It has been interesting to sort out the role of a trustee during my first couple of months. We have had plenty of meetings, and yet it still feels like we are playing catch up on the many issues that come up in a school district and the opportunities we have to learn. One of the things I'm still trying to make sense of is the public versus private aspects of board business. We have casual meetings, formal meetings, committee meetings, public meetings, in-camera meetings, meetings that include partner groups, etc. They overlap, too, so that some are not confidential, some are strictly confidential, and some are technically confidential but I'm not sure why. Thus we are often being cautioned as to what we should say (or when), and our "public education" business often seems like a big secret, when it is mostly about stuff that principals, teachers, parents, even students seem to already know about. I said "interesting" because to me that is a blend of exciting and frustrating. I'm learning but I'm also anxious to jump into the work that needs to be done.
My trustee platform was for more open conversations between trustees and administration and all associated stakeholder groups. I realize that not everything in our school district needs to be public but a large portion of it is safe to be public and therefore fairly examined by as many people possible before implementation. I think when all parties have chance to weight in, compare notes, offer suggestions, criticisms, solutions, then the final product is much stronger. Trustees benefit from this, too, because their vote can be made more confident when due diligence has occurred. I just don't think we have the time as trustees to do all the homework necessary to have this confidence unless the due diligence involves more public input and partner group collaboration.
I'm hoping our board can examine the issue of in-camera meetings more closely in the coming weeks. We've had a few issues come and go that really deserved more attention and discussion, but we didn't have have the time for it. Most of us work outside of trusteeship, and I'm not sure how I'd find more time than the 15-20 hours a week or so I seem to be putting into it. It will probably slow down once our orientation sessions have wrapped up, but the best way to steal more time is to share the work with partner groups who have already indicated they are interested in being more a part of the conversations. DPAC comes to mind as a proactive group that has offered help in the way of reports and sustainability suggestions. If we give them a more open platform to be a complete "partner" we will reap the benefits.
Another reason I'd like to see our meetings become more open and less confidential is so that better research can be done. Right now here is how one of our regular in-camera meetings works:
1. Get the agenda but can't share or ask questions in public about the topics.
2. Must guess about what might be good questions to ask at the meeting.
3. Spend two hours total hashing through the issues and items, which means a few minutes per item, which puts some pressure on what we can discuss. If we throw a presentation or two in from district staff (which is often necessary), the time goes fast.
4. When we leave we are bound by confidentiality and we can't really discuss the items or gather further research or seek out opinions from people who may be affected. I have to limit my research from what I can find online or what I can deduce from the brief section of the committee meeting.
5. When the partner groups leave they are bound by confidentiality so they can't really seek input from their folks. Open discussion is verboten unless an item of interest appears on a public board meeting agenda with enough time to gather input.
6. The committee meeting minutes aren't public before the board meeting (or maybe ever?) so the public doesn't necessarily know what's coming up or how to prepare input. They might guess that an issue is coming, or see some motions in the agenda, but they can't prepare expert work without knowing about specific motions, rationale, etc.
7. For me, the shakiest part is the actual public board meeting, so I have to do all the discussing that I hoped would happen beforehand in one go. At this point, minds are mostly made up and I'm really left with making statements rather than actually engaging in a real discussion that might change the outcome. Maybe I'll get better at this with time, but the point is, discussion, input, and openness up front means the board meeting can really be about the best decisions being made on the best evidence.
Here's our Bylaw 1 that deals with meetings:
http://www.sd57.bc.ca/fileadmin/cao.sd57.bc.ca/Policy_Manual/Policies/Bylaw_No._1.pdf
I have no idea how so many boards survived with the existing rules about committee meetings. I know other districts have opened up their committee meetings, I hope to learn more about how and why. I wish the "opening up" could have come before the 2010 sustainability process, there might have been more up front discussion and less of a need to make so many decisions all at once. I used to wonder why the last board sat there at all those closure meetings taking punishment from the public without responding or making adjustments along the way (like they did in the Kamloops district). I realize now they probably felt bound by their own rules and were locked in by the process they had started. I hope I don't end up in a process like that, but if I do I hope we have the ability to go back and forth with our stakeholders at key open meetings, so that the creative solutions and encouragement to think big can come early from partner groups, in time to make a difference. I suppose it is possible to make quick decisions based on limited input, but my brain doesn't work that way. I need things slowed down, many opinions and approaches, and time to process and work. It's the same way I do pottery!
