Educator Advancement Council Wednesday, March 18, 2020 https://zoom.us/j/628255427 Meeting ID: 628 255 427 +16699006833,,628255427 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. Vision: Oregon educators across the state are supported in engaging and teaching every child to help them realize their dreams. Mission: We empower, support and diversify Oregon’s educator workforce through local, educator-led networks and statewide resources to provide the quality teaching and learning Oregonians desire. 9:00 1.0 Call to Order and Land Acknowledgment Chair Koskela 1.1 Roll Call Elizabeth Castillo-Lopez 1.2 Agenda Review Chair Koskela 9:15 2.0 Consent Agenda – Action Item 2.1 Agenda Approval 2.2 Approval of February 26, 2020 minutes 9:20 3.0 Public Comment ● To provide public testimony, sign in at the meeting or submit written testimony prior to the meeting. Each group may have one speaker; each individual or group spokesperson will have three (3) minutes. 9:35 4.0 Council Structure Shadiin Garcia 4.1 Purpose - Discussion and potential decision 10:30 BREAK 10:45 4.0 Council Structure (continued) Shadiin Garcia 4.2 Membership and vacancies - Discussion and potential decision 4.3 Future Agenda Review/Dates - Discussion and potential decision Noon Lunch 12:45 5.0 Council Business Shadiin Garcia 5.1 Regional Educator Network Reporting Manual 5.2 Regional Educator Network Approval Plan Process 5.3 Regional Educator Network Plan Evaluation and Improvement Guide 5.4 Regional Educator Network Technical Assistance Approval Process 5.5 Section 48 Update 2:00 6.0 Regional Educator Network Fireside Chat Daniel Ramirez 2:45 7.0 Reflection and feedback Chair Koskela 3.00 Adjourn
Transcript
Educator Advancement Council Wednesday, March 18, 2020 https://zoom.us/j/628255427
Meeting ID: 628 255 427 +16699006833,,628255427
9 a.m. - 3 p.m.
Vision: Oregon educators across the state are supported in engaging and teaching every child to help them realize their dreams.
Mission: We empower, support and diversify Oregon’s educator workforce through local, educator-led networks and statewide resources to provide the quality teaching and learning Oregonians desire.
9:00 1.0 Call to Order and Land Acknowledgment Chair Koskela 1.1 Roll Call Elizabeth Castillo-Lopez 1.2 Agenda Review Chair Koskela
9:15 2.0 Consent Agenda – Action Item 2.1 Agenda Approval 2.2 Approval of February 26, 2020 minutes
9:20 3.0 Public Comment ● To provide public testimony, sign in at the meeting or submit written testimony prior to
the meeting. Each group may have one speaker; each individual or group spokespersonwill have three (3) minutes.
9:35 4.0 Council Structure Shadiin Garcia 4.1 Purpose - Discussion and potential decision
10:30 BREAK
10:45 4.0 Council Structure (continued) Shadiin Garcia 4.2 Membership and vacancies - Discussion and potential decision 4.3 Future Agenda Review/Dates - Discussion and potential decision
Noon Lunch
12:45 5.0 Council Business Shadiin Garcia 5.1 Regional Educator Network Reporting Manual 5.2 Regional Educator Network Approval Plan Process 5.3 Regional Educator Network Plan Evaluation and Improvement Guide 5.4 Regional Educator Network Technical Assistance Approval Process 5.5 Section 48 Update
2:00 6.0 Regional Educator Network Fireside Chat Daniel Ramirez
Vision: Oregon educators across the state are supported in engaging and teaching every child to help them realize their dreams.
Mission: We empower, support and diversify Oregon’s educator workforce through local, educator-led networks and statewide resources to provide the quality teaching and learning Oregonians desire.
Attending in person: Laura Scruggs, Mark Girod, Paul Andrews, Nick Viles, Veronica Dujon (Surrogate; Ben Cannon), Bill Graupp, Belle Koskela, Colt Gill, Matt Yoshioka, Don Grotting, Michele Oakes, Melissa Wilk, Susan Roebber, Elizabeth Keller (Surrogate; Anthony Rosilez) Attending by phone: Rep MacLain (Claire on behalf of Rep McLain), Amanda Squibb, Martha Richards, Miriam Calderon Absent: Marvin Lynn, Lindsey Capps Staffing: Dr. Shadiin Garcia, Elizabeth Castillo-Lopez, Dr. Daniel Ramirez, Amelia Vargas (Out sick), and Angela Bluhm
9:02am 1.0 Call to Order and Acknowledgment of the Original Chair Koskela People of the Land Chair Koskela calls the meeting to order and opens the meeting with a land acknowledgement.
1.1 Roll Call Elizabeth Castillo-Lopez
9:05am Elizabeth determines that we have a quorum. 9:15 Director Viles arrives. 10:28 Director Calderon joined via Zoom. 10:45 Director Keller (Surrogate; Anthony Rosilez) left the meeting. 12:00pm Director Colt Gill left the meeting. 1.2 Agenda Review Chair Koskela Chair Koskela briefed members on today’s agenda 9:07am 2.0 Consent Agenda – Action Item 2.1 Agenda Approval 2.2 Approval of January 22, 2020 minutes Director Grotting moves motion to approve consent agenda and Director Graupp seconds. Motion Passes unanimously. 9:10am 3.0 Public Comment
● To provide public testimony, sign in at the meeting or submit written testimony prior to the meeting.
● Each group may have one speaker; each individual or group spokesperson will have three (3)
minutes. ● The Council welcomes and appreciates public input, but due to time constraints is unable to
respond directly to testimony during the meeting. 9:10 4.0 Equity and Continuous Improvement Design Professional Development – Information and
Discussion Shadiin Garcia Erin Whitlock Exec. Director Shadiin Garcia and Erin Whitlock presented and led us through a professional development on implementing an Equity lens (please refer to meeting materials). 11:00 BREAK 11:15 5.0 Agreements Discussion – Decision Shadiin Garcia Shadiin Garcia and Daniel Ramirez led the council through an exercise to re-establish group agreements to ensure equity of voice and successful meeting discussions. Please refer to the meeting materials. 11:45 6.0 Council Business Shadiin Garcia 6.1 Executive Director Update REN Reporting
• Angela Bluhm, Educator Programs Analyst provided a brief overview of the REN Reporting Manual. The EAC will share the REN Monthly Smartsheet Dashboard link with the council. This generated a discussion about the role of the Council through the question: Is this manual something that we should vote and adopt as a council? The Council agreed to table the discussion for the EAC March meeting.
• The EAC has official hired Amelia Vargas and Lynne Gardner to lead the Section 48 work. • Daniel Ramirez led the Council through a process to create a plan toward assessing the Regional Educator
Network plans. The Council provided robust feedback that Daniel will synthesize, finalizing the process by the end of February. This fostered a deep discussion about the REN plan approval process which the Council agreed to address in March.
12:00pm Lunch
1:00 6.2 Membership Discussion - Discussion Daniel Ramirez Agenda item tabled for March meeting. 1:50 7.0 Collective Learning and Sharing from the Regional Educator Networks - Discussion Daniel Ramirez facilitated empathy interviews with two of the REN coordinators (please refer to the meeting materials for empathy interviews overview). 2:20 8.0 Revisit EAC Meeting Agreements - Decision Daniel Ramirez The Council had a brief discussion of how the meeting agreements felt and the Council agreed to keep working on holding themselves accountable to each other. 2:50 9.0 Future agenda review and calendaring for next year - Discussion Shadiin Garcia Agenda item tabled for March meeting. 3:00 10.0 Adjourn and Closing remarks Next Month meeting details coming when ready, Elizabeth will send out an email with the meeting location and hotel information. Shadiin offered gratitude to everyone for all the amazing work.
3/5/2020 Board Cafe: The CompassPoint Board Model for Governance and Support | CompassPoint
The CompassPoint Board Model for Governance andSupport
By Jan Masaoka
Responsibilities for Boards Explained
Responsibilities of nonpro�t boards are of two fundamental types: governanceand support. On one hand, the board, acting as the formal representative of thepublic, governs and provides oversight to the organization's a�airs. At the sametime, board members as individuals support the organization by volunteering,raising money, and advising.
Let's look �rst at how the board acts to GOVERN the organization, that is, toensure that the community's interests are represented within the organization.These governing responsibilities include:
Determining mission and purpose, and overall strategies, policies andprioritiesMonitoring program performance and impactOverseeing compliance with laws and regulations and ful�llment ofcontractual obligations
Safeguarding assets from misuse, and ensuring maximum use of resourcesFinancial oversightSelecting/monitoring/evaluating/terminating the executive directorApproving a fundraising strategy and monitoring its e�ectiveness
These governing responsibilities are performed by the board as a body or group:for example, while the board hires and evaluates the executive director, the boardpresident does not have the same authority as a supervisor has over asubordinate. Instead, the board president acts as a convenor and facilitator forthe board, which as a group provides feedback and direction to the executivedirector.
Next, how board members-acting as individuals-work to SUPPORT theorganization:
Contributing to the organization's fundraising success as appropriate to theindividual (such as making a �nancial contribution, volunteering atfundraising events, making business contacts for the organization, solicitingcash and non-cash contributions, etc.Assisting sta� in raising fundsActing as ambassadors to the community on behalf of the organization andits clientsVolunteering and volunteer recruitmentAdvising sta� in areas of expertise, act as a sounding board for executivedirector and other executive sta�Lending names and personal credibility to the organization
These supporting activities are performed by board members acting asindividuals. As a result, there are two types of role-switching that go on. On onehand, the board acting as a group is "the boss in charge" when determiningoverall organizational strategy, but as individuals, board members act to supportsta� in the implementation of that strategy, for example, by calling a list of donorsgiven to them by sta�.
On the outside looking in, or on the inside looking out?When acting in its governing role, the board represents the interests of thecommunity. It asks: Is this organization using public and private resources to
3/5/2020 Board Cafe: The CompassPoint Board Model for Governance and Support | CompassPoint
bene�t the community and the public? In a sense, the board stands in thecommunity, looking through the door into the organization. But at the same time,board members also represent the organization's interests to the community-acting as ambassadors to the community.
Who's in charge? Who's in charge now?In organizations with paid sta�, there are times when the board acts in itsgoverning role-"the boss and in charge"-and other times when individual boardmembers act to support the sta�. Boards and sta� often get confused over thesedi�erences. For example, in many boards there is tension over whether and howthe board should be involved with fundraising. This tension can be cleared upthrough the CompassPoint Board Model: In its governing role, the board-acting asa body-is responsible for seeing that there is a realistic plan for bringing in thefunds the organization will need, and for monitoring progress on the plan. Thisplan might include fundraised (contributed) dollars, but could also include fees,interest income from investments, foundation grants, the sale of books, and soforth. What's important is that ensuring the existence of the plan is a governanceresponsibility-one in which the board acts as the "boss" and oversight to the sta�-developed plan.
But in the support role, board members as individuals also help carry out thatplan. In this role, they often act with direction from sta�. For example, sta� mightgenerate a list of people who need to be called for an upcoming event, anddistribute those names among the board members who have volunteered to doso. In this kind of work, the sta� organizes and is responsible for the work, anddelegates it to board members acting as individual volunteers.
Try distinguishing between the board's governing role and board members'supporting role in discussions. This simple approach-based on a complexunderstanding of governance-can often clear up confusing and frustratingdiscussions.
Have you heard a comment like one of the following?Said with pride: "We're a working board!"Said slightly abashed: "We're just a working board…not a board board."Said with a tinge of regret: "We've been a working board, but we have to become afundraising board."
Is the opposite of a "working board" a "non–working board"? And is it true thatgoverning boards don't "work"? Actually, these comments re�ect a confusionbetween what the board does, and what board members do.
What's usually meant by a "working board" is one where board members activelydo the organization's work—whether it's taking home–bound seniors on outings,sta�ng a fundraising booth at a fair, or keeping the organization's books. In otherwords, board members participate in program work, fundraising work, andadministrative work.
When a board starts to talk about becoming less of a working board and more ofa governing board, what it probably means is that the organization needs theboard to change its focus of work:
From doing administrative work to oversight of �nance and administrationFrom doing program work to overseeing program workFrom doing fundraising to…both doing fundraising and overseeingfundraising.
But actually, there's a di�erence between what the board does, acting as a body,and what board members do, acting as individuals. For example, the board as awhole hires the executive director, not the board chair. On the other hand,individual board members can o�er mentoring to the executive director, but theydo so as individuals, not as a body. And although we say things like, "our boardraises money," what we really mean is that "board members raise money."
For organizations with sta�, the board will partner with the executive director indi�erent ways: as both a governing body and as a group of individual volunteers.And over time, the work of the board and of board members will change to re�ectwhat the organization needs at that time.
Instead of thinking that board members will do less, discuss how sta� andvolunteers (including board members) will work together to do program work.Instead of thinking that the board is turning over decision-making to the executivedirector, discuss how the executive and the board chair will work together todecide what decisions can be made by sta� and which need to come to the board.Hopefully, the board will combine the strategy and oversight work of the board (asa body) with the talents of board members (as individuals. Examples:
The board reviews program plans (developed by sta�) and achievements (of theprograms), while individual board members volunteer as legal advocates, meal-deliverers, and tree-planters.The board makes sure the budget for income is realistic and individual boardmembers raise money through ra�es or talking to county o�cials.The board makes sure that there is adequate insurance for the organization, whilean individual board member (who knows about insurance) helps the sta� choosea broker.
In short, the work that the board does as a body is di�erent from the work thatboard members do as individuals. Both need to be done. So how about thisphrase instead: "We're a working board! And part of that work is governance."
3/5/2020 Board Cafe: Working Board vs. Governing Board | CompassPoint
Also see:The CompassPoint Model for Governance and Support, Part 1(https://www.compasspoint.org/board-cafe/compasspoint-board-model-governance-and-support)
The CompassPoint Model for Governance and Support, Part 2(https://www.compasspoint.org/board-cafe/compasspoint-board-model-governance-and-support-part-2)
Boards are not — and should not — be static. To be effective, they must change and evolve as their organizations change and grow. Many years ago, Karl Mathiasen III wrote a paper for BoardSource in which he identified three different and quite distinct types of nonprofit boards that develop as their organizations grow and change. While recognizing that various permutations of the three exist, that the board maturing process is not inevitable — organizations may develop differently or boards may stop at one stage or another — and that each board is unique, he noticed that these three very broad types of boards appear and reappear on a regular basis in the nonprofit world.
What follows are brief descriptions of the three nonprofit board types identified by Mathiasen. We present them as food for thought only — not as necessarily best board practice. Do you agree with them? Do they stand the test of time? Do some or all of the characteristics of each hold true in your experience or have other types and characteristics surfaced? Do you recognize your own board in any of them?
BOARD PASSAGES: THREE STAGES IN A NONPROFIT BOARD’S LIFECYCLE
2
STAGE 1: ORGANIZING/FOUNDING BOARDS
A. Organizing boards that follow the leader: • Small in size• Homogeneous — composed of people the leader knows well and trusts and whose interests are akin to the
leader’s.• Strong commitment to the vision of the leader• Board meetings are informal and operational in style. The members listen to reports, advise, and offer
encouragement. • Generally not task oriented. Members will agree to take on tasks (without questioning whether this is an
appropriate board task) but often do not follow up, knowing that the leader will pick up and complete what they neglect to do.
• Do not usually play a significant role in fundraising. They expect the leader to do this.
B. Organizing boards that lead or control the organization: • Members have played a role in creating the organization.• Composed of determined individuals who share a passionate commitment to the mission.• Small in size.• Homogeneous — composed of like-minded individuals.• Board meetings are informal and operational in style. • Task-oriented — willing to do even mundane tasks to get the organization up and running.• Strong sense of ownership of the organization.• Participate in fundraising.• May be apprehensive about hiring staff due to the members’ sense of ownership.• Transition to working with staff can be difficult as board members continue to serve as volunteer staff members,
thus working for and supervising the executive. • Staff leaders may have to wait for some time before they are trusted, making significant staff leadership difficult
and frustrating at times.
Transition to Governing Board As organizations grow, organizing/founding boards — whether following or leading — begin to experience strains.
Following boards and staff may experience the following:• Board members find themselves being asked to do more, such as get more involved in fundraising, chair
committees, engage in planning, oversee finances, etc.• The founder or executive director realizes that he or she needs help in managing an increasingly complex
organization and that the board must become more engaged.• The board is reluctant to change its role or relationship to the leader, resulting in tension as the transition to a new
board phase begins.
Leading boards and staff may experience the following:• The board cannot cope with all the tasks and assignments that come with an enlarged organization and begin to
look more and more to staff to get the work done. • Staff, and particularly the executive director, demand more responsibility and more of a role in setting the
organization's course. • Staff increasingly resent the board’s direct involvement in the organization’s day-to-day work. • Board members find that they are expected to do any non-governance-related work under staff supervision. • The board struggles to define what its new role should be.
BOARD PASSAGES: THREE STAGES IN A NONPROFIT BOARD’S LIFECYCLE
3
A transition to a governing board usually does not begin in earnest until organizing/founding members begin to leave the board and new members join the board. This results in the board becoming less homogenous, which in turn, can lead to tension between old and new members. New members wonder what the older members have been doing; old members ask who these new people think they are. New members are inpatient to change the dynamic; old members view the pace of change as accelerated. The transition period is often also marked by a call for more systems, clearer definition of staff and board roles, and more “business-like” practices.
STAGE 2: THE MIDDLE STAGE: THE GOVERNING BOARD
• The board shifts from performing operational staff-like tasks (leading board) or from relative inactivity and cheerleading (following boards) to the gradual assumption of the governance of the organization and responsibility for its well-being and longevity.
• The board helps plan and execute the organization’s work, develops and approves policies, oversees the organization’s finances, and is accountable for the organization’s integrity.
• A new and more balanced relationship between the board and staff develops and a sharing of power and authority begins.
• The board chair and executive director emerge as the principal leaders and accept responsibility for ensuring the work of the board and staff gets done.
• The board gradually becomes larger, though the growth may not be very intentional at first. • The board may become more diverse. • Committees become essential to effective board functioning. Nominating or governance committees,
development, and finance committees are often the first to be formed. • The staff accepts its accountability to the board.• The board accepts responsibility for ensuring the organization has the resources it needs to operate and
increasingly participates in fundraising. • The staff leader finds that building a governing board requires a substantial amount of time, as he or she supports
committees, is involved in the orientation of new members, develops a partnership with the chair, and meets with other board members to understand their views and interests.
• It usually takes three years for a board to develop a strong, new workable dynamic. It is helpful if there is a strong board chair who takes board development seriously, if founders agree to depart, and if experienced board members are added to the board.
Transition to the Institutional Board As the governing board dynamic takes hold, the board becomes more self-aware and more open to additional, subsequent transitions — sometimes under the encouragement and guidance of a strong executive director or legacy funder. It may, for example, perceive that it must get even more involved in fundraising to support a new strategic plan, which in turn means that it needs to expand the board to marshal more resources and to extend the organization’s outreach. The transition to an institutional board is usually less painful and traumatic than the initial transition from an organizing or founding board to a governing board, as it is not reorienting its work completely.
STAGE 3. THE MATURE STAGE: THE INSTITUTIONAL BOARD
• Often larger with some members who have the capacity to give or to open doors to funders and donors.• Often prestigious and attractive to movers and shakers within the community.• Clearly accepts the role of fundraising and often has a development committee or advisory groups to increase the
organization’s fundraising outreach.• More diverse as it recognizes the need to provide the broadened public oversight and visibility that the
BOARD PASSAGES: THREE STAGES IN A NONPROFIT BOARD’S LIFECYCLE
4
organization requires to thrive. • Board activities such as financial oversight, governance, and policy planning continue to receive board attention
but principally from committees. • Accountable for reaching its own goals, targets, and expectations, just as staff and the executive are. • Pays attention primarily to major organizational issues and concerns, assuming that a professional and
sophisticated staff will follow plans and operate the organization in a responsible manner. Major issues include approval of the budget, review of the audit, examination and approval of the organization’s goals, and evaluation of the organization’s programs and leadership.
CONCLUSION
Mathiasen concluded his paper by noting that an orderly rotation of board members is key to a board’s health. Bylaws should specify the length of terms and the consecutive number of terms a board member can serve. There are losses as well as gains in this process but change is essential to enabling the board to keep up with the times and serve the organization well as it grows. Only with fresh insights and a constant source of new energy can boards move reasonably easily through the phases necessary for the organization’s growth and development.
BoardSource would add that regular board self-assessment is also key to a board’s health. We recommend that all boards assess their performance every other year and then craft and implement a board development plan that addresses any challenges that surfaced in the assessment.
Stages of Board Development
The Founding Board The Governing/Managing Board The Governing/Fund Raising Board The Board is the organization
Assumption of responsibility for well-being and longevity of the organization
Focus on fund raising and recruitment of prestigious board members, increased expectations of staff
Strong sense of ownership, power shared, consensus leadership, reluctance to release power to staff, often entrepreneurial staff emerges from the founding board
Balancing of power between staff and board Formal or informal levels of boardsmanship cause an “in” group or an “out” group, heavy reliance on the expertise of staff
Informal, consensus decision-making; sometimes “rubber stamping”
Formalized decision-making process, increased reliance on staff recommendations
Decision making delegated to committees and executive committee, formalized process, often “rubber stamping”
Strong mission focus, little distinction between policy and administration.
Focus on policy, planning, and oversight responsibilities; focus on building management systems and structures; micro-management often a problem; beginning to embrace fundraising responsibilities
Pre- and Post operations focus (planning and evaluation); strong commitment to fundraising
Small group, few committees
Committees more important, more delegation of work to committees, add board members
Add more board members, executive committee often functions as governance board
Passion for mission
Passion for mission decreases with focus on building internal capacity
Passion high (especially among leading fund raisers)
Composed of individuals with close ties to the mission of the organization
Recruit board members who are specialists in management, computers, finance, etc.
Recruit board members of high visibility and with “money” connections, members gain certain amount of prestige by sitting on this board
Transition: Transition: Due to growth and crisis
Tension between board and staff
New board members (new ideas)
Painful
Due to growth or crisis
Need for change mutually recognized
Less traumatic
Life Stages of Non Profit Boards
Stage Early Middle Mature
Focus Organizing Board
Governing Board
Institutional Board
Characteristic Small
Involved in everything
Homogeneous
Informal
Committed
Board accepts responsibilities
Board is enlarged & diversified
Committee structure allows some tasks to be delegated
Staff gain new responsibilities & decision making power
Focus on recruiting a large board that has the capacity to give or have access to funders and donors, and influential people.
Serving on the Board is considered prestigious
Board oversight responsibilities delegated to committees
Planning and budgeting is done by staff and approved by the Board
Transitions Shift to more business like operation
Board/Staff must redefine roles
Open up to new people
Development of systems
Clearer job descriptions
Established organization becomes increasingly "professionalized"
Fundraising function of Board increasingly important
Ability to delegate governance of the institution to an executive or management committee
Becomes an institutional fundraising board
Challenges Find it difficult to hire or trust first staff members and share power
Some founding members will choose to leave
Frustration with change occurring slowly
The Board is often the slowest to change and operate on a new dynamic, due to its operation being focused on last
Initially the straggle between being independent and interdependent may get in the way until both board and staff learn to adjust to their new roles
Source: Board Passages: Three Key Stages in a Nonprofit Board’s Life Cycle, National Center for Nonprofit Boards
Unanticipated agenda items may or may not be included. All Educator Advancement Council meetings are open to the public and conform to Oregon public meeting laws. Accommodations requests should be submitted to [email protected]
(503) 373-1283 at least 48 hours in advance. To subscribe to meeting notices please register here or www.education.oregon.gov to find upcoming meetings and prior meeting materials.
Public Participation in Educator Advancement Council Meetings
During each Educator Advancement Council meeting, the agenda includes a “public comment” item. It is during this portion of the agenda the public may comment on an agenda item or an item related to the focus of the Educator Advancement Council.
As a public body, input is welcomed, appreciated and allows the Council an opportunity to listen. Due to agenda time constraints or the need to process the information received, they will not typically discuss or respond to questions immediately. If provided input is related to an action item later in the agenda, the Council may use the input during discussion or deliberation of that specific item.
If you wish to address the Council, please write your name and organization on the sign-in sheet prior to the designated public comment time. There will only be one speaker from each group and each individual speaker or group spokesperson will have three (3) minutes.
Thank you for your interest in the work of the Educator Advancement Council.
