The following letter was submitted to be read into the record at the Derby Board of Education meeting Thursday (Oct. 21). It is reprinted here with the author’s permission.
I was disappointed to read in the Valley Independent Sentinel that this evening you will be asked to vote to eliminate the provision of your policies that prevents the BOE from hiring an immediate family member, based upon the recommendation of a subcommittee appointed to review this provision.
While I agree that the provision can at times prevent the BOE from hiring the best person for a perspective job opening, I had hoped that the BOE and its appointed subcommittee would honor the intent of the provision which was to avoid unethical behavior on the part of those elected to represent the public and formulate a solution that addresses both concerns with equal gravity.
Preventing unethical behavior by those elected to serve the public was the reason why CABE as the advising agency of the BOE included this provision among its recommendation of policies which was adopted previously by another BOE.
In a day and age when the public has a very low opinion regarding the ethical conduct of elected officials, desires more openness, more accountability and policies, procedures and laws holding elected officials to a higher standard of conduct, simply removing the provision entirely is going in the wrong direction. The provision should be retained in an altered form to reflect both concerns.
This could easily be done by adopting a policy that allows the BOE to consider the application of an immediate family relative of a sitting BOE member provided that provisions are included and followed by the involved parties that warn the public of the potential conflict of interest, ensure actions are avoided that would produce a conflict of interest, and include a measure or passage sufficient to indicate the BOE as a whole felt there was no conflict of interest in the hiring of the individual.
Requiring any applicant to disclose in writing at the time of application any relationship with a sitting BOE member as an immediate family relative and for the BOE member with such a relationship to acknowledge that relationship publicly would fulfill the warning provision. If an applicant failed to follow this provision their application would be rejected as such a violation would be viewed as a breach of ethics. Language prohibiting the BOE member with the immediate family relationship from any involvement in the hiring process including but not limited to participating in the debate / discussion and voting would take care of avoiding a conflict of interest. Finally requiring a super majority such as a 2/3 affirmative or unanimous vote of BOE members eligible to vote (obviously excluding the BOE member with the immediate family relationship), would satisfy the final provision.
In this case, you can have your cake and eat it to. You can be able to hire immediate relatives of BOE members who in your collective opinion are “the best people for the job” and yet preserve the integrity of the public trust.
I would urge you to vote no when asked to eliminate this provision prohibiting the hiring of immediate family relatives of BOE members and instead direct your committee to draft a revised policy such as the one recommended.
Thank you for your consideration.
The writer, a Derby resident, is a former member of the Derby Board of Aldermen, the tax board, and the Derby Board of Education.
