A substantial portion of the meeting was dedicated to the board’s self-evaluation and goal-setting process, revealing a need for clearer articulation of the district’s mission and vision. The board’s self-evaluation process highlighted a disconnect between board actions and their stated objectives, with a particularly low score of 1.9 in articulating vision and mission. The board recognized that the mission and vision had not been updated for eight to ten years, contributing to this disconnect. This lapse was identified as a factor in the board’s ability to engage effectively with district stakeholders. A proposal was made to involve the community in updating the mission and vision, which would serve both as an engagement strategy and an opportunity to refine the board’s guiding principles.

The meeting also addressed the timing and alignment of goal evaluations with the fiscal year. Traditionally, evaluations occur in July and August, with goal adoption in September. However, previous attempts to adopt goals had faltered, resulting in a lack of follow-through and a score of 1.6 for ensuring that the superintendent develops measurable plans to achieve district goals. The board discussed the need for structured updates on progress toward goals, suggesting updates in December, February, and spring to facilitate a more straightforward evaluation process.

Another focus was the board’s strategic governance and policy management. Members expressed difficulty navigating disorganized information, which hindered their ability to fulfill responsibilities effectively. A structured agenda was suggested to streamline meetings and improve focus, with the integration of strategic planning into the board’s schedule proposed as a potential solution. The resurgence of activity in the policy committee was met with optimism, recognizing the need for effective policy utilization as part of governance. A “policy wellness check” was introduced to review the policy manual, identify necessary updates, and align policies with current procedures.

The board also discussed student achievement recognition beyond athletics. Concerns were raised about the lack of acknowledgment for non-athletic accomplishments, leading to a proposal for character awards to recognize students for qualities like kindness and generosity. This initiative aimed to enhance the acknowledgment process without creating new categories.

In terms of governance, the board explored the idea of setting board norms to improve collaboration and communication. This included a discussion on the need for a formal document outlining operating norms or codes of conduct. The absence of such a document was highlighted as a potential drawback, emphasizing the importance of agreed-upon guidelines to foster respect and structured communication within the board.

Concerns about onboarding new board members were also addressed, with suggestions for a more comprehensive onboarding process, including mentorship programs to assist new members. The existing onboarding practices were described as insufficient, with some members noting experiences of learning “as you go.”

Although data is collected, it is not necessarily presented at board meetings or disseminated through the district’s websites. The board expressed a desire for regular student achievement updates, potentially through presentations by administrators at board meetings, to provide the public with insights into student progress and performance.

Finally, the evaluation process for the superintendent was discussed, with a proposal for a more inclusive approach involving the entire non-conflicted board in compiling the evaluation. This inclusion was seen as fostering a collaborative environment and ensuring that all board members’ perspectives are considered.