Dysfunctional government boards

ATLANTA -- The fact that a fifth of all local school boards have run into
serious enough problems that their accreditation was endangered in the last 10
years demonstrates how dysfunctional governing boards can be.

And the
problems could apply to any governing body, from a city council, airport
commission or coliseum authority to even legislative bodies.

A task force --
appointed by the State Board of Education with the encouragement of business
groups -- has until September to come up with recommendations for improving the
operation of local boards of education. Another group in Augusta is tackling a
similar problem in trying to determine how to create an effective panel to
oversee management of its Coliseum Authority.

Their findings could apply to
other instances.

Until 1992 when the constitution changed, grand juries named
the members of local school boards, and voters picked the local superintendent.
Now, board members are elected, and they hire the superintendent.

That change
was significant, according to attorney Phil Hartley whose Gainesville firm
represents 120 of the 181 Georgia school districts. For one thing, school boards
used to only concern themselves with finances. Now, candidates run with the
intention of making substantive changes in how schools operate.
Concerns with
operational details, though, lead to one pitfall many boards stumble into,
namely meddling, warns Mark Elgart, president of AdvancED, the parent
organization of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

SACS grants
accreditation after sending teams of educators to evaluate each local district.
Meddling is one of their most frequent complaints.

Of course, these
evaluators are teachers and principals from other districts who wouldn't want
intensive input from their own boards. But it's not just their bias. As Elgart
says, can you imagine a member of The Home Depot's board dropping by a store and
instructing a clerk to stack the 2-by-4s in another aisle from where the manager
specified?

That's the kind of interference he says his evaluators discovered
in board after board. Elgart attributes part of it to the change to elected
board members.

"Since that time, I don't think that is coincidence," he
said.

He points to two trends that have emerged. First, the post has become
viewed as a political stepping stone for some with higher ambitions. Second,
many members of boards in big districts that provide pay and benefits see the
position as employment.

When confronted about his contributions to a
dysfunctional board, "one board member told me, Ԧind me another job, and I'll
move on,'" Elgart recounted. Besides, what kind of worker can you attract for
the amount that board members take home, he asks.

Elgart is equally critical
of board members who have no connection to the organization they serve but who
may only be looking to cut spending to hold taxes down or push some other narrow
agenda.

The first challenge is getting good people to run, he said, adding
that he doesn't favor returning to appointed board members. Presumably voters
will be able to select the best candidate if solid, volunteer-oriented people
put their names on the ballot.

Current law specifies few qualifications
beyond the requirement for 12 hours of training upon election and six hours of
continuing training annually. However, board members who don't get their
training face no consequences.

Now, the education task force intends to
concoct a better recipe for a good board.

Elgart has a few suggestions, such
as no low-turnout special elections, no partisan labels and no
meddling.

Professionalism, vision and ethics would be desirable but harder to
attain, notes Hartley.

"Some of that is very difficult to mandate in statue,"
he said.

However, he would demand boards do strategic planning, calling it
one thing he's found in common among the best school boards he's worked with.
Such a plan would have specific objectives that voters could judge board members
by when re-election time rolls around.

It's not just government boards that
break down. Federal regulators and Congress enacted new strictures for corporate
boards following the collapse of Enron, and the business people on the task
force are likely to borrow some ideas.

Phil Jacobs, who retired as AT&T's
top executive in Georgia, has served on 20 corporate and volunteer boards
including the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. He's co-chairing the task force along
with John Rice, vice chairman of GE, and Gary Price, managing partner of
PricewaterhouseCoopers, two men who are on pace to serve on the same number of
boards Jacobs by the time they also retire.

Their results are due in three
months, in time to be crafted into legislation by the two lawmakers on the task
force, the chairmen of the House and Senate education committees, but too late
for this year's elections.