School board candidates reluctant to ban nepotism
Taking part in the Herald-Standard editorial board interviews of candidates for area school boards was an education in itself. While most of these individuals are dedicated and knowledgeable, to me one of the most disturbing abuses of the public trust by elected officials in general is nepotism in hiring, so that was my main interest in these meetings. Not all school board races were covered and not all candidates in covered races showed; nonetheless, I think some impressions can be drawn. With a couple exceptions I think it safe to say that most school board members or would-be members did not take a firm stand against nepotism in hiring. (In fairness, due to the excellent turnout of Uniontown candidates, time ran out before they could address the question.)
Some candidates and incumbents acknowledged having family members working for their respective districts. Just one candidate overall favored an anti-nepotism policy. Many voiced the opinion that it is unfair to exclude a best-qualified applicant because their family member is on the school board.
At the same time, there seemed to be a general consensus among all incumbent candidates that there are usually a large number of applicants to choose from, especially for teaching positions. My feeling is that if a candidate were highly qualified they would have no problem being hired in another district. I think teaching jobs in Pennsylvania are highly sought after, as Pennsylvania teachers are among the highest paid in the country. In some instances beginning teachers go out of state and work a couple years to return to Pennsylvania to secure employment here. So it would seem there is an abundant pool of qualified applicants.
Many candidates danced around the nepotism question by saying they did not, or would not should the situation arise – participate in the actual vote to hire their relative. They would have you believe that abstaining from that one vote resolves the issue.
What they do not address is that once a relative is hired, the board member now becomes their family member’s boss, using public money. Every time salary, health insurance or retirement packages are addressed by a board, that board member is voting on their family member’s benefits. How could they possibly be unbiased?
In some instances, on the question of health insurance, the board member may be voting on their own benefits if their spouse is employed by the district and the board member is covered by their spouse’s insurance.
Even the tax study committees mandated by the state in each district were required to have no relatives of district employees or school board members. Wouldn’t it be consistent if that were the general rule for school boards?
One has to look no further than the daily news to see examples of misuse of position regarding favoritism: World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz is under fire for promoting his girlfriends; two of Gov. Ed Rendell’s cabinet secretaries are accused of conflict of interest for approving grants to agencies that employ their spouses.. The names change, but the practice appears to be ever present.
I believe no relatives of school board members should be hired – period. At the very least, the board member should abstain on the vote and then immediately resign from the board. From the number of candidates vying for these board positions, I would say there is no shortage there, either.
It is my understanding that the only school district in Fayette County that has a no-nepotism policy is Frazier. If you notice the comparative test scores of schools in the state, Frazier consistently has the highest in Fayette County. Could nepotism be a factor?
Jane Sheehan resides in Brownsville and is community member of the Herald-Standard editorial board.