Harassment, Interpretation, & Committees

TESBM: You don't have a bad board member problem. You have a values enforcement problem.

The organizing principle of effective school board governance is that student outcomes don't change until adult behaviors change. That principle applies to every adult in the system — including board members. If one board member's behavior is becoming the focus instead of the students being the focus, the board's job is to address that behavior the same way it would address any other barrier to student outcomes. If the board is not doing so, that's a failure of the board to honor its values more than it is a failure of the board member in question.

If your board has adopted Guardrails for the board (in addition to the Guardrails for the superintendent), then it's time to put them to work. If you haven't, your board's code of conduct is likely your best proxy though most are too vague. Ideally, the board has policy that describes adult behavior that is unacceptable on the journey toward improving student outcomes. But like any other Guardrail, it's only effective if it's monitored and enforced. If the board adopts a Guardrail against disruptive behavior but doesn't enforce it, that Guardrail simply doesn't exist in practice. The board isn't failing because of one member's behavior. It's failing because it won't enforce the boundaries it already set.

It's worth pausing to highlight one point: harassment in general isn't illegal. If we aren't talking about a protected class, then what you're dealing with is a public official whose message or style you disagree with. That simply needs to be endured as they have every right to express themselves however they want within the bounds of the law. Notice I didn't reference harassing behavior, I referenced disruptive behavior. Public officials can largely say whatever they want however they want within the bounds of the law. What they can't do, however, is disrupt the proceedings from proceeding. Even if your policies don't draw that distinction, your state laws likely do. So instead of trying to police opinions that public officials have a right to express, focus on defining what constructive vs disruptive behavior looks like and don't accept disruptive behavior. 

So with that in mind, here are general principles based on what we see most often. First, the board chair needs to address the behavior in the moment. Not after the meeting. Not in a private conversation. During the meeting, with a clear statement: "Disrupting the meeting by speaking beyond your allotted time violates our board's code of conduct. Please honor the same rules that all board members must honor." This isn't a personal confrontation — it's monitoring. The board chair is checking whether the Guardrail is being honored. Second, the board needs a predictable process for escalating consequences. Start with a formal 1-on-1 conversation (most state laws allow this). Then, if necessary, a 2-on-1 conversation. Then, if necessary, escalate from there. Predictable processes create stronger accountability than informal conversations. Third, the board needs to document each incident and treat patterns as evidence. A single incident informs a conversation. A pattern informs an enforcement action.

The central distinction here is between the board's collective responsibility and an individual member's behavior. The board is collectively responsible for creating the conditions for improved student outcomes. Tolerating behavior that disrupts the board's ability to function directly undermines that responsibility. We recommend the board ask itself one question: what message are we sending to students about how adults should treat each other? Because that's the lesson they're learning when you don't enforce your values — whether you intend it or not.

TESBM: I'm not sure I understand this question, so let me start with the basics. 

In our work, we see four types of board policy, four questions that only the board can answer -- no one else. The four questions are:

Every policy a school board needs to adopt fits into one of those four categories. But policies do require some interpretation, so someone has to be delegated the task of interpreting them whenever the board is not in session. When the board is in session, it gets to interpret its own policies if it so chooses. But when it's not, that work is delegated to two people. Interpretation of Goals and Guardrails policies is delegated to the superintendent. Interpretation of Delegation and Governing policies is delegated to the board chair.

So one answer to your question might be: has your delegate failed to provide their interpretation of a policy that's in need of clarification? If so, ask them for it. Or another answer to your question might be: have you lost faith in your delegate? If so, well, that leads to a harder but obvious question.

Beyond those two gut checks, we recommend two steps. First, consider auditing your existing policy manual. Separate the policies that belong to the board — Goals and Guardrails, Delegation & Governing — from the policies that belong to the superintendent — everything else. The board's job in this area is to set policy, then monitor it, then align resources based on what you've set and monitored. The superintendent's job is to implement everything else. Second, for the policies that are board work, test each one against this question: would the board be comfortable with any reasonable interpretation of the goals? If the answer is no, rewrite it until the answer is yes.

TESBM: The first question isn't how to make your committees more effective. It's whether they should exist in the first place.

Most board committees aren't created to improve student outcomes. They're created to keep board members busy and feeling relevant. And busy boards that are seeking relevance are more likely to drift away from their commitments than are focused ones. I once saw a board with seven members and seven committees; each member got to be a chair of something related to their campaign promises. At one point, one committee somehow made its way to debating milk. What this tells us is that when board members want to contribute and be relevant -- the basic expectation we all had when we raised our hand to serve in the first place -- effective boards create an effective path for that to happen.

Committees are useful for chewing on a specific, time-limited issue that needs deeper work before coming before the full board. But the topics a board committee works on need to be board work:  something directly related to Goals, Guardrails, or legal requirements of the board. Regardless of which of those it is, we recommend a simple test for whether or not the committee is effective. For every committee your board has, answer three questions: 

If all three of those are in place, then your committee is probably already well on its way to being effective. If any of those is missing, by definition your committee is ineffective.

If your takeaway from this was that committees are bad, you've missed the entire message. Let me simplify it: children don't have time for adults to not be focused. Using committees in ways that are in direct alignment with the Goals and that have clear deliverables, due dates, and sunset provisions honors the focus children deserve. Anything else is more interested in honoring adults; we recommend that those committees simply don't exist.

Explore how board self-evaluation strengthens governance and supports improved outcomes for students.

Rick Maloney shares about how to improve local school board governance.

The world around school boards is evolving. Are they evolving along with it?

Total Minutes: 222mins

Minutes Focused on Student Outcomes: 0mins

Key Topics: Student transportation, Staffing, Library

What Coach Celebrates:

What Coach Recommends:

Board members, as representatives of the vision and values of the community, are going to have questions, concerns, and requests related to things they hear from the community. What are the best ways to manage all this in a manner that doesn’t dilute the board’s focuse on student outcomes? Let’s talk about it!

11am central on Friday, June 12, 2026

RSVP Here