Nepotism and the School Board

Background:
About five years ago, the daughter of a sitting school board member applied for a position.  I objected on the basis that this was a conflict-of-interest.  There were no rules about hiring family members at the time, and I lost that vote.

The problem:
From my point of view, I don’t want staff in the tough position of accepting or rejecting an application from an immediate family member of a current school board member.

After reviewing the situation, I learned there were no rules against it.  The daughter was determined by staff to be the most qualified in the pool of applicants for a part time position and was hired by a 3:1 vote.  Beattie, Dietel and Tracy in favor, Wilcox (me) dissenting, the “parent” board member didn’t vote.  Before the school year started, the job was funded as a full-time position.  The job was not re-posted and the daughter kept the job.

I felt it was too difficult for staff to be impartial and did not want the suggestion of conflict-of-interest for school board members and jobs under our jurisdiction.  (If a family owns a private business and wants to hire their relatives, I’m fine with that.) The underlying question still remained; did we want to put staff in this position in the future?

After the school board election of 2005, the Board decided to review the by-laws.  Joel Peterson had run on a platform to improve the processes of the Board.  Joel and I agreed to serve on the committee for the revision of the by-laws.  We researched options and suggested updates for many sections of the by-laws.

Nepotism By-law:
We learned that most of the California state law on conflict-of-interest involved contracts.  For example, a school board cannot hire a roofing company owned by a school board member.  That makes sense.  However, there was very little in the California code regarding the hiring of immediate family members of elected officials.

We reviewed nepotism laws in other states.  Based on this review, Joel and I proposed a restriction on interviewing immediate family members of current school board members. This by-law was eventually adopted by a 3:2 vote.  Joel Peterson, Scott Tracy, and Cindy Wilcox (me) voted for the new by-law.  Susan Boyd and the “parent” board member voted against the nepotism by-law.

Two special notes:
The contested employee has turned out to be an asset to our schools.  She was hired under the “old rules” and is still employed.   Her parent is no longer on the School Board.

Through this period, Board Member Scott Tracy had two immediate family members working in public education in Los Angeles County.  They both worked in other districts.  They both had deliberately not applied to the La Cañada Unified School District while Scott Tracy was on the Board.  Prior to any rules, Scott and his family avoided any suggestion of conflict-of-interest.  I applaud them for setting their own standard and living up to it.

Wrap up:
It is unlikely that this particular discussion will be raised again.  However, it does give you insight into how board members vote on a controversial issue.

Peterson and Tracy voted in favor of the nepotism by-law.  Boyd voted against it.  All three are up for re-election.  If you are interested in an explanation for their votes, please talk to them directly.