Editorial: Policy OK, but avoid groupthink

Friday, July 19, 2002 | 9:08 a.m.

Two years ago the Clark County School Board adopted a new procedural style called Policy Governance, a radical and positive change that was adopted with surprisingly little controversy. Under the new approach, the board surrendered much of its previous power to the superintendent. All remaining powers were vested in the board as a whole, with individual members stripped of any authority to deal with district staff or issues on their own. The idea was to create a policy-making board free from the distractions of complaining parents, member egos, and day-to-day management decisions, enabling it to concentrate on broad goals and evaluations of how effectively the goals were being achieved. The new style was part of a national trend that caught hold in the 1990s, based on observations that governing boards spent inordinate amounts of valuable time on low-echel on topics. In short, school boards that adopt and adhere strictly to Policy Governance have a goal of attracting members motivated by community service, not by the fact that their children didn't make the cheerleading team or get accepted to the gifted-student program.

The theory is so enticing that Policy Governance has the potential of being the biggest thing for board meetings since Robert's Rules of Order. That potential, however, depends on boards not carrying things to extreme. The School Board is in danger of doing just that with a new self-policing plan members have devised under the guise of Policy Governance. Still in draft form, the plan would have the board members evaluating each other in respect to how well they were subordinating themselves to Policy Governance. Each would send their colleagues written critiques about the level of politeness they exhibit at meetings and whether their individual expressions conform to their board motto of "children first." They would even publicly review tapes of board meetings to spot any deviations from Policy Governance.

We say leave the critiques to the voters. A structure that defines the role of members and keeps meetings focused on priorities is needed. One that consumes gobs of time to ensure groupthink defeats its purpose.