TSPR Dallas Independent School District

Chapter 1
DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

This chapter discusses the organization and management of the Dallas Independent School District (DISD) in seven sections:

A. Governance

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

B. Planning

C. Policies and Procedures

D. District Management

E. School Management and Site-Based Decision-Making

F. Legal Services

G. Desegregation Order

A. GOVERNANCE (PART 1)
DISD's Board of Education consists of nine members elected from single-member districts. Trustees are elected to three-year terms on a rotating basis, with one-third of the board members up for election each year. Three trustees stood for election in May 2001. The discussion of board member activities that follows addresses the board that existed through May 2001, prior to the election.
The current board is listed in Exhibit 1-1.
Exhibit 1-1
DISD Board of Education
As of May 2001 Election

Name Title Term
Expires Full Years of Service as
of May 2001 Occupation

Ken Zornes President 2002 2 Years Teacher/Administrator

Ron Price 1st Vice President 2003 4 Years College Administrator

Kathleen Leos 2nd Vice President 2004 6 Years Education Consultant

George Williams Secretary 2003 2 Years Marketing Director

Roxan Staff Member 2002 5 Years Banker

Hollis N. Brashear Member 2002 9 Years Engineer

Lois Parrott Member 2003 5 Years College Professor

Lew Blackburn Member 2004 0 Years College Professor

Rafael Anchia Member 2004 0 Years Attorney

Source: DISD Superintendent's Office, May 2001.
Note: The board that was in place during the review included the following members not listed above: Se-Gwen Tyler, defeated by Lew Blackburn and José Plata, succeeded by Rafael Anchia. In addition, the following held leadership positions during the review: Roxan Staff, President; Se-Gwen Tyler, 1^st Vice President; Kathleen Leos, 2^nd Vice President and Ron Price, Secretary.
Regular board meetings are held on the fourth Thursday of each month at 6:00 p.m. in the auditorium of the Administration Building located at 3700 Ross Avenue. The public is welcome to attend all meetings and citizens wishing to address the board about specific agenda items must register before 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting in the Board of Education Office during regular office hours indicating the specific agenda items they wish to address. Citizens' comments are limited to three minutes. The board will not deliberate, discuss or make decisions on public comments unrelated to items on the meeting agenda.
The board also conducts a special monthly public forum for people to address issues other than those included as specific agenda items. The forum is limited to one hour and begins at the conclusion of business at the Committee of the Whole and immediately before the closed session held on the same day. Delegations of more than five people wishing to address the same item must appoint one person to represent the group's view to the board. Citizens cannot comment on individual personnel or individual students in either public session.
The board president and superintendent develop the agenda for board meetings. Agenda items, however, come from a variety of sources including board members, the superintendent or members of the superintendent's cabinet. Individual board members submit to the board president by the Friday before the regular meeting any item they wish to have considered on the agenda.
The superintendent and executive leadership team, beginning as early as three weeks prior to the regularly scheduled monthly board meetings, organize the agenda items, which usually are reviewed in either the Audit Committee, Governance and Policy Committee, Education Committee or the Committee of the Whole before the board meeting. An additional committee is the Public Input Committee, but that committee is not currently on the regular monthly meeting schedule.
The Audit, Governance and Policy and Education Committee meetings are held on the second Tuesday of the month and the Committee of the Whole meeting is held on the third Wednesday of the month. Board members can change the agenda as a result of items discussed in any of the committee meetings. The agenda is finalized and posted by the Friday before the regular board meeting. The executive director for Board Services, who serves as the board secretary, compiles the agenda books according to the finalized posted agenda that includes all supporting documents. The board secretary delivers the agenda books to board members on the Friday before the regularly scheduled Thursday meeting. Each board member has from Friday through Thursday to contact the superintendent or cabinet members with any questions or clarifications they need about information in the agenda book.
The board secretary prepares the official minutes of all open meetings. The board secretary, along with other board members, reviews the official minutes of all meetings for accuracy and completeness prior to approval. DISD makes both audiotapes and videotapes of open meetings and keeps them on file for two years.
The board's staff prepares audiotapes of discussions in closed session and forwards sealed tapes to the district's law firm for safekeeping.
FINDING
Although DISD board members appear to understand their roles and responsibilities, the majority of them do not restrict their activities to making policy. Board members can recite the textbook definition of their roles and responsibilities; however, some of them routinely attempt to individually participate in management activities. These activities include, but are not limited to, conducting monthly meetings with principals of schools, involving themselves in personnel decisions such as the appointment of principals and assistant principals, and contacting area superintendents and central administrators with time-consuming data requests. More than 50 percent of the 156 principals participating in the principals' focus groups said they have been contacted directly by board members to discuss position vacancies, student performance, teacher performance and issues brought to them by their constituents.
Some board members communicate directly with principals, scheduling meetings as if they were district administrators. Board members that have continuing, direct contact with principals throughout the system undermine the authority of the superintendent by engaging in administrative activities that are within the responsibility of members of the superintendent's cabinet and area superintendents.
Board members' misinterpretation of DISD's policies also contributes to micromanagement. For example, Board Policy BKB (LOCAL), Administrative Organization: Line and Staff Relations states: "Each employee in the district shall be responsible to the board through the general superintendent." This policy statement could be interpreted to mean that each employee of the district is ultimately responsible to the board, rather than to the superintendent, who is responsible to the board.
The board, in an effort to improve its existing governance structure, adopted John Carver's Policy Governance Model® on February 1, 2000 to change how it governs the district. The Policy Governance Model® is a "hands-off" governance model in which the board sets broad policy parameters, allows the superintendent to freely operate within those broad parameters and holds the superintendent accountable for results.
Board members attended targeted training related to the Policy Governance Model® conducted by John Carver before adopting the model. The John Carver training consisted of an introductory session funded by the business community and five separate training sessions funded by DISD at a cost of $89,801. Exhibit 1-2 summarizes the overall structure of the Carver Policy Governance Model® that is incorporated into board policies.
Exhibit 1-2
Structure of the Carver Policy Governance Model®
Incorporated into DISD Board Policies

Category Description

Executive Limitation Policies that establish prudence and ethical boundaries on staff action, limiting executive authority.

Governance Process Policies that deal with the "how" of governance itself, including the board's trusteeship role. The Governance Process describes the board's global governance commitment, governing style, job description, agenda planning, president's role, board members' code of conduct, committee principles, committee structure and the cost of governance.

Board - Superintendent Linkage Policies that set out the nature of delegation and accountability between the board and superintendent. Board - Superintendent Linkage describes the connection between global governance and management, unity of control (i.e., only officially adopted motions of the board are binding on the superintendent), accountability of the superintendent, delegation to the superintendent and monitoring superintendent performance.

Ends Policies that currently hold the board's previous mission-related intentions in place while the board defines its work and its relationship to strategic planning. ("Ends" are results to be achieved in students' lives, the recipients of those results where applicable and the cost or priority of those results-all with a long-term perspective. Ends policies are still under development.)

Source: DISD Board Policy Manual, Policy BA (LOCAL), adopted February 1, 2000.
As a result of adopting John Carver's Policy Governance Model®, Board Policy BA (LOCAL) specifically states: "Board members may not attempt to exercise individual authority over the district and members' interactions with the superintendent or with staff must recognize the lack of authority vested in individuals except when explicitly board authorized." However, neither the policy nor accompanying regulations explain the intent of the policy or list specific examples of micromanagement by board members considered to be prohibited. Consequently, board members are not clear what activities are prohibited. Exhibit 1-3 presents specific instances of micromanagement by DISD board members.
Exhibit 1-3
Specific Instances of DISD Board Micromanagement

Area Micromanagement Activity

Administration

Conducting meetings with principals in individual board members' areas.
Reprimanding principals related to problems presented to individual board members by parents and community members within their respective areas.
Attending conferences related to instructional programs and administrative functions with district administrators.
Requesting names of employees assigned by district administrators to perform district-related activities such as teams formed to improve student performance in low-performing schools.
Requesting data and information directly from members of the executive leadership team rather than submitting requests through the superintendent.

Personnel

Recommending to the superintendent candidates for principal and assistant principal.
Recommending candidates for jobs throughout the district.
Refusing to support superintendent's personnel action to terminate executive and management-level employees that report to the superintendent.

Legal

Assigning cases and requesting legal research from outside counsel in an individual capacity rather than as a corporate body.
Assigning cases to the board's law firm without notifying the in-house counsel, who is primarily responsible for case management.

Contracts

Recommending vendors to district administrators responsible for purchasing materials, supplies and services.
Working directly with the previous superintendent in an individual capacity rather than as a corporate body to promote contracts.
Directing district personnel, through committee, to consider vendors other than those recommended through the competitive bidding process.

Source: Interviews, focus groups and review of collected data.
The Carver Policy Governance Model® contains a broad policy statement about the board's "self-monitoring" process. Board Policy BA (LOCAL), Governing Style Item 2, Paragraph 6 states: "The board will monitor and discuss the board's process and performance at each meeting. Self-monitoring will include comparison of board activity and discipline to policies in the Governance Process and Board-Superintendent Linkage categories." However, the majority of board members said the board does not effectively control the activities of its members. As a result, some board members may be using their elected positions to act individually rather than as a member of a corporate body, to disrespect their colleagues and the public by walking in and out of public board meetings and to selectively inform certain board members of matters that potentially affect the board as a whole.
While the Governance Process and Board-Superintendent Linkage categories in Board Policy BA (LOCAL) outline specifically prohibited board activities in the Board Members' Code of Conduct and Accountability of the Superintendent, the categories do not establish a formal "self-policing" structure or describe specific sanctions for board members that engage in micromanagement activities. For example, Accountability of the Superintendent Item 3, Paragraphs 1 and 2 state: "The board will never give instructions to persons who report directly or indirectly to the superintendent and the board will not evaluate, either formally or informally, any staff other than the superintendent." However, the policy is not specific as to penalties that will occur if board members engage in such activities, such as the president of the board removing a member from a board leadership role.
Recommendation 1:
Expand the board members' code of conduct and develop standard operating procedures.
Board members should not take action as an individual, but rather they should act as a body during regular board meetings. Individual requests made by board members of staff that will take time and resources to fulfill should be included on the agenda and brought before the entire board for a majority vote before being acted upon. As a first step, the board should clarify the language in Board Policy BKB (LOCAL), Administrative Organization: Line and Staff Relations to make it clear that employees are responsible to the superintendent, and the superintendent is responsible to the board. Additionally, the board should establish standard operating procedures that gives specific examples of how members will handle day-to-day inquiries, requests for information from staff, direct contact with principals or administrators, handling of personnel related matters, appropriate contact with vendors and the board's attorneys and the like.
DISD's board should also develop a formal self-policing structure to address instances in which board members do not comply with board rules or conform to acceptable board decorum. The structure should be incorporated in board policy and accompanying procedures and should outline specific prohibited actions and related sanctions. For example, the board, as a corporate body, could give the board president the authority to publicly reprimand board members who act individually rather than as a corporate body, and the reprimand would be recorded in the official minutes of the board. Further, the president could also be given the authority to remove board members guilty of engaging in prohibited actions from leadership roles on board committees.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE

1. The president of the board appoints an ad hoc committee of the board to expand the code of conduct, complete with policies, procedures and related sanctions. August 2001

2. The superintendent directs the executive director for Board Services to work with the ad hoc committee to establish expectations for board conduct and develop a list of specific board-member behaviors that the board deems unacceptable. August 2001

3. The ad hoc committee obtains input from board members as to the type of self-policing structure and related sanctions they would prefer. September 2001

4. The ad hoc committee, in cooperation with the executive director for Board Services, drafts amendments to board policy and related procedures. The executive director for Board Services revises the language in Board Policy BKB (LOCAL), establishes expectations for board conduct and lists specific examples of micromanagement and unacceptable activities in the Board Policy Manual. September 2001

5. The superintendent reviews and approves the policy revisions made by the executive director for Board Services and submits to the board for approval. October 2001

FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
FINDING
Although DISD has a protocol for formal communications with the media that designates the board president or designee as spokesperson for the board, some board members do not follow the protocol, which has led to conflicting messages being sent to the media and ultimately the public. The DISD Communications Department has good relations with the local media despite the fact that it has experienced a considerable amount of negative press coverage over the past several years. TSPR conducted a telephone survey with eight major media outlets in the Dallas area to determine the effectiveness of DISD's Communications Department. Nearly all media representatives responding to the telephone survey said that accessibility to Media Relations staff and the superintendent was good. Most media representatives surveyed said the interim special assistant to the superintendent for Communications was particularly helpful with ensuring that all news (positive or negative) was disseminated in a timely manner.
The most significant problem with media relations is that individual board members often express opinions in press conferences that are not reflective of the majority of the board or the superintendent. These incidents magnify the perception that the district is disorganized and constantly dealing with conflict.
This practice occurs even though Board Policy GBBA (REGULATION), School Communications Program: News Media Relations states that the superintendent delegates the responsibility for news releases about overall district operations or activities that include more than one campus to the Communications Department.
Recommendation 2:
Revise the board policy on news releases to include protocols for how board members and administrators should communicate with the media.
DISD's Board Policy GBBA (REGULATION), School Communications Program: News Media Relations regarding news releases should be revised to state that all official statements about the district should come from the superintendent or superintendent designee. In most instances the superintendent designee should be the special assistant to the superintendent for Communications, who should function as the official spokesperson for the district. The policy should be revised further to state that individual board members should not have direct contact with the local media for the purpose of expressing opinions about official school district business, with the exception of communicating actions related to hiring and termination of the superintendent.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE

1. The special assistant to the superintendent for Communications drafts a revision to Board Policy GBBA (REGULATION) regarding news releases. August 2001

2. The special assistant to the superintendent for Communications submits the revised policy to the superintendent for review. August 2001

3. The superintendent reviews the draft policy and makes necessary changes. September 2001

4. The revised policy on news releases goes into effect. October 2001

FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
FINDING
Collectively, board members do not trust each other. The origins of mistrust stem from board members' feelings that their colleagues have personal agendas that conflict with the board's agenda, engage in "back-room" politics to advance their respective interests and do not respect differences of opinion.
TSPR interviewed all nine board members and noted that feelings of mistrust are pervasive and clearly affect school board governance. The following comments from board members contain examples of actions by board members that have contributed to the mistrust between members of the board:

"Board members have leaked information to the press. For example, someone leaked confidential information about the superintendent's search."
"Board members sometimes openly question the integrity of their colleagues, and the board cannot come together as a team."
"Often board presidents are elected with 5-4 or 6-3 votes indicating divisiveness among board members."
"All board members are not always provided the same information, and some board members block access of other board members to information that is often critical to informed board deliberations."
"The minority view (i.e., the view of those that disagree with the majority position on an issue) of the board is neither respected nor recognized by the majority, and differences of opinion are not respected, which breaks down trust."
"The minority vote does not want to accept the final vote of the majority and holds press conferences to undo the majority vote."
"Board members have filed lawsuits against their colleagues in the past."
"Some board members have gone into the community and made remarks to the media about fellow board members."

Additionally, some board members felt that trust among board members was damaged by the methods used by their colleagues to remove a previous board president from office. The majority of board members said this type of behavior has contributed to feelings of mistrust among members of the board. Some board members feel there are members that do not want the board to succeed, while others feel that existing relationships among board members cannot be mended and DISD would be best served if the entire board were replaced.
School boards typically use team-building training to understand each other's differences, build trust and establish a cohesive governance team that works together as a unit to achieve the overall goals for a school district. DISD board members have attended team-building training over the past five years sponsored by the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB). Exhibit 1-4 summarizes team-building training attended by board members between March 1, 1996 and November 20, 2000.
Exhibit 1-4
Team-Building Training Attended by DISD Board Members
March 1, 1996 through November 20, 2000

Name Current
Tenure Credit
Hours

Hollis N. Brashear June 1992 - Present 22.25

José Plata February 1995 - Present 22.25

Kathleen Leos May 1995 - Present 22.25

Lois Parrott February 1996 - Present 22.25

Roxan Staff May 1996 - Present 22.25

Ron Price May 1997 - Present 16.50

Se-Gwen Tyler September 1998 - Present 9.00

George Williams January 1999 - Present 9.00

Ken Zornes June 1999 - Present 9.00

Source: TASB Board Member Training Report, Reporting Period: 3/1/96 - 11/20/00.
The board has attended only nine hours of team-building training as a unit, which may have contributed to the members' inability to understand differences in their respective personalities and how to work together in spite of those differences.
The team-building training they have attended has not enhanced the level of trust among board members in the past and, in the opinion of several board members, the prospect of additional team-building to restore trust is futile.
In August 2000, the Institute for Educational Leadership convened the Task Force for School District Leadership, co-chaired by Dr. Rod Paige, Secretary of the United States Department of Education and former superintendent of Houston Independent School District (HISD) and Ms. Becky Montgomery, chairperson of the St. Paul Public Schools Board of Education, that was a part of the School Leadership for the 21^st Century Initiative. The task force was convened to heighten public awareness of the problems that confront the leadership echelons of the nation's public schools. In its report, entitled "Restructuring School District Leadership," issued in February 2001, the task force discusses strategies for dealing with dysfunctional boards, especially those with board members that are driven by special interests or partisan agendas. The report concludes that these activities often alter the performance of too many school board members, ultimately undercutting the stability of a school district over the long term. As a solution, the report suggests reconstituting a school board with an approach used by Dr. Paige in HISD where "the superintendent works with the community and civic leaders to (1) identify potential board members who will keep the best interests of the children at the forefront, and (2) provide community backing for the candidates of such individuals as a way to promote greater stability in the system."
With the assistance of a consultant, single-member districts for the DISD Board of Education are currently being redrawn, as a result of the 2000 Census. An election will be held in either November 2001 or May 2002, depending on whether the proposed redistricting plan will be challenged in court. Redistricting will provide a unique opportunity for the community to identify potential candidates that could possibly work together for the best interests of the children of DISD.
The Commissioner of Education often appoints monitors to assist school boards that are struggling with various governance issues. TEA charges districts about $400 per day plus expenses for the services of a monitor to attend all of the board's regular and committee meetings.
Recommendation 3:
Request that the Commissioner of Education appoint a monitor to advise board members on governance issues.
During the interim period before single-member districts are redrawn, DISD should request the services of a monitor to advise the board on governance issues, including their roles and responsibilities as a board member. The monitor would also critique the actions of individual board members and the board as a whole at each regular and committee meeting.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE

1. The board votes to request a monitor from the Commissioner of Education. August 2001

2. The board president contacts the Commissioner of Education to request a monitor to oversee all board meetings before school board elections are held in either November 2001 or May 2002. August 2001

3. The Commissioner of Education appoints a monitor to work with the board to improve trust and help the board work together. September 2001

4. The monitor attends all board meetings and monitors governance activity before school board elections. September 2001 -
April 2002

5. The elections are held and new board members are seated. May 2002

FISCAL IMPACT
TEA will charge DISD approximately $400 per meeting for professional services plus expenses of about $125 per meeting ($25 per diem plus $100 round trip airline ticket from Austin), for a total of $525 per meeting. There is one regular board meeting each month and four committee meetings that the monitor would attend each month.
To be conservative, TSPR assumes the election would occur in May 2002, so the monitor would attend meetings beginning in August 2001 through May 2002, or 10 months. There would be 10 regular board meetings and 40 committee meetings (4 per month X 10 months), for a total of 50 meetings.
The total one-time cost to the district would be $26,250 ($525 per meeting X 50 meetings) in 2001-02 only.

Recommendation 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Request that the Commissioner of Education appoint a monitor to advise board members on governance issues. ($26,250) $0 $0 $0 $0

Name	Title	Term Expires	Full Years of Service as of May 2001	Occupation
Ken Zornes	President	2002	2 Years	Teacher/Administrator
Ron Price	1st Vice President	2003	4 Years	College Administrator
Kathleen Leos	2nd Vice President	2004	6 Years	Education Consultant
George Williams	Secretary	2003	2 Years	Marketing Director
Roxan Staff	Member	2002	5 Years	Banker
Hollis N. Brashear	Member	2002	9 Years	Engineer
Lois Parrott	Member	2003	5 Years	College Professor
Lew Blackburn	Member	2004	0 Years	College Professor
Rafael Anchia	Member	2004	0 Years	Attorney

Category	Description
Executive Limitation	Policies that establish prudence and ethical boundaries on staff action, limiting executive authority.
Governance Process	Policies that deal with the "how" of governance itself, including the board's trusteeship role. The Governance Process describes the board's global governance commitment, governing style, job description, agenda planning, president's role, board members' code of conduct, committee principles, committee structure and the cost of governance.
Board - Superintendent Linkage	Policies that set out the nature of delegation and accountability between the board and superintendent. Board - Superintendent Linkage describes the connection between global governance and management, unity of control (i.e., only officially adopted motions of the board are binding on the superintendent), accountability of the superintendent, delegation to the superintendent and monitoring superintendent performance.
Ends	Policies that currently hold the board's previous mission-related intentions in place while the board defines its work and its relationship to strategic planning. ("Ends" are results to be achieved in students' lives, the recipients of those results where applicable and the cost or priority of those results-all with a long-term perspective. Ends policies are still under development.)

Area	Micromanagement Activity
Administration	Conducting meetings with principals in individual board members' areas. Reprimanding principals related to problems presented to individual board members by parents and community members within their respective areas. Attending conferences related to instructional programs and administrative functions with district administrators. Requesting names of employees assigned by district administrators to perform district-related activities such as teams formed to improve student performance in low-performing schools. Requesting data and information directly from members of the executive leadership team rather than submitting requests through the superintendent.
Personnel	Recommending to the superintendent candidates for principal and assistant principal. Recommending candidates for jobs throughout the district. Refusing to support superintendent's personnel action to terminate executive and management-level employees that report to the superintendent.
Legal	Assigning cases and requesting legal research from outside counsel in an individual capacity rather than as a corporate body. Assigning cases to the board's law firm without notifying the in-house counsel, who is primarily responsible for case management.
Contracts	Recommending vendors to district administrators responsible for purchasing materials, supplies and services. Working directly with the previous superintendent in an individual capacity rather than as a corporate body to promote contracts. Directing district personnel, through committee, to consider vendors other than those recommended through the competitive bidding process.

1.	The president of the board appoints an ad hoc committee of the board to expand the code of conduct, complete with policies, procedures and related sanctions.	August 2001
2.	The superintendent directs the executive director for Board Services to work with the ad hoc committee to establish expectations for board conduct and develop a list of specific board-member behaviors that the board deems unacceptable.	August 2001
3.	The ad hoc committee obtains input from board members as to the type of self-policing structure and related sanctions they would prefer.	September 2001
4.	The ad hoc committee, in cooperation with the executive director for Board Services, drafts amendments to board policy and related procedures. The executive director for Board Services revises the language in Board Policy BKB (LOCAL), establishes expectations for board conduct and lists specific examples of micromanagement and unacceptable activities in the Board Policy Manual.	September 2001
5.	The superintendent reviews and approves the policy revisions made by the executive director for Board Services and submits to the board for approval.	October 2001

1.	The special assistant to the superintendent for Communications drafts a revision to Board Policy GBBA (REGULATION) regarding news releases.	August 2001
2.	The special assistant to the superintendent for Communications submits the revised policy to the superintendent for review.	August 2001
3.	The superintendent reviews the draft policy and makes necessary changes.	September 2001
4.	The revised policy on news releases goes into effect.	October 2001

Name	Current Tenure	Credit Hours
Hollis N. Brashear	June 1992 - Present	22.25
José Plata	February 1995 - Present	22.25
Kathleen Leos	May 1995 - Present	22.25
Lois Parrott	February 1996 - Present	22.25
Roxan Staff	May 1996 - Present	22.25
Ron Price	May 1997 - Present	16.50
Se-Gwen Tyler	September 1998 - Present	9.00
George Williams	January 1999 - Present	9.00
Ken Zornes	June 1999 - Present	9.00

1.	The board votes to request a monitor from the Commissioner of Education.	August 2001
2.	The board president contacts the Commissioner of Education to request a monitor to oversee all board meetings before school board elections are held in either November 2001 or May 2002.	August 2001
3.	The Commissioner of Education appoints a monitor to work with the board to improve trust and help the board work together.	September 2001
4.	The monitor attends all board meetings and monitors governance activity before school board elections.	September 2001 - April 2002
5.	The elections are held and new board members are seated.	May 2002