Governance and civic responsibility, take 2

I recently talked to representatives of the Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB). As mentioned previously, I really like their mission statement and the ideals they lay out for board members of all school boards. After a wonderful and in-depth chat with Cathy Talbert (Associate Executive Director of Field and Policy Services), I came to learn that the IASB is going “all in” with John Carver’s “Policy Governance model“. This is reflected primarily in how the IASB has recently re-architected its own policies, and further trickles down to how the IASB will be training new board members. It is a model that utilizes servant-leadership and clearly states organizational purposes with the sole intent of having those purposes fulfilled. Again, the word “accountability” comes up – not with the intent of going on a witch hunt, but rather, for the good of us all, seeking out mutually beneficial solutions.

This is the kind of mindset I have when I ask various city managers/planners and the school district Business office about Tax Incremental Financing (TIF). TIF, and it’s brother “Enterprise Zones”, have a very strong focus on “economic development”. Which sounds all good and dandy. What really concerns me is that 1) the public is largely uneducated on these issues and 2) a significant lack of accountability on promises and goals. I believe city managers and planners have good intentions at heart. I think there is a systemic mentality about meeting the letter of the law but not really addressing the intent of the law (another example of normalized deviance).

Let’s take another example – the district’s Promises Made Promises Kept (PMPK) committee. I have harped on this before, and I will probably do so again. Back in June of 2010, I attended a PMPK meeting and personally asked Mr. Gene Logas if he could post online some of the awesome documents that they share at PMPK meetings. Again in March of 2012, I formally asked Mr. Logas, the Board and Dr. Wiegand the same thing, to post all informational documents on the committee website. In October of 2012, I again made the request that documents be posted online for Unit 4 committees.  In February of 2013 I made a post of documents I had personally received. Another post in March of 2013, with a little bit of delicious irony (Agenda Item V: How to Effectively Share with the Community the Work and Oversight of the Committee). At various times throughout 2012, 2013 and even this year, I asked individual committee members for relevant documents, and asked them to convey my wish that documents be posted online. On Feb 10th of this year (almost three weeks ago), I asked the Board (again) to have these documents posted on the PMPK committee page. I was told by the Board that these documents are indeed online. Imagine my surprise! So I asked where.

Silence.

Why am I so anal about this? Why am I “wasting” the time of various administrators and board members? Why am I making a big deal about this?

I hope to make it a point that I am not shaking my finger at individuals; entire Administrations have come and gone, and the Board has changed many times since 2010. The problem is that nobody else really cares (from my point of view), we have all come to expect that the PMPK committee (and other Unit 4 committees) have a standard way of operating, and that’s how it is done. Yes, I get it that the public is invited to attend any and all committee meetings (with the rare exception). I get it that information is freely shared at these meetings. Good job, keep it up! But sharing information at meetings does not equal engaging the community, nor engendering a sense of ownership. I realize posting informational documents isn’t a silver bullet either – it will not magically, instantly make all the stakeholders suddenly enjoy all the sunshine and transparency. This is just one step among many.

The exact same thing applies for the City of Champaign and TIF. The same thing applies in many areas of “governance” in our lives. We have lost the art of being informed and holding each other accountable.

The solution? Society itself must change. We have to think about others.

In Lisa Delpit’s insightful and enlightening “Other People’s Children”, she quotes a Native Alaskan teacher she had the honor of befriending; “In order to teach you, I must know you.” We must allow our walls to break down and get to know each other.

WebQuery, iPad RFP and normalized deviance

In a previous post, I talked a little about the WebQuery tool. The Unit 4 Educational Technology team has replaced that tool and now has a new one:

the Proximity App

It simplifies the entire tool significantly; no grade level to worry about, no other non-Unit 4 schools….  However, I kinda still wish that ALL other schools were still listed. What if I really really want to go to BTW, but want to compare the distance to other schools? In any event, I think this new interface is significantly less confusing, and thus more useful.

iPad RFP

My RSS reader recently noticed that several RFP have been filed, including two for ChromeOS laptops, another for Desktops and laptops, and another for iPads. I have questions about all of them, and rifled through the online documentation trying to learn more. Unfortunately, none of the posted documentation really says what these things are needed for or why the district is seeking them. So I looked a little more carefully at the iPad RFP and noticed that they want 180 of 2nd Generation iPads. 180. I had to pause for a little. And then I asked Executive Director of Business Matt Foster about the RFP and he informed me they were for “student instruction.” So I then asked the Board and Stephanie Stuart for more details. Stephanie replied that they would be used for the “ESL Department for world language instruction across the district.” A quick look on Amazon shows these selling for about $330; so the upper limit on this bid should be in the neighborhood of $54,000 (give or take, depending on bulk discounts, taxes, etc), right?

The whole purpose for posting RFPs online is so that public can see, to affect some level of transparency. Therefore, I have told Matt Foster and the Board I am quite thankful. Of course, this allows the public to form questions as well, which I think is a natural part of the stakeholder’s job. So what questions do you have?

and finally….

Normalized Deviance

What the heck is this, you think to yourself. It is a little bit of a tangled tale how I ended up at a wikibook site about Diane Vaughan’s theory on the “normalization of deviance.” To break it down in simple language, basically this describes what happens if you do something wrong enough times, you lose that “it’s wrong” feeling and start to think it really isn’t that big of a deal. Until something REALLY BAD happens like a space shuttle blowing up.

What strikes me is the “Solutions” section, which gives a very good justification for true transparency and a type of accountability that has long-term mutual benefits. The same kind of stuff that can make a marriage really strong (or break it if these things are not found). It is having a team mentality, as opposed to a individualistic mindset. Unfortunately, the popular American machine rewards and idolizes the individual, which probably goes a long way towards explaining a number of problems we have today (massive inequities, the “1%”, a heavy-handed government, etc). Dr. Vaughan points out that many people withhold from bringing problems (aka, deviances) into the light for many reasons; pride, fear of retribution, assuming the experts know best to name a few. Yet, if we focus on a true education of facts with an open eye towards the larger group, we can avoid the ritual of glossing over or ignoring the problems we see around us.

Which leads me to conclude with a thought I have for another post.