Michael D. Johnson is executive director emeritus of the Illinois Association of School Boards. This is part four of a five-part series.
Editor’s note: In September 2000, Michael D. Johnson became just the fifth full-time executive director in the 98-year history of the Illinois Association of School Boards. He retired from that role in May 2007 and returned in July 2007 as executive director emeritus to focus on the transition to a new executive and to help with fundraising for the Association. He will relinquish that role and end 11-plus years of service with IASB in June 2012.
This is the fourth of five articles Johnson will write for The Journal, outlining what he and the Association have done and where he believes both are heading. In this issue, Johnson reviews the role of the board of directors in Association governance.
Just what is the role of the board of directors in Association governance? Who are they and what do they do? How do they impact local member districts and their school boards?
These are questions any non-profit association might face. The answers are equally important to the Illinois Association of School Boards and how it operates.
The Association’s constitution provides that major policies be established by an annual delegate assembly and places governance in the hands of an elected board of directors. The board of directors — made up of officers and regional directors — employs an executive director and approves annual budgets to carry out the work of the Association, through its offices in Springfield and Lombard.
The IASB board of directors establishes policies governing the Association and setting standards for its management and operations. These governance policies establish ends for the Association, including a statement of its mission, define the limits on executive authority of the staff, set forth board procedures and describe the board/staff relationship. Taken together, these governance policies provide clear direction for the staff organization.
Although IASB board policies can provide considerable insight into the governance process for local boards of education, the governance policies of a not-for-profit association differ from those of a public school district.
In fact, there is a significant difference between a local board of education that is elected and the corporate board that is appointed and responsible for IASB governance. The constitution, policies and practices of this board combine to create a governance structure designed to keep directors from having to choose between what’s good for the Association and what’s good for their local district.
Let me give a few examples:
Our board of directors does not vote on dues every year. Instead, district member dues are based on a formula that fluctuates by local enrollment, budget, etc., so that it may go up or down in a given year. If the directors had to vote on it annually, that could impose a hardship on their local district and put them in conflict with their local interests and fellow board members.
And because our directors support an Association budget and dues structure that does not place 100 percent of the budget burden on member dues, local districts can pick and choose what fee-based services they prefer or need. This also increases the accountability required of staff to members, staff to the executive director, and executive director to the board of directors.
Likewise, IASB directors adopted a formula with inflation factors to set the annual conference fee that doesn’t require them to act every year, or force them to make arbitrary decisions to raise or lower or freeze registration fees based on emotions or conditions. The formula is set, and the fees are predictable and fairly adjusted.
Here’s another example. The Delegate Assembly is charged with voting on Association position statements, via resolutions submitted by local school boards, but the board of directors is largely removed from this political process. The directors who do sit on the resolutions committee screen and hear rationale for these resolutions, but they themselves do not cast the decisive vote on them.
Lobbying is an essential part of our work, but it is not handled by the directors. And because this authority is given over to Association staff, IASB is always well represented at the table when negotiations on critical education issues are decided. Very few other associations enjoy this type of support and autonomy. And the results show when potentially damaging legislation or mandates are minimized or eliminated.
So what does this board of directors do?
They set the standards for the Association staff, provide leadership and model it for local boards.
It’s not uncommon for the directors to see and hear reports and demonstrations of new programs or services developed by Association staff. Although they do not approve or disapprove these programs, directors do approve the budget that allows staff to research and implement the programs and services the Association provides to local districts.
I credit our board of directors for advocating for IASB’s entrepreneurial spirit. That support encourages the Association staff to be leaders in our fields, to look forward and anticipate what members need, and to find the best people and resources to provide it. IASB has always been the leader that other state associations follow and look to for guidance.
Because governance of the Association is based on geographic representation, it also allows for regional input and differences. For example, each of our 21 divisions has its own bylaws, which vary by division and expand or contract how they govern locally. That allows for division dinner meetings to reflect what the local board members want and need, and not carbon copy a template that IASB staff or the directors might dictate.
Each division is also responsible for electing the person it wants to have a seat on the IASB board of directors. There is no term limit, per se; rather, directors serve so long as the division supports them, and provided the directors continue as locally elected school board members.
The one exception to this is the one-year terms that our Association officers serve. Each officer can serve two consecutive years, so if a person moves up the ranks from vice president to president to past president, their maximum career service is six years.
At that point, they can join the “old goats club” of IASB past presidents. This distinguished group represents the history of the Association and provides invaluable wisdom, experience and support for those coming up the ranks. They also help new officers and directors avoid repeating any mistakes from the past.
What qualities make for an effective director or outstanding officer?
I’ve had the privilege of working with many good ones and a few great ones in my 11-year tenure. I believe those qualities include a capacity for leadership, a grasp for seeing and doing what is best for the entire state, and a commitment to serve above and beyond the hours spent at local board meetings. Although we try very hard to keep their local service ahead of any service they provide as directors, the ones who survive — and thrive — at both are those individuals who can accommodate and balance these commitments without conflict.
If you want to learn more about the Association’s governance policies, go to the IASB website and click on this link: http://iasb.com/pdf/GovPolicies.pdf. And if you want a current list of the officers and directors, you can find it in the front of this magazine, or by linking to it at: http://iasb.com/whatis/officers.cfm.
Next issue: the transition of executive directors