Boardwise
Winter 2012
Dear BoardWise,
I overheard a board member talking about a “two-meeting rule” for tough issues. What does that mean?
Signed,
Overloaded with Meetings
Dear Overloaded:
The basic idea is that for difficult or complicated issues, boards may have more productive discussions without the pressure of reaching a decision the first time they address the topic. There are five reasons why a “two-meeting rule” for challenging issues might benefit the board and the community.
Meeting twice on a topic allows staff to gain true board input. Under the Brown Act, board members are forbidden from discussing difficult issues as a group outside a posted, agendized board meeting. While a skilled superintendent will try to give board members the chance to give input on an agenda item prior to the board meeting, it is only by having the board discuss an issue publicly so they can learn from each other that a governing board develops its best collective thinking. Board members typically care passionately about the policies and practices of their schools and can help to inform each other and shape each other’s thinking on an issue.
Meeting twice allows the superintendent and the board to measure community sentiment on an issue. After the first discussion, it is not uncommon for unexpected concerns from community members to surface. By having the meeting on the agenda as a discussion item, community members know that they have an opportunity to give their input without feeling that an item is being rushed through and that their input can help shape an agenda item. In this process, the public’s views are honored and more carefully considered.
Meeting twice models an iterative process. Among the greatest sources of resistance to change are the beliefs that change is predetermined and that those impacted by the change have no voice. Putting forward ideas and proposed changes in a way that acknowledges that they are not complete or finished gives the board, the staff and the public the chance to learn from each other.
Meeting twice on a topic demonstrates that the board values community input. Typically, staff prepares items for a board agenda a few days before a meeting. Even if there have been multiple public discussions outside the board for input, if the final item is brought forward only days before the board is asked to take action, the public can feel that important actions that affect the community’s children are being rushed. By explicitly stating that the item is there for discussion, the board invites and encourages engagement by the public in meaningful ways.
Meeting twice allows staff to “miss” on an item without embarrassment. Since these items can only be discussed by the full board in a board meeting, it can be difficult to predict how the board will react. If the agenda item is there for discussion only, and the discussion goes badly, staff can avoid the embarrassment of having the board vote down its recommendation. Staff can use the input from the first meeting to consider alternative routes, different plans, or the wisdom of a change in policy or direction. No well-functioning board wants to see staff’s credibility damaged by repudiating its work in public with a vote against its recommended action. By having an item brought forward for discussion first, staff has the ability to improve on its work and respond to the input of the board.
There are downsides to having two meetings for contentious, complicated, or costly items. The biggest drawback may be that it takes more time to do business. Boards must balance the additional investment of time with the benefit of the additional conversations that lead to greater clarity and support for change.
You may wish to share your question with your board. It may be instructive to ask, “Is there a past action or decision where the ‘two-meeting rule’ might have helped?”
Good luck.
BoardWise is written by Christopher Maricle in CSBA's Policy and Programs Department. He has worked with school district and county office of education boards on school governance matters since 2006.