THE ISSUE Board members met in private last month to discuss how the nepotism policy may affect relatives of newcomer Deborah Boyle, who had not yet been seated.
OUR VIEW Because the policy is clear about how it applies to board members and employees, taking the discussion behind closed doors may have violated state law.
A letter sent last week to the Reporter demonstrated that some Community High School District 99 leaders still don’t comprehend the importance of adhering to the state’s Open Meetings Act.
School Board President Julia Beckman responded to an April 29 story and May 6 editorial we published focusing on a closed session the School Board held April 27. Beckman’s letter is posted on our Letters to the Editor section.
The issue centered on the fact that board member Deborah Boyle’s brother and father work for the district. For nearly two hours, the School Board met behind closed doors to discuss how the district’s nepotism policy could potentially impact these employees.
The nepotism policy prohibits the district from hiring relatives of sitting board members, requires new board members with relatives already working for the district to disclose these relationships, mandates that these board members recuse themselves from discussions about the terms of employment for their relatives, and bars any employee from being supervised by a relative.
At the time board members met in closed session, Boyle was not yet on the School Board. As such, the nepotism policy did not affect her brother or father, so the “personnel issues” exception to the Open Meetings Act could not be invoked.
Beckman writes that Boyle’s brother is covered under the district’s collective bargaining agreement. But the nepotism policy applies the same to all employees. It would seem, therefore, that collective bargaining matters are not relevant.
The policy is clear about how it applies to board members and employees. Enforcing the policy wouldn’t bring up confidential details about an employee’s position, such as an evaluation of his or her performance. So, we’re stumped about what the board discussed for nearly two hours — except that whatever it was probably violated state law.
In terms of Boyle’s relationship to these two employees, the policy would only impact Boyle’s actions because her relatives already worked for the district when she was elected. Boyle is a board member, not a district employee, so anything pertaining to her in the policy would not be covered by personnel issues.
In the spirit of the Open Meetings Act, the School Board should release the minutes from the closed session regarding discussion and application of the district’s nepotism policy.
