It also seems to presume that publicly elected boards are no different from
corporate ones. That, of course, is insane. The obligations to govern
responsible are similar, but the accountability factor is not included. With
one, there is, the other there isn't.
Andy Driscoll
--
"Whatever keeps you from your work is your work."
Albert Camus
The Driscoll Group/Communications
Writing/Graphics/Strategic Development
1595 Selby Ave./Suite 206
St. Paul, MN 55104
651-649-1188/Fax:651-645-3169
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.driscollgroup.com
> From: "Sheldon Mains" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:28:02 -0500
> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: School Governance
>
>> I would really like to hear more about this Carver based model of governance
>> that Audrey Johnson referred to in her post. Sounds very interesting. She
>> delineated a number of problems that boards have - too distant, too
>> micromanaging, etc. - and I think it would be really neat if there were some
>> structural form that would help in this regard.
>>
>> Jan Del Calzo
>> Lynnhurst
>
> It's a rather detailed model that looks good in theory, is pushed by a lot
> of "governance" experts, but usually has problems when people decide it is
> "the only way to do it." Like any management theory, when someone becomes
> a true believer (like the Demming Lemmings) watch out.
>
> Specifically, it doesn't always work with very grass roots organizations.
> It doesn't work with small organizations that have to have "working" boards
> to get things done because there is not enough (or any) staff to do it. At
> times it can also pull the board too far away from the real world the
> organization is working in.
>
>
>> .>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>
> sheldon mains seward neighborhood minneapolis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> the shameless agitator in the electronic town square
>
>
>
>
>
