This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE --This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
March/April 2004

How to avoid ‘no-policy' traps

by Brian A. Braun

Brian A. Braun, well-known school attorney and author of Illinois School Law Survey, wrote this article 25 years ago when he was an employee relations specialist on the IASB staff. It appeared in the May/June 1979 issue of The Illinois School Board Journal. We reprint the article now because it is just as relevant today as it was then.

A new house is being constructed in your district with completion expected in December. In September the family building the house wants to know what board policy says about the children in the family attending district schools for the entire year.

A teacher fails to report to work for three consecutive days without excuse and without notifying anyone. The superintendent wants to suspend the teacher pending a hearing, but after consulting board policy, can find no authority to do so.

A duly elected board member moves out of the district in the middle of his term, but fails to resign. His house in the district has not yet been sold. The board wants to know what it should do.

School boards faced with problems of this nature often rely on their administrators for answers. Because existing board policy often provides inadequate answers, both administrators and the board are forced to make decisions without the benefit of consistent guidelines. Districts without comprehensive policy manuals often rely on one of the following approaches when problem solving:

What did we do last time?

This method invariably leads to inconsistency and community controversy. Just as with teachers and students, the community is looking for consistency and justice in most board decisions. Because of the comparatively rapid turnover in board members and administrators when measured against the general stability of the community, trying to remember what was done last time is dangerous at best. Someone in the community will always have a longer memory than the most senior administrator. Using this approach provides no grounds on which to justify the board's decision. Since the board's judgment is made after the problem arises, the community will almost always complain that the board had an ulterior motive in reaching its decision.

Consult an expert.

This is the most common method of problem solving employed by districts that lack formal board policy. When faced with a thorny problem, the district runs to experts - lawyers, governmental agencies, advisors and other professionals. Generally, the district finds out that when four of these sources are consulted, the inquirer gets five different answers and a tap dance. This isn't to say there isn't a time and a place to consult experts - there is. Their use should be confined to situations where their expertise is really needed. Often experts are questioned about problems that an explicit, written policy could have taken care of.

Let's be reasonable.

Boards that use this problem-solving method find themselves in trouble more quickly than if any other approach is used. It is most often employed in small communities where the illusion of everyone being on an informal, friendly basis is still evident. This is generally a correct analysis of conditions - most of the time. The crisis develops the first time a really sensitive issue needs to be resolved. In these situations, reason will not suffice.

The legalities of the subject may not be reasonable; therefore, the board's reasoned solution may seem fair, yet be unlawful.

The "reasonable approach" is the one most likely to lead to inconsistencies in decision-making. What seems like a reasonable solution when a well-liked person presents a problem may not seem so reasonable when a known troublemaker presents the same problem.

Any case-by-case approach also puts the board in jeopardy in another way. When the board is trying to be fair in resolving a problem now, it often doesn't consider the implications of its decision on the future. By resolving in favor of fairness, the board often misses the fact that the precedent being set is unreasonable and actually will be unworkable.

Carefully constructed board policy will prevent many of these problems. It provides a workable set of rules by which the district operates. Good policy gives the district's administrators a set of guidelines under which they can make decisions in confidence. The wishes of the board are clear and the administrator need not face the worst of all enigmas - what do I do now ... should I call the board president ... all the board members ... will they reconsider after they've thought about it for awhile?

Good board policy forewarns both the community and employees. It provides predictability where decisions are anticipated, and thus prevents many problems before they arise.