief executive officer" - an appropriate description of a individual responsible for a 390 million dollar budget, a staff of almost 5,000 employees and an infrastructure of 135 facilities valued at over $2 billion - readily admits that the senior managers are the "first to be criticized but often the last to be thanked." Many trustees fail to realize that open criticism of senior administrators, sometimes motivated by the need to grandstand before upset parents around contentious issues, only serves to damage the public image and credibility of the Board as a whole, including the trustees, in the eyes of all stakeholders. The trustees are unlikely to ever "take the bullet" for staff but, if the past year is any indication, a distinct few freely hand out the ammunition when it serves their purposes to do so. The prevailing mind set that the "trustees know best in all things," despite ample evidence to the contrary (particularly where professional expertise is at odds with anecdotal observations and hearsay), leads many of the trustees to question, undermine and undervalue the contributions of staff, their commitment to the mission, and their often painstaking attention to ensuring the integrity of their efforts. As good civil servants, the administrators and line managers cannot publicly defend themselves from baseless accusations of incompetence, irresponsibility or malfeasance. Despite raising the issue repeatedly with individual trustees, this aspect of the supervisor's relationship with the trustees was perhaps the most dispiriting. |