policy meeting report – goochland county school...

Running head: Policy meeting report - holmes 1

Policy Meeting Report – Goochland County School Board – February 25, 2014

Philip W. Holmes

Virginia Commonwealth University – EdD in Leadership Cohort 4

Policy meeting report - holmes 2

Policy Meeting Report – Goochland County School Board – February 25, 2014

At the beginning of this semester, I knew that my work responsibilities would be heavy

during the first quarter, and so I was glad to hear that we had the option to watch a video of a

policy board meeting rather than attend a board meeting in person. While the flexibility was

appealing, this option also aligned with my personal bias that the processes that doctoral students

review should be the same processes that rank and file individuals would follow. Implicit in this

bias was my assumption that more people would watch a board meeting via video than in person.

I have since concluded that my assumption is likely incorrect. Based on my limited

experience, I must conclude that few citizens actually watch videotaped sessions of their local

government’s official meetings. For example, Goochland County School Board’s website shows

the number of “hits” for each of their videotaped sessions, and the session I have chosen for this

report (February 25, 2014) has had only 25 views (some of which are from me and, I suspect, at

least a few of my fellow students). However, the camera at this session at one point scanned the

audience, and it appeared that fewer than a dozen citizens were in attendance anyway, so perhaps

the video audience was indeed greater.

I have also learned that the audio-visual capabilities of most local municipalities are

limited. While the audio is generally good, the single camera invariably is placed far back

enough that the entire board is visible, which reduces resolution. I have done my best to fulfill

the obligations of this assignment via the audio-visual capture that the Goochland County School

Board has provided; however, if future cohorts were to ask me about this assignment, I would

urge them to attend in person. The resolution of the cameras used by Goochland County (and

my experience suggests that their technology is among the best in the region) simply does not

allow for easy recognition or confirmation of who on the school board is actually talking.


Agenda of the Board Meeting Attended/Viewed

GOOCHLAND COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD REGULAR MONTHLY WORKSHOP

GOOCHLAND ADMINISTRATION BUILDING1800 Sandy Hook Road, Room 250, Goochland, VA

February 25, 2014 at 6:30 P.M.(Closed meeting at 6:00 p.m.)

PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Call to Order

2. Closed Meeting Is there a motion to go into closed meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(1) of the Code

of Virginia for the discussion of the appointment, retirement, and resignations of specific personnel of the Board.

3. Reconvene in Open Meeting Is there a motion to certify that only public business matters lawfully exempted from open

meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and only such public business matters as were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered in the meeting by the Board?

4. Moment of Silence

5. Pledge of Allegiance

6. Additions / Amendments / Adoption of Proposed Agenda

7. Public Comment Period

8. Consent Agenda A. Personnel Action B. January Financial Update (Budget Transfers)

9. Information Items: A. Minority Student Achievement Advisory Update B. Annual Crisis Plan Update 1. Divisionwide Crisis Plan 2. School Safety Inspection Checklist C. Facilities Committee Update D. Grants Committee Update E. GMS Student Academic Placement Guidelines F. Lost Instructional Time Due to Snow: Verbal Report (Testing Calendar)

10. Action Item: A. Architecture Firm Contract - Notice of Award (Contract) B. Transportation Agreement: 4-H Camp

11. Policy Updates and New Policy: First Reading


EBA: Building and Grounds Inspection (GCPS) (Rev) EBAA: Reporting of Hazards (New) EBCD: School Closings (GCPS) (Rev) EC: Buildings and Grounds Management and Maintenance (GCPS) (Rev)

ECA: Inventory and Reporting of Loss or Damage (GCPS) (Rev) ECAB: Vandalism (GCPS) (Rev) EDC: Authorized Use of School-Owned Materials (GCPS) (Rev) EF: Food Service Management (GCPS) (Rev) EFB: Free and Reduced Price Food Services (GCPS) (Rev) EFD: Food Sanitation Program (GCPS) (Rev)

12. Closed Meeting (if necessary)

13. Adjournment

Seating Arrangement

The five members of the Goochland County School Board are in the middle of the photograph

above. Starting from the left, the first two individuals are staff and were not identified. The third

individual is school board member John D. Wright. The fourth individual is school board

member W. Kevin Hazzard. Beside him (to the left of the flags) is the superintendent, Dr. Lane.


Next (to the right of the flags) is Michael E. Payne, the chairman of the school board. Next to

Mr. Payne is John L. Lumpkins, the vice-chairman of the school board. Then we see the last

member of the school board, Elizabeth A. Hardy. The man beside Elizabeth Hardy is Dr. Geyer,

the assistant superintendent of instruction.

Policy Issues on the Agenda

There were ten policy issues on the agenda, all of which pertained to support services (E).

1. Buildings and Grounds Inspection (Policy EBA)

2. Reporting of Hazards (Policy EBAA)

3. School Closings (Policy EBCD)

4. Buildings and Grounds Management and Maintenance (Policy EC)

5. Inventory and Reporting of Loss or Damage (Policy ECA)

6. Vandalism (Policy ECAB)

7. Authorized Use of School-Owned Materials (Policy EDC)

8. Food Service Management (Policy EF)

9. Free and Reduced Price Food Services (Policy EFB)

10. Food Sanitation Program (Policy EFD)

All policies except number 9 (Free and Reduced Price Food Services) are clearly

regulatory policies. The Free and Reduced Price Food Services Policy appears to be

redistributive; however, the discussion of this policy was superficial and regulatory in nature; the

amendments were slight; and it was approved at first reading without discussion.

Public Comments

Perhaps because of poor winter weather conditions that various school board members

referenced throughout the meeting, public attendance was slight. Most of the recording showed


the point of view of the audience (that is, looking at the board members); however, the camera at

one point showed the audience (from the point of view of the board members), and fewer than a

dozen citizens appeared to be in attendance. There were no public comments.

Board Member Participation

The most frequent speaker was board member W. Kevin Hazzard, who spoke 28 times.

He was followed by board chairman Michael E. Payne, who spoke 23 times. The vice chairman

of the board, John L. Lumpkins, spoke 22 times. The remaining two board members, John D.

Wright and Elizabeth A. Hardy, both spoke six times.

It would be appropriate for the chairman to speak frequently, and Mr. Payne’s numbers

are therefore not remarkable. While there were no overt power struggles noted, the fact that a

non-chairman (Mr. Hazzard) spoke more often than the chairman is worthy of note. Mr. Hazzard

was by far the most animated of all of the board members, and he was also the loudest speaker of

all of the board members. While I have no knowledge of the history of the Goochland County

School Board, I would not be surprised to learn that Mr. Hazzard has had his eyes on the

chairmanship in the past, nor will I be surprised to learn of any future moves on his part in that

direction in the future.

Verbal and Non-Verbal Power Cues

The arrangement of the seats is by itself an indication of power. The seats are arranged in

a broad “U” style, and the chairman of the board and the superintendent of schools occupy the

middle section of that U. The other school board members sit to the left or right of the

superintendent and the chairman. Thus, power is funneled toward the middle of the U. While

this may be coincidental, the school board members in the middle section of the U made the


highest number of comments (Hazzard, Payne, and Lumpkins) and the school board members on

the left and right sections of the U (Wright and Hardy) made the fewest comments.

At one point, school board chairman Payne asked the members if they had any questions

about a particular issue, and it was only after they declined to offer any questions that he offered

his own questions. While on the surface this seemed to be an example of simple courtesy, it also

reflected the hierarchy of the school board (the members all speak, and then the chairman speaks,

giving the “final word” on the issue in question). However, after the chairman had offered his

final questions, board member Hazzard spoke up with two additional questions of his own.

Thus, board member Hazzard ended up making the final comments on this issue, despite the

chairman’s earlier attempt to do so. I might not have noticed this maneuvering if I had not

noticed earlier that board member Hazzard actually made more comments during this meeting

than the chairman of the board.

At one point, school board member Wright and school board chairman Payne both spoke

in response to a question from the superintendent. Dr. Lane asked the chairman whose question

he should address first, and the chairman told him to respond to his question first. This was a

surprisingly overt display of the power of the board chairman.

How Language Indicated Intent of the Policy

Although ten policies were on the agenda, they were each described by the administration

in very general and prosaic terms, and it was clear from the outset that the board was expected to

approve these policies “at first reading.” None of the policies was described in a way that

strongly encouraged commentary or questions, and few comments or questions were offered by

the members of the school board. While the Policy Updates and New Policy segment of the


meeting took about an hour, the review was relatively straight-forward and raised little

controversy.

Cost Analysis/Cost Effectiveness of Policies

Cost analysis and cost effectiveness questions arose during the school board meeting

before the policy issues were raised (especially regarding the update from the Facilities

Committee and the review of the Architecture Firm Contract, both of which occurred during the

“Information Items” segment of the school board meeting). No questions about cost analysis or

cost effectiveness were raised during the entire segment devoted to Policy Updates and New

Policies.

Bolman and Deal Organizational Frame of Policies Discussed

It was very clear that the Bolman and Deal organizational frame of the policies being

discussed was structural, even with policy 9 (Free and Reduced Price Food Services), which on

its surface might appear political or possibly human resources in nature. In every case, the

policies were intended to affirm or reaffirm rules or guidelines in place at the county, state, or

federal level. There were no comments raised about the impact of these policies (pointing

perhaps to a human resources perspective) or to the wants or needs of competing groups (the

political perspective). Nor were there any comments raised about how any actions taken by the

board in response to these policies might be perceived or misperceived (the symbolic

perspective).

As a Leader, What Might I Have Done Differently?

All of the policies brought before the school board were approved “at first reading,” so it

is not possible for me to imagine doing anything differently to obtain a better result; however,

many of the presentations made by the staff to the board seemed rather casual, and if I were


coaching Goochland Public Schools on this topic, I would recommend a more professional and

less collegial approach.

policy meeting report – goochland county school...

Documents