Uniontown school board member questions truancy officer hire: Director contends in hiring matter that wife’s nephew is not his relative
A member of the Uniontown Area School Board has questioned the hiring of another board member’s wife’s nephew as a truancy officer — a position that was unadvertised and created during last week’s board meeting.
The board narrowly approved hiring Philip Michael, a Uniontown city councilman and a state constable, as the district’s truancy officer at a salary of $45,000, effective immediately, at the April 21 meeting. Directors Thomas George, Bill Gerke, Bill Rittenhouse, Vincent Winfrey and Ken Meadows voted in favor of the hire, while Dorothy Grahek, Don Rugola, Terry Dawson and Susan Clay voted against.
Following the meeting, George confirmed that Michael is his wife’s nephew.
The district’s nepotism and hiring policy states administrators and board members must disclose any personal relationship with a job applicant, be they a relative, neighbor, business associate or close friend.
The policy also requires board members to remove themselves from the hiring process when the applicant is a relative, and precludes them from engaging in nepotism.
During the meeting, Clay said she asked if anyone on the board was related to Michael, but no one responded at that time.
“I think it has to be questioned. To avoid anything that looked bad, the job should have been posted and the relationship should have been disclosed,” she said.
Clay said that a board member failing to disclose their relationship with the potential district employee is a “disservice to the district and the people in the district.”
“I went over to the reporter after the meeting, and that’s when I made it public through the newspaper,” said George. “The board members knew that he (Michael) was my wife’s nephew.”
George has been a Uniontown school board member off and on since 1997. He was appointed twice to finish out terms of previous board members and is currently in his third year of a four-year term to which he was elected, according to district officials. George said that he was unaware of the district’s hiring policy.
“If there’s a policy at Uniontown, when I took office, it was never given to me,” George said.
According to Dr. Charles Machesky, superintendent, the district’s hiring policy was adopted on Jan. 25, 1994.
“I was aware according to (state) school code that you cannot vote for your relative, but he’s not my relative,” George said.
District solicitor Samuel J. Davis said that there could be a reason to question the hiring.
“If the policy is in fact as clear as it appears to be, there certainly is a reason for questioning,” Davis said.
Davis said he was not aware of the relationship between George and Michael at the meeting and indicated that the relationship was not stated publicly at that time.
Davis said that “relative” is a broad term and noted that in cases involving school code, courts have ruled that a son-in-law and a son are not the same thing.
“Is a nephew-in-law the same as a nephew? Most people would say it is the same, but there are definitions that state otherwise,” Davis said.
Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel from the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, said that state code of ethics for school directors has not been violated in Uniontown.
She said the state code does not extend to nephews; however, Melewsky said the Uniontown policy appears to be more stringent and George not disclosing the relationship during the meeting could create an appearance of impropriety or loss of public trust.
“The real issue is how the public reacts. Ultimately, school board members answer to their constituency,” Melewsky said.
The district policy does not include a penalty for violation, but Davis said that does not mean the matter is without repercussion.
He said if the matter is brought to light collectively by the board and a motion is approved to rule on the validity of the hiring, he would be required to do so. Rescinding the hiring could be a possibility, but Davis cautioned the candidate was hired and also has rights.
“The board does have the authority to revisit the matter,” Davis said.
George maintains Michael’s experience makes him suited to the position.
“I have the facts. He is qualified, certified and he has a degree in education. As a constable, he was doing the work anyway,” he said.
According to Machesky, the district has been paying constables, including Michael, $22,000 to $23,000 yearly to act as truancy officers.
Machesky said constables were used because the district had no one authorized to file citations and prosecute at the magistrate level.
“This caused the district to be negatively impacted in two ways — habitual truant students not being returned to the classrooms and revenues generated from fines not being collected,” Machesky said.
Although Machesky did not recommend Michael for the position, he does support the need for a truancy officer.
“After examination, I discovered that the board has the authority to designate arrest powers for student attendance to any school employee as long as it is done by board resolution at a public meeting,” Machesky said.
The truancy officer position replaces the Act 93 position of chief of police that has not been filled since long-time Chief Don Homer retired in December. Gerke nominated Michael for the truancy job, George seconded the motion.
“The true meaning of nepotism is not hiring a relative — it’s creating a position for a relative,” Clay said. “Cronyism is creating a position for a friend.”
George said he feels Michael’s knowledge of school attendance policies and enforcement makes him “the best candidate for the job.”
“If I would have not voted, it would have been a 4-4 tie,” George said. “There are four other board members who also feel that he is a qualified and reputable candidate and person.”