The Saskatchewan Rivers School Division board of education has tabled a motion to conduct a third party review.
Trustee Jill Brown made the motion during the board’s regular meeting on May 11. Brown’s motion called for George Cuff and Associates, who have done reviews for multiple levels of government, to conduct a review of Saskatchewan Rivers governance and operations before Dec. 31, 2026.
In an interview after the meeting, Director of Education Neil Finch said there will be no further discussion until the item “comes off the table.” That will likely be following a Governance Training session the board has scheduled for September.
During a notice of motion, Brown said Sask Rivers has never had a division-wide third-party review, something Finch disputed. Brown said the review was about strengthening the division, and not about targeting specific areas.
“SRPSD has never undertaken a division-wide third-party review of our governance, culture and operations,” Brown said. “This is not about pointing fingers. This is about insuring we have a clear objective understanding of how we are doing and where we can grow.”
Brown said that Cuff and Associates has a strong track record with multiple forms of governance and has worked with Westman School Division, Regina Exhibition Corporation, Public Service Commission and Alberta Motor Industry Council.
“They are highly respected across the country and internationally,” Brown said. “They will give us honest actual feedback. It’s about building trust, transparency and a culture of continuous improvement.”
Brown noted that the board already receives Accountability Reports. She said those reports are important but are only one source of information.
“Good governance relies on multiple perspectives,” she said. “A third-party review compliments internal work by bringing in independent insights from staff, students and community, which strengthens not replaces the information we receive. External reviews are a sign of a healthy and reflective organization. We owe it to our students and community to ask ‘how can we do even better?’”
She added that the review will be meaningful and comprehensive representing the whole division and fair processes.
“It is about systems, culture and governance. A third party review is a legitimate way to ensure those policies are being fulfilled. If it confirms our strengths, that’s a win. If we find areas to improve, that’s a win too,” she said.
“I hope you will see this as an investment in our division’s health and our relationship with staff and community, and most importantly for better outcomes for all students,” she told trustees. “I invite you to support this motion as a positive forward-looking step.”
Trustee Barry Hollick asked review could be put to a competitive tender, should the motion pass.
Brown said the tender process is not necessary because other organizations have not done so.
Finch said during the meeting that Sask Rivers has done reviews in 2018 and 2021. He also pointed to the OurSchool yearly survey, which is also a third-party review done annually.
He also said that their Administrative Policy requires all reviews go to tender if they cost between $10,000 and $75,000.
“We have lots of feedback mechanisms that exist within Sask Rivers,” Finch said. “If there’s more that we can do to gain feedback, as long as we’re going to do something with that information, then it’s worth looking at.”
Hollick said during the meeting that he could see the board doing what Brown suggested once in a board’s four-year term. He added that there was value to such a review, but also agreed with Finch about how it would have to go to a competitive bid.
Hollick added that the timing of such a review may be better in the first year of a board’s elected mandate.
Trustee Arne Lindberg moved to table the motion until after completing Governance Training that the board has scheduled for September 21.
The motion to table passed by a vote of six to four. Brown asked for a recorded vote before the process of the Notice of Motion began.
After the vote Board Chair Cher Bloom clarified some of the logic behind the motion being tabled because of how the board operates.
“I do think that this is something to bring forward at governance training to see the pros of,” Bloom said.
Finch said waiting until after the governance training session was also a good move.
“Then the board will make a good decision after that on that motion when it comes off the table,’ Finch said.
Brown brought forward the Notice of Motion during the conclusion of the board’s regular meeting on April 20. It was discussed during the May 11 meeting.
