Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-04-12 Marilyn Guthro minutesOTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Developina a Revised Committee Structure Session 2 DATE: 12 April 2012 A meeting was held this evening in the Trustees' Committee Room, 133 Greenbank Road, Ottawa, commencing at 6:45 p.m. with Marilyn Gouthro as the facilitator. The following trustees were in attendance: Trustees Curry, Fisher, Holtzhauer, Kavanagh, McKenzie, Scott, Seward, and Shea. STAFF: Director of Education and Secretary of the Board, Jennifer Adams, Executive Officer, Corporate Services, Michele Giroux, Manager of Board Services, Monica Ceschia; and Board /Committee Coordinator, Kelly Sullivan. Director Adams welcomed everyone to the session and expressed her appreciation to trustees for attending the meeting. Marilyn Gouthro reiterated Director Adam's welcome and comments to trustees. Ms. Gouthro reminded trustees of their initial meeting in February, where trustees agreed to a series of recommendations to improve the performance of the board. These recommendations shaped the following goals for the evening's session: • Share the results of trustee feedback on committees, • Engage in discussion re model for Standing Committee structures, and • Develop some proposals for Board and /or COW structure. Ms. Gouthro reported that ten out of twelve trustees had submitted written feedback on the committee structure and she had received verbal feedback from the remaining two trustees. She emphasized that there are multiple areas concerning committee structure where the majority of trustees are in agreement. She stated that, in collaboration with the board, her goal is to develop strategies to implement small changes that will create a smart and healthy board. Role of the Board re key decisions /key work of the Board Ms. Gouthro reminded trustees of the six roles that describe the business of the board: • To set direction, • Approve, • Deliberate, • Decide, • Consult, • Allocate, and • Set policy. Every board agenda should contain elements of these key functions. Developing a Revised Committee Structure - 1 - 12 April 2012 Ms. Gouthro asked trustees to divide themselves into pairs, ideally with someone they do not usually work with, to discuss the following questions: • What do you value most about your board meetings'? • What is most disappointing about your board meetings'? • What should not be part of your board meetings'? • What are two concrete and doable changes which would make your meetings better? After discussing in pairs for approximately fifteen minutes the trustees presented their ideas to the group. In response to the first question, what do you value most about your board meetings, the following comments were made: • We make decisions, • The consent agenda, • Inclusivity and diverse ideas, • Director, Chair, Student Trustees' reports, and public questions, and • Brainstorming opportunities, when available. Some trustees noted that they were not able to find any valuable aspects of the current board meetings. Some trustees also noted that they disagreed with some of the points discussed by their fellow trustees, namely the Director, Chair, and student trustees' reports. These trustees felt that there is potentially an alternate forum for delivering this information, perhaps online. Ms. Gouthro noted that the Chair's report provides a valuable opportunity for the Chair to focus and set the tone for the meeting. In response to the second question, what is most disappointing about board meetings, the following comments were made: • The personalization of statements by trustees that are sarcastic or hurtful towards other trustees, • Uninformed voting, • Lack of strategic focus, • Insufficient time dedicated to trustees expressing community concerns, • No strategic monitoring of decisions, • No link from one board meeting to another, • Large number of individual trustee motions, and • Not enough opportunities for brainstorming or general discussion. Ms. Gouthro noted that there are several models to address the issues that trustees expressed by creating an agenda planning cycle. Overseen by a coordinating committee, over the course of the year strategic priorities can be demonstrated in the agenda to ensure that each agenda is linked to the strategic priorities of the others. Trustee McKenzie noted that many of these issues stem from a board structure that was created before the introduction of provincial regulations. The directions from the province are inconsistent with how the board is currently structured. Trustee Scott expressed the view that board meetings are not conducive to constructive dialogue due to procedure and time constraints. Moreover, there should be reasons for supporting or not supporting a motion, and the introduction of a constructive discussion could create opportunities for votes to be changed. If it is not possible for this discussion to take place at board meetings an alternative forum needs to be investigated. Developing a Revised Committee Structure - 2 - 12 April 2012 In response to the third question, what should not be a part of board meetings (events, activities, not just behaviours), the following comments were made: • Trustees becoming emotional about the issues, • Sarcasm, • Public question period, • Information items (e.g. the chair and director's reports could be delivered using an alternate avenue); and • Detailed discussion that should be conducted by staff (e.g. line by line discussion of policy). Speaking to the comment about public question period, trustees clarified what the public question period entailed to Ms. Gouthro, as in her experience this was not commonly used in other school boards. Trustee Holtzhauer expressed the view that this period provides the public with an opportunity to vent frustrations to the board. Trustee Fisher stated that although he valued public input, he suggested that there could be a more focused, constructive, and valuable format to conduct the public question period than the model currently used. Reflecting on these comments, Ms. Gouthro observed that it was evident that trustees possessed a sincere commitment to the OCDSB community. She indicated to trustees that she would further investigate the inclusion of public question periods at other school boards. Director Adams agreed with Ms. Gouthro's comments, and reminded trustees that Ms. Gouthro's task was not necessarily to remove features of the current meeting processes, but to create alternatives to the current structure. Speaking to comments about detailed discussion by trustees, Trustee Fisher expressed the view that it is the role of the chair to redirect detailed discussion back to staff to reinforce the responsibilities of the board, which is an issue of governance. Trustee Scott added that legislation often requires board approval for what is essentially staff, not trustee, work. In her opinion, these issues should be grouped as a consent item that is not open to debate. Ms. Gouthro agreed with Trustees Scott and Fisher's comments. She stated that trustees should be engaging in high level discussion and asking important questions. Ms. Gouthro stated that the board should discipline itself to debrief. After meetings, trustees should answer questions, such as: • How did we do as a board'? • Did we accomplish what we wanted to'? • What's one thing we are proud of? • What's one thing that could be improved'? By participating in a brief evaluation at the end of each meeting, this process becomes part of the ongoing development of the board. Speaking further to the detailed discussion trustees engage in, Trustee McKenzie expressed the view that staff often present highly detailed reports that trigger these discussions at board meetings. Agreeing with Trustee McKenzie's comments, Director Adams noted that staff will remodel reports to match the model chosen by Ms. Gouthro and the board. These reports will be more selective with the data presented so trustees will not have to search for the relevant information. In response to the fourth question, what are two concrete and doable changes that can be made to make a difference, the following comments were made: • Addition of time lengths beside items to focus agenda, • Reducing speaking time to four minutes, Developing a Revised Committee Structure -3 - 12 April 2012 • When possible, ask questions to staff before meetings, • Cluster consent items on the agenda, • Time allocation for individual trustee motions, and • Align agenda items within the strategic plan. Speaking in response to the comment about allocating time for individual trustee motions, Ms. Gouthro stated that individual trustee motions should be introduced at the end of the meeting. Executive Officer Girioux responded that often individual trustee motions are placed at the end of the agenda, but in the agenda approval stage they are moved to the beginning of the agenda. Boards and committees (review of homework assignment) Ms. Gouthro wrapped up the discussion by directing trustees' attention to the written feedback submitted by trustees about the current committee structure. Ms. Gouthro noted that due to technical difficulties some of the comments may be incorrectly aligned, but assured trustees that the numbers representing their opinions were in the correct columns. Speaking to the creation of a committee model, Ms. Gouthro stated that she was hesitant to present a model without first receiving input from the board. Trustee Holtzhauer responded that she would be interested in viewing an example for a starting point. Ms. Gouthro summarized the findings by stating that the majority of trustees are interested in a change in the standing committee structure. She added that there are areas where trustees feel the work done by certain committees is important, but perhaps staff can continue without trustee participation. A change in the committee structure allows for the strategic priorities to be the focus of the board. Ms. Gouthro stated that the work that committees do, i.e. administrative, operational, or high level strategic, will need to be further investigated in the future. In regards to changing the committee structure, there were instances of a majority opinion reported, including: • Ten out of ten trustees believe that the trades and technology committee is not necessary, • Eight out of ten trustees believe the Ottawa Student Transportation committee is necessary, • The environmental committee is considered to be a staff committee, • The Full -Day Kindergarten steering committee has become operational, • Seven out of ten trustees believe Evaluation committee for legal services request proposal committee is not necessary, or are indifferent to it. Ms. Gouthro reported that while there were instances of agreement between trustees, there were committees that no consensus was formed, including: • The special purpose budget committee, • The attendance review committee, • Board Governance task force, and • The ad hoc board self - evaluation and Director's evaluation. Trustee Scott reported that there have been some interesting solutions that have been implemented at other school boards, including monitoring of the Director and board at the end of each meeting. Ms. Gouthro added that she had been involved with an organization that used an advisory committee to oversee the minutes to determine whether or not there was any discussion that supported the board's strategic plans. Developing a Revised Committee Structure - 4 - 12 April 2012 Trustee Seward commented that many of the committees are inactive or rely heavily on delegations. Trustee Scott added that many of the members of these committees are staff or retired staff who are self - appointed, which leads to an imbalance of personal and committee interests. Director Adams noted that representation is the next phase of restructuring, and for the coming September the focus was on the standing committees and what the board agendas should look like. She added that it was useful that this information was collected at this time, as it will be interesting to compare these thoughts when the new structure is implemented. Ms. Gouthro reminded trustees that there are multiple committees that while interesting to sit on, trustees do not necessarily need to participate in order to be supportive of the committee's work and the community. The board needs to focus its role in order to be most effective. Executive Officer Girioux noted that many of these committees require a board member to sit on their committees in their by -laws and constitution. Putting the pieces together Ms. Gouthro reiterated that trustees' comments were more united than expected. According to Ms. Gouthro, this is a positive sign that changes to the structure can be made successfully. Executive Officer Girioux wrapped up the session by discussing the structure of the motion for committee and change the timeline for implementing changes. She stressed that decisions can be made without having every question answered. Director Adams added that originally senior staff would be invited to the final session. In her opinion, it would be more useful to have a more solidified plan before incorporating their input, therefore senior staff would not be present at the last session. Ms. Gouthro thanked trustees again for their participation in the meeting and with providing feedback. She notified trustees that next week she would focus the conversation and ideas presented at this meeting around creating changes to the standing committee structure (18 April 2012). New business /next meetino, The meeting adjourned at 9:15 Developing a Revised Committee Structure - 5 - 12 April 2012