Tim:

This is an interesting argument. I would love Trustee Stratton to way in on this question. Jerre operates under the assumption that meetings equal output and effectiveness.

Also, do longer meetings mean more is actually getting done? Maybe, we should ask staff how much time they spend preparing for meetings and implementing the will after the meetings and what effects that has on their other departmental functions?

About two years ago I had a conversation with my father about meetings. Frustrated that I was spending majority of my day as a bank manager attending long meetings and not getting to actual productive work or to build my team that were dealing with new functions, I asked for some advice.

My father ran meetings with a board table and no chairs in the room. He says people don't like to stand forever and will speak very effficiently and only stick to the items on the agenda. Chairs equal comfort, comfort doesn't encourage urgency...

When I ran a meeting I implemented it to much success. My meetings were very quick and we accomplished the same things, but faster. I advised my managers who were also growing disgusted with the meetings filled with blowhards who talked a lot and implemented very little.

Soon all the meetings had no chairs to sit in... Productivity went up and meetings went down. Most importantly, communication improved because we were all more focused on the most urgent matters only.

My view is that meetings should be limited down to the implementable discussion points only. I have been to many workshops, meetings, and programs of all boards where discussions took place with no actual action or agreement being taken or reached. To me, I just felt like what is the point if you aren't really going to take action?

When I see meetings dragging out on one item, I most likely believe my representative has not prepared and asked these questions of staff prior to the meeting.

A year ago, I read a book entitled "America The Vulnerable". Great read on port security. One of the chief complaints was that the Secretary of Homeland Security spends 95% of his time either on the hill giving testimony or in the White House. Essentially, at this level it's all meetings, but it begs the question, if one is testifying to congress every day, how much real time is the Director of Homeland security actually spending blending his departments into a cohesive force?

Shouldn't the goal be to efficiently run meetings and move urgently toward an outcome on items that are achievable?

Also, do we really need to hear what each member did each week? I know it's a feel good gesture to say I attended this event and that event, but I think time would be better served if those comments were submitted to the minutes prior to the meeting and more time was spent on agenda items. They will still be reflected in the minutes, but I can't tell you how many hours a month is lost across the board due to board members talking about what events they went to...Call me a cynic, but I'd rather see my leaders spend their meeting time efficiently getting through agenda items demanding from staff results.

Jerre: While I agree that urgency on major issues is needed, I'm not totally sure more meetings would enhance productivity.

Your thoughts?

Scott

Scott – I agree with you 100%.

At the last school board meeting, almost one hour was spent on two items. The members announcements of which events they attended is not productive use of time. Neither was the 45 minute presentation by one school on the wonderful things they were doing at the school. Both of these items could have been reduced to briefings that were part of the member’s packages. Further, the presentations could have been made part of the minutes, available to everyone on the district website.

Bottom line – if they want to spend so much time with self-congratulation, then they need to make the meetings longer or hold more of them so that real work can be accomplished.

What the board did do was blithely accept a 36 days schedule slip on bond-financed school construction – no discussion at all! Where I work, programs are tracked using “earned value”, a methodology that details cost and schedule variances. A program manager would be looking for a new job if he reported a schedule slip without good explanation AND a plan to recover the schedule loss.

Carla Kurachi rebuked the board for failure to actually follow-up on items that were deferred to another meeting – such as a discussion of why so few graduates have taken the necessary courses to enter the UC system.

Tim,
Blogging on a letter that Jerre wrote is like blogging on a blog entry. The Board meets weekly and all meetings are public. If you guys are so concerned then actually go to a meeting and speak up. I also notice Tim you don't blog much on your own blog, why is that?

Because it's an election year, and people seem less interested in actually reforming schools, than they do in talking politics.

I think California will look back in 5-10 years and wonder what happened to all of the great school reform ideas.

Hmmm...

Tim,
To which reform ideas do you refer?