Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 Ad Hoc Committee for Board Evaluation and Director Performance Evaluation Processes Report 2 6 Mar 2006 Minutes PublicREPORT NO. 2, AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE BOARD EVALUTION PROCESS AND THE DIRECTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUTION PROCESS TO: The Board DATE: 6 March 2006 A meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Board Evaluation Process and the Director Performance Evaluation Process was held this evening in the Trustees' Committee Room, 133 Greenbank Road, Ottawa, Ontario with the following members in attendance: Trustees David Moen (Ad Hoc Committee Chair), Alex Getty, Lynn Graham, and Lynn Scott. Other trustees in attendance included Trustees Greg Laws (by teleconference), David Primeau, and Joan Spice Staff. Director of Education and Secretary of the Board Lorne Rachlis; Executive Officer (Administration) Michele Giroux, Coordinator, Policies and Procedures, Norah Vollmer (recording). Other Attendees: Facilitator Michael Trottier. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:09 p.m. by Committee Chair David Moen. ACTION 2. Approval of the Agenda On a motion by Trustee Alex Getty the agenda was approved as presented. Report 06 -065: 2004 — 2005 Integrated Board and Director Evaluation Process Review Facilitator Michael Trottier commented briefly on Report 06 -065 and indicated that he received responses from only three trustees on the review of the integrated Board and Director Evaluation processes. He explained that it was difficult to draw conclusions based on the input of three trustees, but indicated that his interpretation of the responses received was that two respondents felt the process could be enhanced in some respects, but was generally worthwhile, while the third respondent questioned the merits of the process. Mr. Trottier also tabled a letter recommending that trustees not invest the time, emotional energy and money repeating this exercise in future unless there is a genuine commitment on the part of all members to participate in the process, receive feedback and to use the data to make meaningful changes. He added that, at the end of this type of evaluation process, it is important to understand the lessons that have been learned from the process in order to decide whether the process should be repeated. Committee members asked questions of the facilitator in respect of the process, the merits of the process, and whether the limited trustee feedback was indicative of the value of the process. In response to a question from Trustee Moen about whether the integrated evaluation process for the Board and Director should be eliminated, Mr. Trottier recommended reconsidering both processes for different reasons. He indicated that the Board members did not demonstrate sufficient interest in the Board evaluation process to generate meaningful improvement in Board performance or relationships. He also explained that he had never observed an organization use an evaluation model like that used for the Director's Evaluation and he questioned whether this type of approach could actually facilitate the desired results. Report No. 2, Ad Hoc Conrnnittee for the Born•d Evaluatioft Process aftd the Director Pei fornirnzce Evaluatioft Process Trustee Scott explained the historical context of the evaluation processes and noted that the Board is contractually obligated to undertake an evaluation of the Director's performance. She explained that the integrated evaluation processes were designed in recognition of the fact that the Director's successful achievement of goals is tied to the Board's objectives and goals. Trustee Scott noted her disappointment that the facilitator's report did not include any recommendations. In response to an inquiry from Trustee Graham, Director Rachlis commented on the evaluation process from his perspective, noting the extensive commitment of time and effort it required. He explained that the purpose of the evaluation process is to improve the performance of the Board and the Director, but the process did not result in the Board dealing with its own performance issues and that he often received mixed messages out of the Director's evaluation process. He added that it might be helpful to have the facilitator identify some other CEO evaluation processes that were recognized as exemplary practices. Trustee Spice indicated that she felt the board evaluation was a useful exercise and she thought that trustees were initially committed to the process, but lost interest over time. She indicated that the evaluation did provide a reality check for Board members and that had some positive results, particularly in terms of enhancing the relationship with senior staff. She questioned the need to conduct an evaluation process as extensive as this one on an annual basis, and suggested a shorter version of the process might be more appropriate for the coming year. Trustee Getty agreed with Trustee Spice, suggesting that it was not necessary to conduct a comprehensive self - evaluation process this year, but rather a shortened version of the process might be sufficient. He also expressed concern over the length of time required by the process and the complexity of running two parallel processes. He suggested a shorter, higher level evaluation process would be more appropriate for the Director Evaluation. On a motion by Trustee Scott, your committee recommends: THAT THE REPORT ON THE FINDINGS OF THE 2004 — 2005 REVIEW OF THE INTEGRATED BOARD EVALUTION AND DIRECTOR PERFORMANCE PROCESSES BE RECEIVED. Following this, Trustee Getty moved the following motion: THAT the OCDSB not conduct a board self - evaluation in the coming year The Committee discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the integrated evaluation process and possible modifications thereto. Trustee Laws noted the importance of an annual process, but recognized that the process might vary year by year. Trustee Graham suggested that there was still considerable information in last year's evaluation that trustees had not yet addressed and could review over the coming year. Trustee Primeau indicated that a 360 degree evaluation was a very difficult process to undertake and to make meaningful. It was also noted that the next trustee election would occur shortly in November 2006. In clarification, it was noted that the evaluation would run typically from December to November. Overall, there was agreement that the process was worthwhile and useful and that a Director evaluation must be conducted. However, there was disagreement on whether the board process should be renewed for the upcoming year and whether both processes should be conducted in -depth or at a high - level. Trustee Scott recommended that the process be embedded within the OCDSB culture on an annual basis with a single meeting to address results. Any changes to the process should be considered after a few cycles. Trustee Moen further noted that it would be worthwhile to establish an evaluation process prior to the election of a new Board to ensure support and to provide continuity. Report No. 2, Ad Hoc Conrnnittee for the Born•d Evaluatioft Process aftd the Director Pei fornirnzce Evaluatioft Process 2 In clarification, it was confirmed that four voting members of the Ad Hoc Committee were present: Trustees Getty, Graham, Moen and Scott. Director Rachlis added that, in his opinion, the superintendents would prefer not to have their survey responses categorized as a single respondent group in the future. Regarding the motion before the Ad Hoc Committee, Trustee Getty noted that the motion did not exclude the opportunity to continue to address the issues raised or the opportunity for the new Board to establish their own process. The motion was defeated on a tie vote. Trustee Scott then moved the following motion: THAT the board self evaluation process for 2005 -2006 proceed with a) an abbrevated survey instrument and the survey responses be considered as a single group (not broken out by stakeholder group), and b) the ad hoc committee be directed to develop recommendations for optimizing the usefulness of the feedback to the board. It was clarified that it was the Ad Hoc Committee's role to determine the survey questions taking into consideration the length of the survey and evaluation and senior staff concerns regarding categorization of responses. Trustee Graham spoke against the motion indicating that the evaluation process should not be undertaken for this year and that the trustees should continue to work with the data from the 2004 — 2005 surveys. It was clarified that, should the Ad Hoc Committee not formalize a recommendation, then the Board would continue with the established evaluation process. The motion was defeated on a tie vote. INFORMATION 4. Report No 1: Draft Minutes of 8 February 2006 It was noted that the minutes had been previously received by the Board and that they were included for information purposes for the Ad Hoc Committee. The meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. /NV David Moen, Chair Ad Hoc Committee for the Board Evaluation Process and the Director Performance Evaluation Process Report No. 2, Ad Hoc Conrnnittee for the Born•d Evaluatioft Process aftd the Director Pei fornirnzce Evaluatioft Process 3