Jessica reviewed the BoT resources and the past process that was used under Lighthouse. Malik asked whether the Governance Committee (GC) has specific metrics in mind, and Jessica clarified that the GC needs to develop its own context for thinking about what rubrics and review processes can look like, but that it would look to Malik to lead the rubric development with his recommendations and reasoning, based on his experience of what is successful and what makes the most sense for him.

Jessica highlighted that the BoT template evaluates strengths and weaknesses but does not have a built-in framework that clarifies benchmarks and expectations. She suggested that this is something the GC should consider during the rubric development process, since building this into the tool helps to ensure that this aspect is not overlooked. She also highlighted the character of the metrics used in the past (often qualitative and input-oriented, with less reliance on hard data and outcomes). Malik has underlined his focus on outcomes-oriented metrics in the past, so the GC will look to him to present his views on the proper balance for this in our rubric. She also reviewed the evaluation categories in the BoT template as an example of one way to approach the review process, but emphasized that the GC would look to Malik's recommendations on what makes sense in this way as well.

Shanta asked about timeline for development, to ensure that the rubric was ready in time for use in the upcoming academic year. Malik said he would have a concrete rough draft for discussion by May. Aaron mentioned that discussions with Malik were ongoing and that he was working with various Committees to develop the rubric. Jessica also mentioned that the BoT guidelines give an overview for the annual timeline/process and suggest that each in-depth review (annual and mid-year) could take about 90 days from start to finish. She is developing a proposed cadence calendar for the GC which she will circulate in the coming month, to include these review processes.   

Jessica flagged that two key areas that the GC decided to work on for the upcoming year are individual evaluations and clarified responsibilities for the Governance Comittee. She has identified BoT resources for this and will send around key pieces for committee members to read before the next meeting. The GC responsibilities will be a part of determining the GC cadence calendar for the coming year.

Committee members will receive links to review in relation to all topics discussed in today's meeting. These topics for discussion will be continued in next month's meeting.

In addition, since this timing for meetings has proved more difficult than originally anticipated, Jessica will send around a Doodle poll for a revised meeting time going forward. Ellen suggested that closer to the end of the day might work better.  

Shanta flagged that progress toward the Finance Committee's strategic goals, including setting the budget for next year, is now contingent on coordination with the Executive Director and the External Relations Committee. The GC discussed strategies for moving that conversation forward.

Jessica reported that she spoke with Aluta about setting up External Relations Committee meetings this month but has not received notice of any meeting as of yet.

Ellen noted that the Education Committee has some information for fundraising that needs to be coordinated with the External Relations Committee.

Jessica noted that, in relation to developing strategic goals and metrics for the coming year within the Education Committee, there are useful resources on Board on Track that may also relate to setting up the Executive Director rubric. These are included in the resources that Jessica will send around this month.    

To be discussed next month.