At the July 9th Work Session the BOE members discussed establishing a specific Conflict of Interest Policy for the ECASD. Dr. Klaus had put together a 2 page draft of a policy but, of course, nobody in the audience was allowed to view even a draft of it of they would have to kill us. Klaus stated that it was taken from the statutes. The new Interim Superintendent, Jim Leary, innocently queried why the ECASD isn't simply using the state statutes rather than writing a new policy. Comm. Cummins, as the BOE member who asked for this item to be addressed by the board, indicated that having a specific policy was recommended by the Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB) as the statutes left much to interpretation. For example, the Madison policy prohibits employees and spouses of employees to serve on the School Board as well as prohibits campaigning for candidates by seated board members in school district elections. Dr. Leary said that he is extremely careful of any perception of nepotism and would avoid a situation involving a "relative of any sort." He cited a problematic example of a Pres. of a School Board who was also the Pres. of the bank where school board funds were deposited.
Several Board members were clearly uncomfortable and silent . Lots of tiptoeing around the edges of the topic.
There was a digression of whether this policy would include other employees but Mr. Kling pointed out that current ECASD employment policies adequately cover problem areas. At this point Comm. Kneer launched into an emotional commentary that she felt this was a personal campaign against her and Mr. O'Brien. She insisted that she did not benefit financially from her work on the playground which was confusing until it was clarified that she indeed is a paid employee and not a volunteer for the district. Ms. Kneer insisted that a policy was not needed and that "we will know" if there is a Conflict of Interest problem. (How will you know? When community members start complaining? OK. You have a problem now.) Comm. Cummins assured her that current BOE members would be "grandfathered in."
Klaus finally did put up something on the overhead for the audience to see but the draft was so broad that Comm. Craig indicated that it needed more specificity. Comm. Wogahn shared another completely irrelevant anecdote from his medical training when a resident was dating a junior resident and he told the guy to just wait until she rotated off the service for that kind of thing. Does this guy even know what Conflict of Interest is? His lack of knowledge or lack of judgment or both is of real concern here!
Dr. Leary offered to put together another draft of a policy that would include examples from other districts and it would be ready for the August board meeting. Mike O'Brien chose the final minutes of the meeting to indicate that he felt such a policy would be a "slippery slope" and have a "chilling effect" on community members willing to serve on the BOE. He felt that spouses of teachers have a legitimate role in serving the district.
My opinion: Of course they do! But not in the leadership role as Board members which creates a conflict of interest financially for them. Of course in this district there is no other role for an interested community member to perform on behalf of the district. You are either on the School Board or the other way you can be an engaged community member is selling hot dogs at the concession stand at football games. Take your pick.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
In all fairness to Dr, Klaus I think that as an expert in school law he was presenting the legal aspects of conflict of interest which is the final word on the subject and as far as school boards can go in their internal policy regulating one another. They can't go beyond the law nor are they the body to interpret the law nor is the WASB..
That problem belongs to the courts.
That may be a good thing. As a teacher or administrator or school board member I would not appreciate the WASB dictating to me what I could or could not do.
For example, the Weyauwega-Fremont School Board attempted to dictate a policy to one of its members and ended up with a $300 fine and some $9,000+ dollars in court costs when the member sued the board. The WASB
ran as far and as fast as it could to distance itself from the suit.
Encouraged by the WASB a board can set up a "code of ethics" like that of the Madison district that it publishes so members can see what the board expects of itself. With the exception of the board election clause it is a good code IMHO. However, there is no enforcement measure they can use unless the offending member violates state statues. And that has to be determined by a district court. I seem to remember that Dr. Klaus has taught seminars in this stuff. But I could be wrong on that.
That Madison suggestion that ethics require that members not publicly endorse candidates for school board is probably a good idea to avoid internal conflict and one, I think, members should follow, but it is at the fringes of violation of first amendment rights and would be difficult to defend in any fair court, which may not actually include our current Supreme Court.
Post a Comment