policy meeting report - web viewpersonnel issues were reviewed in closed-door ... he also showed...

Running head: POLICY MEETING REPORT 1

Policy Meeting Report

Elizabeth Stefanko

Virginia Commonwealth University

EDLP 704

March 10, 2012

2Policy Meeting Report

My group attended a Chesterfield County School Board meeting on January 24, 2012. It

was not a new experience for three of the four in my group. As administrators, School Board

meetings are part of our job. However, it was very interesting to watch one member who is in

higher education try to absorb the dynamics and procedures. It made for a wonderful discussion

during our post meeting.

Policy Rudiments

Policy Types

There were four policies discussed at the School Board meeting. All three types of

policies were represented.

Distributive Policy. Teachers earning the National Board Certification were recognized

by Tim Bullis, the Director of Community Relations. By definition a distributive policy grants

gifts on a citizen and those gifts can be goods, services or special privileges (Fowler, 2009). The

recognition of teachers represents a subsidy. Teachers who earn this status receive monetary

compensation for the designation.

Personnel issues were reviewed in closed-door proceedings prior to the meeting, but the

motion attached to those procedures was passed during the general meeting. This policy falls

under distributive because it is dealing with contracts of county personnel who need to be

terminated. The personnel actions that were approved involved mostly transportation, custodial

and cafeteria staffing. Thus, the privatization of these services causes personnel issues in these

categories to fall under the distributive policy (Fowler, 2009).

Regulatory policy. Fowler (2009) states that “regulatory policies are formalized rules

expressed in general terms and applies to large groups of people” (p.241). Discipline issues were

reviewed in closed-door session prior to the meeting but approved at the public School Board


meeting. The Chesterfield County Code of Conduct is the basis of this type policy. The rules

and regulations are explicitly explained in the Code of Conduct and the consequences of those

regulations are clearly presented. Students that violate major rules in the Code of Conduct are

subject to expulsion. The School Board hears these cases and makes a decision whether or not to

support the school administrator’s consequence.

Redistributive policy. The majority of the time at the School Board meeting was given

to the presentation of the 2012-2013 Chesterfield County Public School budget. The

redistributive policy is evident when discussing finances and the allocation of these finances. A

redistributive policy is one where a shift in resources is given from one group to another (Fowler,

2009). When dealing with a redistributive policy, the group presenting the policy often deals

with conflict and controversy. This policy was the only one on the agenda that received public

comment. In the months to come, much discussion for and against this policy will be initiated.

In a redistributive policy one side is always unhappy which is always true when you deal with

budget issues.

Bolman and Deal Frame

The political frame was very evident in the presentation of the school division budget.

The combination of scarce resources and divergent interests produce conflict with the budget

process (Bolman & Deal, 2008). The school division’s budget will require bargaining and

negotiation among groups throughout the budget hearing process. The battle between the teacher

association and the School Board has already begun. The CEA president spoke to the issue of

new teachers paying into their Virginia Retirement accounts. He stated that this will pit one

teacher group against the other. The CEA will work hard to get this line item taken out of the

budget. There will be something they offer in exchange to protect the small group of new hires.


The School Board has already established channels for public opinion and has offered a

schedule of town hall meetings to hear their constituents. Counter arguments will be developed

to address the CEA and other groups’ concerns. The School Board and Central Office staff,

including the Superintendent, will understand and articulate their revised plan when negotiations

begin. The leaders of this message will be the finance department and the Superintendent. The

budget and the reasons behind the budget will be delivered by the principal of each building. The

philosophy behind the administrator delivering the message is to build a sense of trust through

the personal connection between the principal and their staff.

Power

The School Board meeting’s main focus was on the 2012-2013 operating budget. The

power actors were the board members and the Superintendent. The type of power shown was

economic dominance because the primary focus of the meeting was the budget proposal. The

power resources were access to the money, control of the information, information, official

positions, and organization (Fowler, 2009).

Participation

Each School Board member spoke, but each did not speak for the same amounts (see

Appendix B). Those with more power spoke the most.

Patty Carpenter, the Chairman of the School Board, spoke the most. Due to her position

and the formal procedures of the meeting, it was not unusual that she had the most to say. She

had to manage transitions and introduce each agenda item. However, she did speak quite a bit

about special events and how they tied to her district.

Dr. Newsome spoke equally to that of Mrs. Carpenter. He was involved with each

awards presentation. Dr. Newsome was also responsible for delivering the Superintendent’s


report. However, the largest amount of time from Dr. Newsome came from the historical picture

of Chesterfield’s financial woes and what the school division has done over the past three years

to address the budget cuts. He then turned over the presentation to David Myer’s, Assistant

Superintendent of Business and Finance, to present the purposed 2012-2013 School Division

budget.

David Wyman, the Vice Chairman of the School Board, spoke many times, but in small

increments. He also showcased his district whenever possible. However, I believe he also

brought his tenure into the meeting by speaking briefly on topics that School Board had

addressed in previous years. David Wyman and Patty Carpenter are the two senior members of

the board, as they are the only two returning board members. Mr. Wyman also played the role of

peacekeeper at the end of the board meeting during the public comment. He gently spoke to the

Chesterfield Education Association President, Frank Cardella and reminded him of all the

positive things the county did to address Mr. Cardella’s concerns. He politely, but directly gave

the facts to make Mr. Carmella seem misinformed.

Mr. Doland began with the invocation and he presented an award to a school that was in

his district. Other than those two events, his comments were limited to accolades for his district.

Mr. Doland was recently reelected to the board. Therefore, in my opinion, he did not see the

need to insert himself in every conversation. He made a point only when it seemed natural. He

did not appear to have the same need as Mrs. Coyner to establish himself.

Carrie Coyner is a newly elected board member. She is an attorney and mother of two

young children that are just beginning their Chesterfield County Public School career. She was

very vocal about the need for getting parents involved in the schools. Mrs. Coyner was very

passionate about her district and the events the district sponsors. I was unclear if she was


motivated by her desire to make the school division stronger for her children or if she was trying

to exert herself and establish her presence.

Mrs. Smith is a newly elected board member. She recently retired from Chesterfield

County Public Schools (CCPS) as a principal. She spoke the least. The only time she spoke was

to address the appointment of a new director for the Maggie Walker School which she precedes

over. Mrs. Smith did not even have a comment when it was time for each board member to

deliver a report. This surprised me because Mrs. Smith was always very vocal as a principal.

She is used to being in the spotlight, as she once was the Director of Leadership for the county

and had to present to the School Board often. Maybe Mrs. Smith did not feel the need to speak

because she comes to the board as a veteran of thirty-one years in CCPS.

Verbal and Nonverbal Cues of Power

There were many verbal and nonverbal cues of power. Some are more subtle

than others.

Nonverbal Cues. The arrangement of chairs around the School Board table is a prime

example of the power structure. Even though there are nine people who sit around the table,

there is no single person in the center. The Superintendent and the Chairman of the Board share

the middle of the table. This sitting arrangement causes an imbalance of chairs on each side, but

I believe this is done for a directed purpose. The Superintendent and the Chairman share power

for the policies of the county. They need each other’s support. To the right of the Chairman is

the Vice Chairman. The newly elected, but well respected veteran of CCPS sat to the right of the

Superintendent. I believe this is an attempt to balance the power. From those positions are the

other two newly elected School Board members, one on each side of the table.


When the Superintendent or the Chairman spoke, the other members would physically

turn their chairs to see the speaker. However, the superintendent and the Chairman often did not

even look up from their monitors as the other board members spoke.

A huge nonverbal cue was given by Frank Cardella, the Chesterfield Education

Association President when he spoke during public comment. He left a huge poster in his chair

that said “Invest in Kids”. His seat was strategically placed so that the poster would be televised

as he spoke. The poster was supposed to imply that he had the children’s best interest in mind

and that maybe the School Board did not. Mr. Cardella also had a very arrogant posture. He

presented himself as if he was a martyr for the children and teachers of Chesterfield County. As

an outsider watching, he did not leave an image of credibility with me. I found him cocky which

in turn made me discredit his comments.

Also during public comment, The Superintendent remained controlled throughout most

of the meeting. However, during the public comment section of the meeting he was viewed

rolling his eyes and had a smirk on his face. It was clear that he disagreed with the citizen, but

did not speak to the issue. His smirk seemed very condescending, as if to say, “You don’t know

what you are talking about!”

Verbal Cues. The verbal cues were fewer in number. The power of the group clearly

lied with the Superintendent and the Chairman. When other School Board members addressed

the Chairman they would call her, Madame Chairman. Never did the School Board members,

presenters, or the public call her Mrs. Carpenter. The only person who addressed her by name

was the Superintendent. Furthermore, if a presenter or a private citizen addressed the School

Board, he would start with, “Madame Chairman, Dr. Newsome, School Board members”. This

established the order of power in their eyes.


Mrs. Carpenter was in control of her emotions until the public comment portion of the

meeting. When a citizen questioned whether or not the School Board and the school division

gave enough opportunity for citizens to participate in the development of the Design of

Excellence, Mrs. Carpenter quickly shut him down. She was very direct with her comments and

did not appear to be happy. It was Mr. Wyman that tried to polish the School Board’s position by

telling the speaker all the things that were done to support public participation.

Policy Discussion

Language

The language used in the presentation of this policy was very technical. David Myers

provided a detailed presentation to describe the sources of funding and how the resources would

be allocated. The language used was very descriptive of its regulatory function. It was strong in

regulations and guidelines. There was no public comment during the presentation. Public

comment was scheduled for the last hour of the School Board meeting.

Cost Analysis and Cost Effectiveness

David Myers, Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance, spoke to the cost

analysis process the county went through to determine the best use of monies. He showed many

tables and charts of how the county would receive funds. He showed formulas to indicate the per

student expenditure and the resources offered to the schools. Mr. Myers explained the financial

situation the county had been in for the past three years and how this budget would be able to

bring back several items the teachers and students so desperately needed. He also showed trends

in capital growth for the county.

Mr. Meyers presented the cost effectiveness of the budget by presenting the results of the

Phi Delta Kappan (PDK) audit. He described the findings as a “pat on the back” for the county.


He explained all the cuts that had been made in the past to help achieve this outstanding rating

from PDK. Mr. Meyers outlined the reasons for certain allocations and how the county would

respond to any unforeseen changes in monies from the state level. The presentation was

thorough and Mr. Meyers provided strong reasons for the direction of each allocation.

Suggested Policy Strategy

The budget is an example of a redistributive policy. The budget is based on financial

resources that are shifted from one group to another. It also has the potential to become a power

shift. The budget as it is currently written would transfer the power from the teachers as whole

in regards to paying into their retirement funds to the power being in the hands of veteran

teachers only. This power shift in the opinion of the CEA would pit the two types of teachers

against each other. The political implications are huge. This part of the budget causes much

conflict among the teacher ranks because they are invested in the ideology that all teachers

should be treated equally. The CEA views this section of the budget as not only another decrease

in pay for new teachers, but as a devaluing of the beginning teacher.

Based on Lowi’s strategy for a redistributive policy, the Superintendent and David

Meyers would need to figure out who is joining each side of the budget debate (Fowler, p.248).

The two would then need to develop an ad hoc umbrella organization to combine all supporters

from different backgrounds to agree on the policy (Fowler, p.248). In this case, the budget will

be presented at several Town Hall meetings by key CCPS staff around the county for public

comment. The budget is also posted on the Division’s Facebook and website pages for comment.

The education of the public and the county employees is key for the success of the policy.

When the budget was presented, David Myers and Dr. Newsome did an outstanding job

of giving the historical data surrounding our budget difficulties in the last three years and how


they were going to address concerns as CCPS moves forward. However, as mentioned before,

there is concern among the teachers concerning paying into their retirement. In particular, all

new hires as of July 1 will have to pay five percent into their retirement accounts. Existing

teachers will not be required to do this. The piece of information that was not shared with the

public, but had been shared with the administrators earlier that day, was the fact that the State

may require all employees to pay into their retirement fund. If that is the case, the county has a

backup plan where they will eliminate themselves as the middle man and will give the

employees a five percent raise. The raise will cover the cost of this expenditure. The county

would give the employee the money so he can pay the retirement expenditure from their salary

verses the county paying it directly. In this scenario, new employees will still pay their own

retirement, but so will the veteran teacher. Thus, everyone would have a five percent pay

increase to cover this cost. If this was presented as Plan B, the CEA and others would buy into

the budget overall and push for this as a compromise. The CEA would be able to save face and

support the budget because all employees would be treated the same.

Conclusion

The School Board meeting was a very interesting experience when analyzing the politics

and procedures involved in trying to present or pass policy. Power is apparent when collecting

data on who is speaking and what are they really saying. Those verbal and nonverbal cues were

telling a part of the story trying to be delivered. In the future, a School Board meeting will

represent far more than a meeting to discuss the school division’s direction. It will be a reality

show where power players will emerge, alliances are formed and negotiation will always be in

play.


References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reforming organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership

(3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.


Appendix A

Tuesday, January 24, 2012Regular School Board Meeting / 7:00 p.m.

A. Call to Order1. Call to Order 2. Invocation 3. Flag Salute

B. Consent Agenda1. Agenda Approval 2. Acceptance of the Minutes 3. Memo 8 Recommended Personnel Actions

C. Awards and Recognitions1. Memo 6 Recognition of National Board Certified Teachers 2. Memo 7 Recognition of Jobs for Virginia Graduates Award

D. Board Committee Reports1. Board Committee Reports

E. Superintendent's Report1. Superintendent's Report

F. Discussion Agenda1. Memo 9 Overview of Superintendent's Proposed FY2013 Financial Plan

G. Public Comment (limited to 1 hour)1. Public Comment

H. Announcements, Communications, and School Board Comments1. Announcements, Communications, and School Board Comments

I. Adjournment1. Adjournment


Appendix B

Seating Arrangement

Podium

Tom Doland Matoaca Dist. (4:15)

Dianne Smith Clover Hill Dist.

(1:08)

Debra HessDeputy Clerk (0 Min.)

Carrie Coyner Bermuda Dist (2:78)

Dr. Newsome Superintendent

(14:34)

Patty Carpenter Midlothian Dist

Chair (5:22)David Wyman

Dale Dist Vice Chair (4:11)

Carol Timpano Clerk (0 Min.)

Kim Smith Attorney (0 Min.)

policy meeting report - web viewpersonnel issues were reviewed in closed-door ... he also showed...

Documents