Due to low attendance, approval vote will be moved to next month's meeting.

Committee will consider the MidYear review process at this month's Board Meeting with an eye to how we may want the Head of School process to go in the future. The Governance Committee will coordinate with MR to ensure that the review/performance rubric for the Head of School and Principal are aligned in terms of organizational goals, values and metrics. 

Governance Committee members will review Board on Track resources ahead of next month's meeting to get a more concrete sense of how we may choose to develop the rubric.

The Committee discussed BoT-suggested metrics for monitoring the relationship between the Board and the Head of School. Committee members and MR were generally aligned on approach: that it shouldn't be too procedural or mired in "checklists," but rather aimed at big-picture alignment and effective ongoing communication.  

JB highlighted a few key outcomes from the Board Self-Assessment for the Governance Committee to act on:

1. Developing a bit more clarity around a "job description" and annual plan for the Governance Committee.

2. Supporting the development of individual trustee performance metrics/evaluation/goal-planning.

All agreed that annual planning and performance metrics should generally be high-level and policy-oriented (more like flexible guidelines for discussion and ongoing monitoring). Especially with individual trustees, we want to make sure that we are all keeping ourselves accountable to clear standards, creating a good framework for discussions and professional development, and also avoiding creating any problematic standards or subjective metrics that could leave room for unfair or biased treatment of any trustee. SP asked whether it would make sense to connect evaluations with the A/B class renewals of Board membership that happen biannually for individual trustees. JB suggested that it would probably be better not to tie these reviews too explicitly to whether or not a Trustee's term should be renewed, but rather it would be good to have objective guideposts to consider. (Ultimately, Trustees are voted on by other Trustees, so objective guidance on performance can be helpful.) Committee members discussed certain situations that such individual goal planning and/or basic performance expectations should help to address: e.g., trustees that are unable to commit sufficient time to their board duties, or trustees that are not following important standards of professionalism. The Committee will also consult with Susan to make sure that our standards are in line with legal best practices. 

For next month, the Committee will review BoT guidelines for Governance Committee responsibilities and individual evaluations, and then discuss more concrete ideas about what these documents will look like. 

Due to low attendance, Committee updates will be postponed to next month.