Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Governance Protocols topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hazel Park Board holds governance workshop on roles, policy and meeting protocols
Summary
Board members and a workshop presenter reviewed the board's three core duties, the difference between policy and procedures, protocols for meetings and public comment, and next steps to adopt written operating procedures. The session noted five of seven board members are in their first year.
The Hazel Park Board of Education convened a governance workshop March 3 to review the board's duties, decision-making protocols and meeting practices, led by a workshop presenter identified in the session as Scott.
The session focused on three core board responsibilities'1 setting vision and goals, writing policy and hiring and evaluating the superintendent'2 and on practical rules the board can adopt to keep meetings efficient and to protect staff and student confidentiality. Scott stressed the importance of written protocols and recommended the board prioritize a short set of operating procedures and norms.
Why it matters: Five of the seven board members are in their first year, Scott said during the session, and the board must adopt clear, consistent procedures so staff, community members and new board members understand how to raise issues, how hiring and contract approval work and how public comments will be handled.
The workshop walked through specific distinctions the board should adopt: a policy is a high-level requirement (the board's role), protocols are board expectations about how it operates, and administrative regulations explain how staff will carry out policy. Scott used superintendent evaluation and cell-phone rules as examples to show what belongs in policy and what belongs in protocols or procedures. "The only policy you need to have is superintendents evaluated on an annual basis," he said, adding that the procedures for how to evaluate belong in protocols or administrative guidelines.
On hiring and personnel, the presenter reiterated that the board is the legal entity that approves contracts, but that routine hiring is a superintendent responsibility. He recommended board members avoid serving on hiring committees to prevent Open Meetings Act issues and to avoid compromising confidentiality. "When you hire a superintendent, you're basically hiring everybody in the organization," Scott said, describing the board's oversight role in setting expectations that drive the budget and staffing.
Scott also urged clearer meeting management: keep regular business meetings near 90 minutes where possible (not counting public comment), put vision/mission/goals on the board table to refocus off-topic discussions and use consent agendas for routine items. He recommended a standing rule that: "If you don't speak, then we're gonna take it as a you're in agreement," to reduce surprises and ensure members state objections before votes.
On public comment and confidentiality, Scott advised that the board not respond substantively during public comment but instead require that the superintendent or designee follow up: "This is your opportunity to address the board. We will not be responding," he said, explaining that immediate responses can create legal or investigative problems under FERPA/HIPAA or collective-bargaining processes.
The presenter asked the board to review a provided checklist of meeting protocols and pick five priorities to share with Deborah (Deb) so staff and officers can draft or revise written procedures; several board members volunteered to send those selections to Deb. Scott offered follow-up consultation and provided contact guidance for legal questions to the district's counsel (Brad) or the presenter.
Ending: Board members agreed to review existing operating procedures and return with prioritized items for the district to convert into a short set of board protocols and norms. The session concluded with a brief public-comment period and a motion to adjourn.
