BOE Retreat, better late than never?

The Board of Education retreat was discussed as early as the summer and was clearly needed well before it finally occurred last week. Retreats exist precisely to address governance failures, reset norms, and prevent dysfunction from spilling into public meetings. Instead, this retreat was repeatedly postponed under the current Board President’s leadership, allowing unresolved conflicts to fester for months. By the time the retreat finally took place, the board was no longer proactively strengthening governance—it was reacting to damage already done.

When the retreat finally occurred, it became clear that the board was attempting to do several things at once: reaffirm its formal mission, repair internal relationships, and confront unresolved conflicts stemming from prior controversies (particularly library book reconsideration and social media behavior). The fact that these issues had to be addressed so late—and in such a reactive way—underscored the cost of the delay.

What makes this delay especially notable is its timing. Both Milde and MacGregor were running for reelection this year, and throughout their campaigns they highlighted their experience, leadership, and “accomplishments” on the board. Yet, once behind closed doors at the retreat, a significant portion of the conversation focused on mistakes, poor judgment, ethical gray areas, and behavior that undermined trust—many of which involved the very same board members who had just presented themselves to voters as steady, effective leaders.

Board Goals Identified at the Retreat

1. Core Governance Purpose
The board reaffirmed its formal role: setting a shared vision, focusing on student achievement, aligning district goals with community values, and using data in collaboration with the superintendent to guide annual goals. These are standard governance responsibilities—but the need to re-read them aloud suggests a board that has drifted from its foundational role.

2. Governance, Norms, and Team Functioning
A major focus was on repairing board dynamics. Members repeatedly acknowledged fractured trust, “group vs. group” behavior, and escalating personal conflict. There was strong emphasis on:

Establishing and enforcing board norms
Challenging ideas without attacking people
Addressing conflict directly and privately
Reducing politicization of board work

This theme dominated the meeting because dysfunction has clearly begun to interfere with governance itself.

3. Communication and Meeting Process
Members expressed frustration with surprises at public meetings, limited discussion before votes, and poor internal communication. Proposed solutions included:

More pre-meeting communication and committee work
Clearer leadership intervention when debates escalate
Structured discussion so all voices are heard

These process failures are not abstract—they directly affect transparency, public trust, and decision quality.

4. Relationship Building
Several members argued that the board lacks basic human connection. Suggestions included informal gatherings, better use of retreats and conventions, and engagement with county school board organizations. The fact that these ideas were raised speaks to how strained relationships have become.

5. Community-Facing Expectations
The board acknowledged widespread public misunderstanding of board procedures, particularly around public comment and silence during meetings. Members discussed the need to educate the community on:

Why the board often cannot respond publicly
The limits of board authority
Why social media is an inappropriate venue for board business

This was paired with a strong consensus that social media engagement by board members has become toxic and damaging.

Library / Book Reconsideration: A Case Study in Policy Failure

The retreat revisited the earlier book controversy, not to relitigate outcomes, but to acknowledge procedural failures:

Multiple members emphasized that existing policy must be followed, even if it is flawed; the remedy is policy revision, not selective enforcement.
Concerns were raised that required written explanations for book removal decisions were missing, creating the appearance of dishonesty or noncompliance.
Questions were raised about whether the reconsideration committee was properly constituted under policy.
Members acknowledged that a new law/regulation now governs this process, implicitly conceding that the prior approach was inadequate.

This discussion highlighted a recurring board problem: decisions that may be legally defensible but are procedurally sloppy, poorly documented, and damaging to public trust.

Social Media, Ethics, and Trust Breakdown

A striking portion of the retreat focused on online behavior:

Multiple members described being personally attacked and dehumanized on social media, some reporting this behavior by other board members themselves.
There were explicit objections to board business being leaked or discussed online.
Trust erosion was directly linked to attacks by board members’ associates or family.
A shared expectation emerged: board members should not engage in social media debates about board matters, directly or indirectly.

One member publicly apologized for past behavior and committed to disengaging—an acknowledgment that norms had already been violated.

Micromanagement vs. Governance

Another critical theme was role confusion:

Several members warned that micromanaging administration—especially second-guessing professional development vetted by the superintendent—crosses into ethics violations.
The superintendent was repeatedly described as the district’s “CEO,” with the board’s role limited to policy and oversight, not operational control.
The board distinguished between illegal actions, ethics violations, and policy breaches, emphasizing that even actions that are technically legal can still violate ethics rules or create damaging perceptions.

This distinction matters because the School Ethics Commission evaluates not just intent, but how actions appear to the public.

Committee Reports and Transparency

The retreat included a strong push to reinstate meaningful committee reports:

Members acknowledged that policies often appear on agendas with no explanation, leaving the public confused.
Committee chairs would provide brief summaries explaining what was discussed, why recommendations are being made, and what concerns were raised.
This was framed as a transparency measure and a way to reduce conflict and surprise at the board table.

Conclusion: A Retreat That Was Needed Far Earlier

The retreat made one thing unmistakably clear: the board is attempting to repair damage that accumulated while leadership delayed action. Many of the problems discussed—hostility, policy confusion, micromanagement, social media fallout—were known months or even years ago. Delaying the retreat allowed them to escalate, entrench, and spill repeatedly into public meetings.

The meeting ended fittingly with yet another example of poor process: as Carol Scheneck was discussing legal distinctions and ethics, President Milde abruptly cut her off by calling a motion to adjourn—mirroring the very behavior the retreat was meant to address.

In short, the retreat revealed a board aware of its problems, but still struggling to model the discipline, planning, and leadership required to solve them.

You can listen to the retreat audio here.