Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Carver Governance spun on its head

The Carver Governance Model requires a strong, focused board. If the board will not hold its superintendent and treasurer accountable, the fault lies with the board, not the governance model.

Two things to consider:

One (from the mainstream point of view) -- Under Carver, the board sets hard and fast goals for the superintendent and treasurer. The board then allows its two chief administrators to work toward those goals based on the boundaries set in board policy. The board then evaluates them against those goals.

Remember, if the board says, "Hire Joe to coach the football team," it can't turn around and hold the superintendent accountable for the team's record. But if the board says, "Deliver a winning team," and allows the superintendent to hire the coach, the board can then hold the superintendent accountable for the team's record.

The same logic applies to educational programs and finances.

But most boards (Olentangy and Columbus included) are weak -- they are nothing more than cheerleaders for the administration (in fact, that is Columbus board policy). So, Carver ends up being the club which the majority of the board wields against any member who desires to hold the district's chief administrators accountable.

This process is called triangulation: Where you adopt a program favored by your opponent, but use it against them.

You see, the majority embraces Carver, not as a means to hold the superintendent and treasurer accountable, but to defend the administration against those who seek accountability. A Clintonesque spin.

Two (from point of view of the Austrian school of economic thought) -- No organization can set meaningful goals for a government agency. It is simply impossible. So all that work in One (above) is just a chasing after the wind.

Keep in mind that no one -- and no organized body -- is omniscient enough to quantify and qualify the desires of any community, no matter how large or small the community. The same holds for allocating scarce resources against competing wants. No one -- and no organized body -- can do it. (Oh, McFerson is convinced he is that sufficiently omniscient, but it appears that Franklin County, the state, and the taxpayers are going to end up buying his mess).

note: Of course, the Austrian view is the correct one.

No comments: