Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Organizational Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants tell Montgomery board district runs on people, urge documenting processes before retirements
Summary
Lean for All presented an organizational review to the Montgomery Public Schools board, warning that most operations depend on individual knowledge rather than documented processes and that near‑term retirement eligibility among staff — including principals — creates both risk and an opportunity for restructuring.
Lean for All consultant Mister Hendricks told the Montgomery Public Schools board that the district is “in a good place now but it’s really heavily dependent on your hardworking people, not the systems,” and urged faster documentation of core processes to avoid losing institutional knowledge as staff retire.
Hendricks summarized a review that covered all 24 central office departments, 47 leader interviews and benchmarking against 11 peer districts. He said only five departments had documented processes and described a high near‑term retirement eligibility: “Right now, 1 in 5 career employee, employees can retire right now,” he said, and warned that 35 percent will be eligible within five years and that “62% of your principals are eligible to retire in 5 years.”
The consultant presented eight recommendations focused on aligning structure to work, establishing clear position control and routing vacancies through a decision process to determine whether positions should be replaced, redesigned or eliminated. Hendricks emphasized the recommendations are intended to avoid major new spending: the approach is to use attrition and process redesign rather than large budget increases.
Board members asked about sequencing and immediate priorities; Hendricks said structural fixes should come first followed by fixes to federal‑programs compliance and financial controls. He offered to provide the 196‑page full report to members for detailed timelines and cost estimates and made himself available for follow‑up questions.
The board did not take a formal vote on specific consultant recommendations at the meeting; the presentation concluded with a pledge to distribute the full report to trustees and staff for additional review.
