Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Self Assessment Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs returning staff survey; members raise anonymity, FOIA and weaponization concerns
Summary
Superintendent proposed resuming a long-used board self-assessment survey for staff; board members raised concerns about anonymity, Freedom of Information Act exposure for comments, potential misuse, and asked for clearer protocols before voting.
Doctor James proposed resuming a previously used board self-assessment survey that solicits staff feedback on board performance and district climate. He said the survey had run through 2017 and was paused; staff proposed a third-party administration to protect anonymity.
Board members discussed survey design, audience and risks. Staff said the intended population is district employees (about 2,700), that the instrument typically uses Likert-scale ratings and had optional comment fields, and that results historically were provided privately to the board. Several members expressed concern that free-text comments could be subject to public-record requests and weaponized against trustees or staff; counsel confirmed aggregate numeric results and unredacted comment fields would be subject to public-record law, and employee names or personally identifiable information would be redacted when necessary.
Members asked for clear guidance on who would receive results, how comments would be treated, whether the survey would be purely quantitative or include free-text fields, and whether a third party could certify anonymity and redaction processes. Several members recommended soliciting staff input to refine questions to ensure they are relevant to staff and not merely personal critiques. The board did not vote that night; members indicated willingness to bring a clarified proposal to the next meeting, including limits on comment release and steps to reduce potential misuse.
