JOSEPHSON
INSTITUTE
OF ETHICS

Ethics, Excellence and the
Los Angeles Unified School District
A Leadership Opportunity for the Board of Education
Presented Feb. 8, 2000

 

HISTORY

LAUSD Ethics Policy Statement and Code of Ethics. In September 1998 the former LAUSD Board of Education adopted a one-page Ethics Policy Statement and Code of Ethics applicable to the Board and all employees of the District.

Proposed LAUSD Governmental Ethics Policy. In December 1999 LAUSD's Internal Audit and Special Investigation's Unit submitted to the Board of Education's Budget, Finance, Audit and Technology Committee a 28-page Draft LAUSD Governmental Ethics Policy. The proposed policy is designed to replace the LAUSD Ethics Policy Statement and Code as well as existing LAUSD Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Code.

Terms of Engagement. In November 1999 Michael Josephson of the Josephson Institute of Ethics was retained by the Board of Education to review existing LAUSD ethics policies and make recommendations on how to formulate the initiation of a District-wide ethics program. The terms of engagement included personal interviews with Board members and senior staff of LAUSD and the presentation of findings and recommendations to the Board.

 

Background and Disclosures
Joseph & Edna Josephson Institute of Ethics

 

FINDINGS

  1. Dedicated Public Servants. The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is one of largest public entities in the world with an annual budget of $7.5 billion. It serves about 711,000 students and employs nearly 65,000 men and women including a seven-person school board. The great majority of these District employees are competent and dedicated public servants committed to the mission of providing a quality education in a safe and healthy environment.

  2. Ethical Issues Pervade All Relationships. As the training ground for an entire generation, public schools have a special opportunity and responsibility to teach and model ethical behavior. To do so requires a high level of sensitivity to issues such as integrity, responsibility, respect and fairness. Such issues pervade all the various relationships between and among students, parents, teachers, support staff, local and central administrators and members of the Board of Education. In addition, as government employees, those who work for the District are bound to know and comply with a special set of ethical requirements concerning conflicts of interest, the protection of private and confidential information and the duty to avoid even appearances of impropriety.

  3. Special Responsibilities of Leadership. In an educational setting, the ethical responsibilities of leadership are especially important. In the end, the most critical issues concern the way the Board, senior administrative staff, and other employees are, or are not, working together to address effectively the District's central mission.

  4. Erosion of Trust. The design of a District ethics program must take into account the impact of years of intense criticism concerning the poor performance of students and the failure of management to provide adequate facilities and supplies. The prolonged controversy surrounding the construction of Belmont High School became a focal point for accusations of incompetence, irresponsibility, unaccountability, and dishonesty. While the five Bs - bad test scores, buildings, books, bathrooms and Belmont - have certainly produced attitudes and behaviors that have contributed to a serious deterioration in the ethical environment in LAUSD, we found the problems are far more extensive.

  5. Importance of a Healthy Ethical Environment. In order to achieve its mission, the District must justify public and collegial trust in the integrity, responsibility and competence of individuals and systems. Solving existing problems and avoiding new ones that impede accomplishment of the mission is most likely to occur in a healthy ethical environment that fosters trust, personal and institutional integrity, comprehensive respect, high levels of competence and accountability, teamwork and collaborative problem solving. In a healthy ethical environment, disagreements on policies and implementation strategies are dealt with in a professional manner marked by civil and respectful communications. In a healthy ethical environment, board members and staff work together to define and solve problems collaboratively, unencumbered by personal animosities and ambitions or political or financial conflicts of interest. In a healthy ethical environment, hiring and promotion decisions are made on the merits and all employees are qualified by training or experience.

  6. LAUSD Does Not Have a Healthy Ethical Environment. Unfortunately, we found that the overall ethical environment within the LAUSD is not healthy. And the problems start at the very top. By any reasonable measure, LAUSD Board members, who are paid as part-time public servants, go way beyond the call of duty. That is commendable. It is also, ironically, the root of many of the most potent problems. Simply put, Board members are doing too much. While well-intentioned, their efforts are seen - and not unreasonably - as interfering and unhelpful. The message sent to administrative staff is: We don't trust you to be able to do your jobs effectively. This has contributed to a culture of distrust and insecurity that spawns unethical conduct.

  7. Strained Relationships. Critical working relationships within LAUSD are often characterized in terms of competitive alliances and they are strained to the point of dysfunction. As a result, the willingness and ability of key leaders to engage in collaborative problem solving and cooperative implementation strategies are severely limited.

  8. Real and Perceived Unethical Conduct. Though contending factions and individuals use different methods to win a point or protect a position, constructive cooperation and genuine teamwork toward the solution of problems is impeded by widespread use of unethical and nonconstructive ways of dealing with each other. These include: concealment and distortion of information, persistent unaccountability and finger-pointing, backbiting, leaking to the press, violation of confidentiality rules and agreements, personal attacks, discourtesy, mischaracterizations of motives and positions, and undue reliance on the brute force of a majority vote to decide important issues.

  9. Improving the Ethical Environment. Simply tinkering with the existing Ethics Code or the proposed Governmental Ethics Policy and adding a training component will not be enough to create a healthy ethical environment. But even a broader District-wide initiative stressing ethical principles such as trust, respect, responsibility and fairness is bound to be undermined by the general perception that these values are not consistently honored by top leadership. The advisability and success of a District-wide ethics initiative will depend in large part upon the willingness of leadership to confront this perception and to serve as role models for the new, ethics-based way of doing business at all levels in the LAUSD. Significant attitudinal, behavioral and, possibly, structural changes are necessary.

  10. Changing the Culture. Each senior administrator and member of the Board of Education we spoke with expressed an understanding of and devotion to LAUSD's mission and it appeared to us that they were sincere. This is a strong foundation on which to build a successful ethics initiative.

    1. Skepticism. Unfortunately, there is a widespread skepticism about the utility of an ethics program. A common perception, within and outside the District, is that the senior leadership (including board members and administrators) does not have the will to address core attitudes and behavior patterns that have become part of the wider LAUSD culture.

    2. Willingness to Change. Though almost everyone we spoke with expressed dissatisfaction with the present atmosphere and a desire to improve the environment, success will require individuals, especially at the top, to make personal changes in attitude and behavior. The fundamental question for each Board member and administrator is: what are you willing to give up to make things better?

  11. Need to Expand Ethics Code. When asked to react to the existing Ethics Code, both Board members and administrators expressed general approval of its provisions but almost every single person suggested that the Code does not address issues thought to be more common and important. In addition, only a few seemed to have more than a passing familiarity with the code and, clearly, it was not used by any of them as a reference point for judging their own or others' behavior. Thus, if an Ethics Code is to be a central part of a culture-shaping ethics initiative it must be expanded to address a broad range of additional issues and it must be worded and presented in a way that makes it a truly useful tool for every employee of the district and to all stakeholders who come in contact with LAUSD, from vendors to voters, parents to procurement officers, board members to biology teachers.

  12. Impact of New Leadership. Although the leadership of a new interim superintendent and the management efforts of a new chief operating officer may materially affect the existing chemistry in positive ways, there are structural issues about who is responsible for what and a culture of behavior patterns that are likely to impede reform efforts.

  13. Need for More Candor. Decision makers need full and accurate information. More than half of the Board members said an ethics program should stress the ethical obligation of administrators and other staff to be candid and forthcoming about all relevant information in a direct and timely manner. Some spoke of the tendency of staffers to pretend to be candid by burying bad news in obscure places so they could say "I told you" though it was the intent and expectation that the Board member would not see or understand the significance of the disclosure.

  14. Need for More Accountability. A majority of Board members and several administrators also expressed the view that staff should be more accountable for projects and decisions they are involved in. The culture at LAUSD - from the Board down - is to blame others when things go wrong. As a result, there is a noticeable tendency to avoid taking responsibility for any project.

    1. Management Must Assign Responsibility. At the root of this problem is a deficiency in management that has failed to understand tasks well enough to assign individuals with the responsibility for the overall success of a project and hold them accountable to know what they should know and to do what they should do.

    2. The Board Should Delegate Not "Micromanage." Another source of problems is the practice of the Board of Education members to vote on matters that they can't possibly know enough about. This allows administrative staff to say, "You approved it" as if that frees them of accountability. This places Board members in an increasingly untenable position. The more they distrust staff, the more they take on personally. The more they take on, the more likely they will be inadequately informed or will lack perspective. Unless the Board brings in a senior management team it can trust so it can act as a policy board rather than a micromanager, the situation will get worse.

    3. Importance of Trust. Trust engenders trust; the opposite is also true. If the LAUSD Board believes that the District is unmanageable as currently constituted, or that the wrong administrators are in place to make effective management possible, then it has a duty to act. Absent this belief, the Board has a duty to trust.

  15. Needs for More Emphasis on Excellence. More than half of the Board members we spoke with expressed concern about the integrity of the promotion and job-placement process. They suggested that these important personnel decisions were too often based on factors other than competence, credentials or proven performance. The Model Code of Ethics for School Board Members published by the National School Boards Association (NSBA) states that board members should "support the employment of those persons best qualified to serve as school staff, and insist on regular and impartial evaluation of all staff."

    1. Review of Credentials. It is likely that a complete review of the training and experience of District managers who fill important and powerful positions would reveal that many of them do not have the background and training that would be required in a similar position in the private sector. As one person told us, "The truth of the matter is a lot of these managers are way over their head and they know it."

    2. Inadequate Job Requirements. A number of factors have led to this result, including a long-standing tradition of hiring people trained to be educators to do jobs that require a much more extensive expertise in unrelated fields such as purchasing, project management, information technology, strategic planning and organizational development. Much of the fault here is the failure to state and stick to more demanding job requirements.

    3. Choosing From the Best We Have. The tendency has not been to look for and demand the best person for a job - even if it means going outside the District - but to select job candidates from existing employees. The standard of employment is often minimal competency (can she do the job?) rather than excellence (is he the best we can get?).

    4. Cronyism and Nepotism. Another factor that has contributed to a de-emphasis on competency and credentials is the widespread tendency of administrators and board members to urge decision makers to hire a friend or relative who often is not the best person for the job. Thus, the cynical attitude: "it's who you know, not what you know, that matters." Several board members expressed concern over what appeared to them to be an unhealthy pattern of nepotism.

    5. Emphasis on Race or Ethnicity. Although people were uncomfortable talking about it, the issue of race and ethnicity is a significant factor. In some cases there is an overt diversity goal that drives a hiring decision but in many situations it appears to be a less open or formal form of reverse prejudice. As one person told us, "administrators tend to surround themselves with a staff that looks like them." Thus, race and ethnicity considerations frequently influence employment decisions in ways that de-emphasize merit.

    6. Inadequate Performance Evaluations. Though a person might get a job he or she is not fully qualified for, it is the failure of the performance review system that entrenches people in those jobs. It has been said that there is no such thing as one bad manager. There are at least two: the one who's doing a bad job and the one who keeps him in that job.

    7. Inadequate Emphasis on Supplemental Training. If, for policy or other reasons, the District chooses to permit a system of hiring and promotion that does not demand job-specific qualifications it must place much greater emphasis on in-service training and professional development. Though there is some lip service to this concept, LAUSD does not have a system that assures that managers or administrators who may be deficient in some area remedy that deficiency with additional training.

  16. A Growing Ideological Divide Threatens New Problems. Exploring the issues surrounding competence and qualifications we uncovered a growing ideological divide that could seriously exacerbate existing problems especially as a new Superintendent and top administrators are selected. It seems as if the battle lines are being drawn between those who view themselves as traditional educators who believe an extensive educational background is essential to leadership within LAUSD and those who place a much higher value on solid management expertise.

    1. Educators Tend to Undervalue Other Skills. We found a tendency of educator advocates to undervalue the importance of management skills and the relevancy of experience and training in such things as strategic planning, project management, budgeting, personnel administration and negotiations. LAUSD is such a large and complex organization that the success of top administrators is far more likely to be based on their management skills than their knowledge of education.

    2. Management Types Tend to Undervalue Understanding the Educational Culture. On the other hand, management-oriented types tend to undervalue how important it is for an educational administrator to understand the unique nature of educational organizations in terms of ultimate goals, the backgrounds and motivation of the people involved, the compensation scales and union involvement. Without a meaningful educational background, administrators may lack the credibility they need to lead and are more likely to stumble by using corporate command-and-control models of decision making in a culture that often rejects, ignores or distorts top-down mandates.

  17. Financial Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest. Several board members and administrators suggested that there should be greater safeguards against conflicts of interest (including financial disclosure reports) of those who make significant purchasing decisions on behalf of the District. The proposed LAUSD Governmental Ethics Policy would substantially expand the reporting requirement.

  18. Confidentiality. The LAUSD Code of Ethics and the proposed LAUSD Governmental Ethics Policy that would replace it specifically forbid the disclosure or use of confidential information for personal advantage and pecuniary gain. Nevertheless, "leaking" the contents of closed sessions has become so commonplace that there is no meaning to the notion of confidentiality. Board members and administrators expressed concern to us about the ethics of other Board members, citing a lack of trust created by the willingness of some members to violate confidentiality rules regarding closed-session discussions and engage in personal attacks and backbiting.

  19. Board Members Should Act as a Governing Team. According to Davis Campbell, executive director of the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and chairman of the National School Boards Association (NSBA) task force on governance, "Strong boards need to be made up of forceful and effective leaders who also know how to connect with their public, find common ground with their colleagues, reach consensus and move forward with a sound agenda that benefits all of the community's children." In view of the fact that board members tend to come into office with specific priorities and viewpoints as to specific solutions, it is sometimes difficult to find common ground and to move forward as a team. Still, Mr. Campbell concludes, "You run for the board as an individual but the board has collective responsibilities. The board system is designed to function and will only function if ultimately each individual sees it as his or her responsibility to work as a team not an assembly of contending interests."

    1. Overt Use of Power. A major source of distrust and hostility cited to us by several Board members is the current tendency of a majority alliance to conduct business in covert private sessions or to use closed sessions in ways that ignore and disempower board members thought to disagree with them. They also objected on ethical grounds to the majority's failure to seek collaborative solutions and instead "railroad" their views through. This technique has tended to marginalize the minority and make them more likely to respond in ways that are divisive and destructive.

    2. Need for Discussion. It is, of course, possible that the differences of opinion within the Board are so deep that they are irreconcilable. The problem is that no one knows this for sure until full and respectful efforts have been made to reconcile their differences or reach a mutually acceptable compromise. A judge does not declare a hung jury until the jury has struggled together to come to a meeting of minds. Making the effort to have a full and open discussion is not only a matter of proper democratic procedure, it's a matter of respect.

      1. The NSBA Model Code of Ethics for School Board Members says that board members should "make policy decisions only after full discussion at publicly held board meetings" and that they should "encourage free expression of opinion by all board members."

      2. This does not mean that any board member should compromise his or her values. The NSBA Model Code also provides that board members are obligated to render all decisions based on available facts and independent judgment, refusing to surrender that judgment to individuals or special interest groups.

      3. Need to Abide By Group Decision. Even after complete discussion, disagreements may remain that must be settled by majority vote. In such cases, the minority on any issue has an ethical obligation to accept in good faith the results produced by the democratic process. It is not ethical to undermine or ignore formal decisions of a governing board. In a brochure titled School Board Leadership, the CSBA states that responsible board members "are committed to the democratic process, accept the will of the majority and support the decisions of group consensus."

  20. Need for More Civility. The CSBA's list of important qualities of school board members states: "They understand that the way board members act as individuals and as a body impacts the climate of the school district. They are respectful, listening carefully to colleagues, staff, parents, and the public. They have integrity and display professionalism, setting a tone for the schools which communicates the importance and seriousness of their work." According to both LAUSD Board members and administrators, this is an area in which there is substantial room for improvement. It would improve the ethical climate of the Board if Board members were more respectful and courteous in both public and private meetings.

  21. Need to Train Teachers and Local Administrators. Many teachers and local administrators have inadequate understanding of their public responsibilities and under-appreciative of key ethical concepts, especially regarding the need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Of special concern are potential conflicts of interest resulting from gifts, discounts and other benefits offered by vendors as well as gifts and gratuities offered by people who want something from the teacher or local administrator.

  22. Assuring Integrity of Tests. An essential responsibility of teachers and local administrators is to assure the integrity of standardized and classroom tests. District employees who deal with testing should have training and instruction to reinforce their ethical obligations and help them observe and properly deal with improprieties.

  23. Need to Define the Role of the Board of Education. Peter Drucker in Managing for Results points out that: "The right structure does not guarantee results. But the wrong structure aborts results and smothers even the best-directed efforts." Many of the ethical issues raised are a function of the way the LAUSD Board of Education has construed the role and function of Board members. While the LAUSD Board of Education has the legal authority to define its role differently, there are well-established managerial and ethical principles about the proper role of governing boards. It would be highly beneficial if the Board would devote time to discuss and define the role and function of the Board as a whole as well as of individual Board members.

  24. National Discussion About School Governance. In evaluating the proper role of the board of education it might be helpful to take into account the vast amount of national ferment and discussion on the issue of school governance.

    1. Recent Studies and Standards. School governance and the proper role of boards of education have been major national issues in recent years. Two major national studies of school governance were released in 1999: the National School Boards Foundation Report on Urban School Board Reform and the Report of the National Commission on Governing America's Schools. In addition, the CSBA issued an Effective Governance Model that sets standards for California school boards. Finally, the CSBA will issue Professional Standards for School Boards in May 2000.

    2. Twentieth Century Fund Task Force. In 1992, a report by the Twentieth Century Fund task force on school governance concluded that the "nation's thousands of local school boards are facing a serious crisis of legitimacy and relevance." The report singled out California saying that its five volume Education Code "is cluttered with outmoded regulations and duties required of school boards, deflecting them from their policy making role and needlessly inhibiting local flexibility."

    3. Little Hoover Commission and the Wilson Initiative. A 1999 report by the California Little Hoover Commission suggested that the Los Angeles Unified School District be taken over by the state. Twenty-two states including California have laws permitting the state to take control over troubled districts. Several years ago, Governor Pete Wilson authored a ballot initiative that would have created a state schools "czar" and established school-site councils with the authority to hire principals and make budget decisions. Voters defeated the measure.

    4. California Legislation. In the past two years, the California legislature and voters have approved 10 major reforms that dramatically affect the way the school districts operate. Laws dealing with class size, "social promotion" and bilingual education establish policies and take these issues out of the hands of local boards of education.

    5. School Takeovers. Since 1989, 10 states and the federal government have taken over districts with serious fiscal or academic problems - including those in Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland and the District of Columbia - and put them in the hands of people appointed by governors and mayors. In California, the state has taken control over three districts: Compton Unified (L.A. County), Cochella Valley (Riverside County) and West Contra Costa (formerly Richmond) in Northern California.

  25. The Accepted Governance Model. Traditionally, boards of education are responsible for defining the organization's mission and providing vision, direction, policies and oversight to assure that the organization has the people and procedures in place to achieve the mission. In 1999, the California School Boards Association (CSBA) developed a basic Effective Governance Model supported by a report and training program. According to the CSBA there are four major board roles:

    1. Establishing a vision for the community's schools and setting the goals and direction of the district in a way that reflects a consensus of the entire board and the superintendent.

    2. Maintaining an effective and efficient structure that supports the board's vision and empowers professional staff. The CSBA explicitly states that the board does not implement policies or programs but is responsible for employing and supporting the superintendent and setting policy for hiring other personnel.

    3. Ensuring personnel, program and fiscal accountability to the public by monitoring results and finances and evaluating the superintendent.

    4. Providing community leadership by working together as a governance team with the superintendent to make decisions that will best serve all the students in the community.

  26. The Board Should Limit Itself to Policy Development and Oversight. As reflected in the compensation for board participation, members of boards of education are not expected to devote full-time to their board duties. Thus, board responsibilities must be limited sensibly to accommodate this expectation.

    1. Avoid Micro-Management. According to Ellen Todras in The Changing Role of School Boards (May 1993, ERIC Digest Number 84) "The greatest problem facing school boards is their tendency to micro-manage and become bogged down in minutiae." Thus, effective boards draw and honor a sharp distinction between the larger strategic issues of policy development and oversight and the implementation issues and administrative decision making that should be handled by professional staff.

    2. Think Strategy, Not Tasks. Board members should resist the tendency to think in terms of tasks and specific problems. When boards deal with matters not worthy of full board consideration it places tremendous pressure on individual members who receive scant pay and are theoretically expected to be simply part-time public servants. It drains time and energy that should be used addressing vastly more important and complicated issues.

    3. Individual Board Members Should Not Act as Managers. It's an axiom of traditional governance theory that boards are not part of management and that individual board members should not function as managers.

    4. Limit Interaction With Staff. It is improper as well as inefficient for individual board members to direct or instruct a staff or seek to make or influence normal management decisions.

    5. Select a Superintendent You Can Trust and Hold Him or Her Accountable. It is the board's responsibility to select a superintendent it can trust to implement board policies. Individual board members should not seek to instruct or direct the superintendent unless he or she is acting on behalf of the board as a whole.

  27. The Manner in Which the LAUSD Board Operates is Inefficient, Ineffective and Causes Ethical, Morale and Management Problems. Though the practice of individual board members acting independently to solve specific problems is theoretically defensible in some cases, as a long-term strategy it simply does not work. In fact, it's counter-productive. Yes, individual problems are solved and tasks are completed, but usually the action merely causes staffers to "borrow from Peter to pay Paul." Resources are diverted in an unplanned and haphazard way that causes serious ethical, morale and management problems.

  28. The LAUSD Board Regularly Deals With Matters That Should Be Handled by Staff. The LAUSD Board consists of seven individuals who work extraordinarily hard. Their time commitment well exceeds any reasonable expectations of a part-time public servant. Yet, neither the present Board nor its predecessors have effectively dealt with the central goal of providing a quality education for all students. Nor has it been able to assure that teachers and students have current books, adequate buildings and clean bathrooms. But instead of spending virtually all their time addressing these fundamental problems, the Board spends an enormous amount of time dealing with smaller matters that should be delegated to staff. Thus, tasks are accomplished but the mission is not.

    1. The Board Takes On Too Much. We know of no corporate board of directors or nonprofit board of trustees of any organization approaching the size of LAUSD that undertakes the burden of dealing with the array of issues - from approving small contracts to deciding what kinds of containers should be used for milk - that are presented for LAUSD Board action. Consequently, the LAUSD Board is in a constant state of being overworked, understaffed and unsuccessful in solving major problems.

    2. Effects of Role Confusion. This confusion about role and function is endemic to the system - in no small part because of the example set by dedicated, well-intentioned Board members. The LAUSD as a whole is populated with many superb people, on all levels. But too many of these people simply do not know what their jobs are, or should be. And they do not know, or have not been trained, how to hold themselves and others accountable in the appropriate way.

  29. Individual Board Members Regularly Interact With Staff in Improper Ways.

    1. Acting as Managers. During our interviews, some board members and almost all administrators complained of the prevalence of interference and micro-management by board members. In order to solve specific problems and get timely answers, well-meaning board members often make onerous requests for information and give directions to staff (sometimes several levels below the senior staffer in charge). This has created a chaotic and inefficient situation that breeds internal competitiveness, generates confusion and frequently diverts resources in an unplanned and irrational manner.

  1. One staffer described the experience as working for seven different CEOs with different and often competing agendas. In some cases, board members go beyond the CEO role and act as line supervisors.

  2. Board members who acknowledged their "proactive" management style cited a frustration with a history of perceived mismanagement, a fundamental distrust of the system, and disbelief that they could accomplish satisfactory results if they went through channels.

  3. A board member who does not trust the existing organization to do a job well is responsible to see that the board directs the CEO to take the steps necessary to make the system trustworthy. If a board member does not have confidence that the CEO can or will make the necessary changes, he or she should see that the board puts a more competent CEO in place. Simply put, a board member's obligation is to trust the system or see that the system is changed so that it can be trusted. This critical but limited role of the board is essential to efficient governance and accountable management.

    1. Improper Interference. Purchasing, program and personnel decisions in a public institution like LAUSD must conform to legal and ethical standards demanding fairness and objectivity as well as forbidding conflicts of interest and improper interference.

  1. According to the majority of the administrators interviewed, individual board members frequently engage in behavior interpreted by staff as improper efforts to direct or influence purchasing, program and personnel decisions (including selection of principals). Whether or not it is proper for the board to formerly express opinions that influence administrative decisions, no single board member has any authority whatsoever to do so.

  2. Since board members have received no training concerning the proper role of a board or instruction about improper interference it is likely that the forays of board members into the territory of administrative decision-making are well intended and the board member has no idea that the conduct may be unethical.

    1. Acting as Advocates. To various extents, all board members view themselves as representatives of their districts with a responsibility to see that issues affecting their personal constituencies are properly handled. In many cases, they openly advocate the interests of their district. It is one thing when this advocacy takes place in open board meetings where other board members are present and a collective decision can be made, but it is quite another when a board member uses the power and authority of the office to influence the decisions of staffers. During our interviews, administrators said it was common for individual board members to intervene with staff as advocates for the interests of their particular districts. This has engendered internal competitiveness for resources and resulted in diversion and reallocation of resources in ways that undermine long-term strategies. It also may constitute illegal or unethical interference.

    2. Putting Staffers in the Middle. Administrators complained that some board members tended to "put staffers in the middle" by asking them about the activities and instructions of other board members or making negative about other board members.

    3. Fear of Retaliation. While staff has an ethical obligation to resist improper interference or refuse to engage in improper communications, the greater tendency is for staff to be compliant rather than offend a board member. Several administrators described the working atmosphere as one governed by fear of retaliation if staff members should displease individual board members. This atmosphere, some said, is responsible for a general unwillingness to take a stand on principle and a tendency toward unquestioning compliance in order to get along with board members. A common perception is that that success is survival and that survival depends more on playing politics than getting the job done.

  1. Articulate Role and Functions. If the board, after full discussion of the policy and administrative implications, chooses to reject the traditional board governance model endorsed by both the National and California School Boards Associations it would be helpful to clearly set out in writing its view of the proper function and role of board members so that staff and the public knows what to expect.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

We present each recommendation in a separate paragraph so that they can be addressed and voted on one at a time.

  1. New District Ethics Code. We recommend that the Board authorize Mr. Mullinax to develop and present for approval a new draft of a LAUSD Ethics Code that builds on the proposed Governmental Ethics Policy but is more user-friendly and more comprehensive. The Code should incorporate new standards of conduct establishing the obligation to:

  1. Distribution. We recommend that copies of the new Ethics Code be distributed to every District employee and that each employee is informed that they will be expected to live up to the provisions of the Code and that disciplinary action may result if they do not.

  2. Ethics Officer. We recommend that the Board establish an Ethics Office and hire an Ethics officer to report directly to a designated committee of the Board. The Ethics Officer should be responsible for periodic review and recommendations concerning the Ethics Code, the design and implementation of all ethics training programs, establishment of a process to provide advice to all District employees and Board members and all other matters relating to the formulation of ethics policies and training and education concerning those policies.

  3. Investigation, Prosecution and Adjudication of Ethics Violations. We recommend that the Internal Audit and Special Investigations Unit be responsible for investigating and prosecuting conduct that violates the District's ethics policies and that an Ethics Commission consisting of five citizens, including two who formerly worked for the District.

  4. Guidelines to Rules and Standards of Conduct. We recommend that the Ethics Officer be instructed to prepare a loose-leaf binder containing a series of one-page, easy-to-read and -understand guidelines explaining and illustrating the District's rules and policies concerning the following matters:

  1. Job Excellence Initiative. We recommend that that the Personnel Commission be instructed to review all job descriptions and, as necessary, re-write them to assure that persons filling that job have all the qualifications necessary to perform at a high level of excellence. The new job descriptions should be used when filling vacancies.

  2. Professional Development. We recommend that employees should be given expanded opportunities to improve their professional knowledge and skills.

  3. Performance Reviews. We recommend that that the Personnel Commission be instructed to review performance review practices and forms and develop new procedures and forms that specifically evaluate the employee on all skills and abilities deemed to be important to his or her job. For example, the evaluation of upper level managers and administrators should include:

  1. Develop District-Wide Training Program. We recommend that the Board delegate to the Personnel Director the authority to design and implement a District-wide ethics program. (We plan to recommend a structure to the Personnel Director but we think staff should be accountable for working out the and approving the details of content and implementation.)

  2. Improper Gifts and Gratuities From Vendors. We recommend that each year all known and likely vendors to the District be sent or given a letter clearly stating the District's rules and policies concerning gifts, gratuities and favors and informing them that any vendor found to have made any improper offer to a District employee shall be barred from doing business with the District for one year.

  3. Improper or Inappropriate Gifts or Favors From Parents. We recommend that each year all parents and guardians of children attending school in the District be sent or given a letter clearly stating the District's rules and policies concerning gifts, gratuities and favors to teachers and administrators and requesting their cooperation.

  4. Code of Conduct for the Board. We recommend that the Board authorize Mr. Mullinax to draft and present for approval an additional code of conduct for the Board of Education built on the codes and statements of policy of the National and California School Boards Associations.

  5. Board and Superintendents Ethics Training. We recommend that each Board member, Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent be required to attend a full-day ethics training session developed by the Personnel Commission and that each be required to sign a statement that they agree to comply with the letter and spirit of whatever ethics codes and policies are adopted the Board.

  6. Role and Function of the Board. We recommend that the Board reviews its policies and practices regarding matters that come before it and formulate a Policy Statement on Role and Function of the Board that establishes clear, detailed and practical guidelines to distinguish between those matters that should be directly dealt with by the Board and those that fall within the responsibility of management and staff.

  7. Role and Function of the Individual Board Members. We recommend that the Board reviews the ethical, morale and management implications of direct Board member interaction with staff and formulate a Policy Statement on Role and Function of Board Members that establishes clear, detailed and practical guidelines concerning proper board member conduct.

  8. Training on Effective Boardsmanship. We recommend that the Board retains a professional facilitator or organization such as the California School Boards Association to conduct a workshop on effective boardsmanship, including discussion of strategies for collaboration and teamwork. A special program should be developed for new members of the board who have not had the training.

 

©2005 Josephson Institute