Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSynopsis of Consultation on Committee Sturcture• 1C L� OTTAWA - CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Open House 16 May 2012 Consultation Changes to Board's Committee Structure The following were in attendance for the consultation: Trustees: Donna Blackburn, Teresa Kavanagh, Jennifer McKenzie, Lynn Scott and Shirley Seward. Staff: Executive Officer, Corporate Services, Michele Giroux; Manager of Board Services and Monica Ceschia. Also in attendance were 8 members of the public. A discussion ensued regarding the changes to the Board's Committee structure and the following points were noted: • No changes are proposed to SEAC, PIC or Audit as they work within the regulations; • Focus is on Board and Standing Committees; the COW structure would consist of all 12 trustees represented and would sit and all have voting rights; • The proposed meetings are as follows; twice a month as COW and once a month for Board, this would lead to a significant amount of reduction in time and will require a review of the nature of reports coming forward and how the agendas are structured; • Human Resources, Business and Education committees would be collapsed into COW; and in terms of SPPC, some aspects will become part of COW; • The rational is to do more monitoring and policy reviews and monitor policy implementation and get away from more of the detailed operation items; • Concern was expressed that it seemed like trustees want to be removed from the qualitative things; • There is a need for a solution to reduce meetings /committees and it is unclear how it addresses the qualitative review; • The review of reports will include a differentiation between action, monitoring and information reports; • Concern was expressed regarding the amount of items on the agenda to be discussed and whether the time will be an issue in terms of stakeholder engagement. • A decision has not been finalized in terms of stakeholder engagement; however staff expressed the view that it will continue to be valued; • It was suggested that there be mechanism to provide input into the genesis of the report and query the content as opposed to seeing it in an action executive statement that is high level; • It was expressed that it is vital that advisory groups are giving advice to influence and shape the decision the Board is making; • The intent of the Agenda Planning Committee is to have a long range agenda for items coming to the Board and provide stakeholders an opportunity review the long range and determine if they want to be part of that discussion and attend that particular meeting. The committee will also help the Board to plan their work at a strategic level; • It was suggested that when information is circulated, it should be articulated to ensure the detailed is noted; • In terms of reports, there would most likely be three types: monitoring, action and information; information reports would be a two page summary, student achievement data report would not be an information report but a key monitoring report about the measures /assessment pieces which would be a more comprehensive report, action reports would include information the Board need to make decisions and operational issues would be a shorter report; • Concern was expressed that in terms of PIC and OCASC members, it was recognized that PIC will not be affected at this time but there is that possibility in the future; • Concern was expressed regarding the culture of the meeting's and the lack of focus that occurs procedurally that affects amendments and sub amendments that then don't move forward; • There is a sincere intent to look at the structure and culture of meetings; • Referring items to staff to take another look at an operational level should help; • Some reports are cyclical and have to come forward annually by decree of ministry /pattern; • Staff has been looking at what the key reports are that serve the Board whether by fiduciary, etc. and SPPC has been looking at longer range agendas and moving in that direction; • The intent of the Coordinating Committee is it would be set up on interim basis and the primary function between now and September thru December is to define a draft Board calendar /agenda for the coming year and bring it to Board for approval with some flexibility month - month; • The proposed schedule at the moment is as follows; 3 Tuesday nights leaving 1 Tuesday available and that 1 Tuesday at different times of the year may be used for different purposes; i.e. early in the year may be Board development opportunities where we talk informally on specific topics and as we move into the busier time of year that may be when the accommodation reviews are scheduled; • The intent is to remove the small decisions the Board is taking time on and allowing time to look at the bigger items such as student achievement; • The 5 minute speaking time should be considered; • It was suggested that rules in meetings be reviewed to allow for all trustees time to speak; • Concern was expressed regarding the lack of time for the meetings and the number of items that will need to be discussed; • It was suggested that Stakeholders that are currently on committees remain on COW; • In terms of the draft agenda, concern was expressed regarding the placement of public questions and delegations given the start time of 8:OOpm; • It was expressed that although some questions are best suited for Trustees /Superintendents; the general public should continue to be able to ask questions at the meetings; • Advisory committees would stand as they are now and there will not be changes in September; • The intent is to have a one year pilot project with an evaluation at the end of the year on what worked well and didn't and how to move forward into next year. From there, Advisory Committees will be examined and determine which ones are necessary or can be changed and which ones need trustee representation, this will require further consultation with the Board; • The policy on stakeholder involvement has not been revisited at this time; however, will be examined; • Staff will be asking for the assistance of Marilyn Guthro to act as a coach for the first few months to watch and observe followed by a debrief on challenges. This will allow for an objective perspective; • Concern was expressed regarding stakeholders ability to bring a motion forward and speak to the motion and its merits. It was suggested that stakeholders have the opportunity to debate on a motion at COW; • The Committee Structure change will not affect the Boards commitment to Special Education items that go to SEAC first; • Phase II will focus on contents through committee reports that comes to COW; • It was suggested that additional training be provided to trustees when a new Board is established; • It was expressed that the focus should be on the strategic plan; • From a community standpoint the most valuable consultation has been working with staff about how parent engagement will improve student success; and • It was expressed that, for a parent or school council to be of any value at consultation they need to be informed on a variety of issues not specific to one particular area in order for input to be provided. Trustee McKenzie thanked everyone for attending the meeting and providing feedback. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.