Concerns about micromanagement has come up several times this past year at Clarkston Board of Education meetings, including in “School board members focus on operations,” March 26, 2014; “School board split after 4.5-hour meeting,” April 30, 2014; “Meetings too long,” July 16, 2014; “Back-ups OK’d for schools,” August 20, 2014; and “Committee concerns,” Oct. 16, 2014.
Here’s what school board candidates have to say about it.

Elizabeth Egan said there are many requests for information, discussions around report formats and ‘word-smithing? that seems to delay the board’s ability to make decisions.
“It is not the duty of the board to correct or change the marginal aspects of the information shared,” Egan said. “Board meetings are now typically 4-5 hours long, even with fewer agenda items. The board is wasting precious legal and central office resources with trivial tasks by dictating the ‘correct way? to create reports, write job goals and excessive validation of every need before the board will take action. We should not tell employees how to do their jobs.?
The 54 strategic initiatives in the strategic plan are job goals for key administrators in the central office, she said.
“The strategy for the district should focus on the classroom, student performance and what programs we hope to offer students,” she said. “The belief that any request from any individual board member must be provided without giving thought to the cost or relevance of retrieving an answer, has permeated into the board norms.
‘I believe in reasonable, relevant and fair information requests for the purpose of making decisions. I am willing to make a decision with less than perfect information because there is no data for the future ? we create the future.”
Asked about an “us vs. them” mentality on the board, Egan said there should not be ‘sides? to the board membership and the public should be very concerned about the indecisiveness and hostility expressed at the table.
“I’m here for the kids,” she said. “I listen for other’s perspective but worry that personal motives and self-serving dialogue inhibits decision making. I do not speak often but am often interrupted when I speak.
‘Sadly said at the board table last fall was that ‘Trust is a word that doesn’t belong at the board table.’ Our official title is trustee and we represent the public trust, making sure we are investing our school funds in the future success of our students.”
The board needs to invest in professional development as a whole instead of individual trustees attending training at this point, she said.
“We also need to finish the board self-evaluation that was started in July,” Egan said. “We need meaningful discussions, decision making and more respect towards our Superintendent and administrators. I expect the Board to model behavior we expect of our students and staff.”

Steve Hyer said the board of education is an elected position filled by community members.
“It is our job to hire a superintendent that fits well within our school district’s values and can run the day to day operations of the school district,” Hyer said. “The school board sets policies the district must be run by. Beyond that, the school board should not be involved in the daily operations of the district.”
The board hires professionals, a qualified superintendent who employs very competent administrators, attorneys and other consultants, financial planners, architects, technology, etc., who are paid for their professional guidance, he added.
“We need to respect their expertise,” he said. “It is the role of the board to rely on the recommendations from our administration and consultants, ask questions to seek understanding, and then make decisions in the best interest of our kids and our community.”
If the school board is attempting to dictate salaries or get into the implementation details of the technology network, the board is indeed micromanaging, he said.
“The board is not a group of people to scrutinize every detail of every decision. It is not the role of the board to assert themselves as the experts in education, facilities, or technology because this is not why we are here,” Hyer said. “We have seven people who are elected to represent our kids and our community through policy governance only.”
The board of education should be enabling and empowering the administration, making sure recommendations fit within policies and community standards, and then act on those recommendations, he said.
“I do not support micromanaging,” he said. “I support letting the Administration run the district while still having the proper checks and balances in place such as the annual financial audit.”
Hyer said he makes decisions on the school board as an individual thinker.
“I am not part of any caucus nor do I discuss my decisions with any other board members ahead of time,” he said. “I come to each meeting with an open mind and try to listen to the discussion, ask questions, and then render a decision that is in the best interest of our kids and our community.
‘I do not make decisions in a political manner, as ‘you support me on this one and I will support you on that one.’ That has no place on a nonpartisan school board as all decisions have to benefit our kids and community.”
Board members should vote independently without consideration for how anyone else is going to vote, he said.
“It certainly seems at times that certain board members are supporting each other just to support each other, forgetting the bigger picture. If we must hold up debate any time one board member has a question or is not ready to move forward, we will never get anything done as a school board,” he said. “Kids and our community should be the focus of every decision the school board makes and board members should be voting as independent thinkers.”

Rosalie Lieblang said the board is not micromanaging the district.
“The main responsibilities of the Board are to set the vision and goals for the district, define policy, establish and oversee the annual budget and hold the Superintendent accountable for results,” Lieblang said. “To accomplish these responsibilities, we embarked upon a new Strategic Plan process to set the vision, with the corresponding goals being defined in the Annual Plan. Using the expertise and guidance of Dr. Joan Sergent from Oakland Schools, the Administration provided us with the necessary data and we had many board discussions.”
Once the Annual Plan and associated budget is completed and approved, it is then the administration’s responsibility to execute the plan. At the end of each year, the board and administration will evaluate the results.
“This is a new process for us and because we are doing it for the first time, it may seem very detailed, however, it is important work that needs to be done,” she said. “Since we will have some previous experience, next year I would expect the Annual Plan/Budget process to be more streamlined.”
There really should not be an Us vs. Them mentality on the school board, Lieblang said.
“A board is comprised of seven individuals who may not always think alike,” she said. “Through information provided by the administration and discussion at the board table, we have a chance to hear facts as well as other board member’s thoughts and views. We may agree or disagree and that’s okay. Board decisions do not need to be 7-0. Each board member needs to consider the facts and the discussion and make the best decision possible.”

As a first time candidate for school board, Donald E. Deering said he cannot speak to this issue directly because it would be an unfair and premature assessment of his potential future colleagues on the board.
“On the other hand, no entity, large or small, can prosper under the tenants of micromanagement,” he said. “Furthermore, I would not support any micromanagement tactics, but rather empower and hold accountable those that have been granted the position to lead and serve the community.”
The Board of Education must hold any and all administrators accountable for delivering the best possible well-rounded education and outcomes for which resources are available, he said.
‘To that end, there should be a collaborative effort between all parties involved to honestly, openly and transparently work toward this collective goal,? he said.
Deering said he does not support the notion of an “us vs. them” mentality on the school board, nor any other organization.
“This is a destructive mentality that thwarts productivity and stifles potential success by diverting energy toward something maladaptive and unproductive,” he said.

Challenger Kelli Horst said the board’s responsibility is to provide clear guidance that empowers the administration to implement the district’s mission.
“This guidance should represent our community’s values and be based on collaborative discussion and input from the experts who work on behalf of our students,” Horst said.
“When board members dictate operational details, it perpetuates a lack of trust and respect for administrators as professionals and results in unnecessary and unacceptable delays that impact our children.”
Clarkston deserves school board members who act collaboratively, professionally and courteously at the board table and in the community when representing our schools, she said.
“The antagonism among board colleagues and directed at district employees does not reflect the Clarkston I know, nor does it improve educational quality and achievement,” she said.