Considering the issue of whether or not school boards should have separate staffs, three models are presented: a "two-hat" concept of metropolitan governance; a separate staff operating on a needs basis; and, the "federal model" with legislative, judicial, and administrative branches. These models raise two political questions: In routine, non-episodic decisions, does the board actually control policy? and, Is the board perception of the administration supportive or skeptical? Four power relationships become available to answer the questions--a "paternalistic" model, a "legitimize" model, an "enforcers" model, and a "reformers" model. The implications of whether boards should have their own staff raise philosophical and political meanings of school governance. Administration and board are institutional definitions, derived from the bureaucratic structure, and it is imperative to decide who makes policy. If actual policy is formed and implemented by decisions reached by competing professions, interest groups, and select individuals, then staffing in response to institutional definitions makes little sense. (Author/DW)