The Scranton School Board advanced proposed changes to the district’s nepotism policy Wednesday after a motion to table the matter pending further discussion failed.
During a special meeting conducted via Zoom, the board voted 6-2, with Directors Catherine Fox and Carol Cleary opposed and Director Robert J. Casey not participating, to introduce for first reading proposed policy changes that board President Tom Borthwick said bolster the district’s anti-nepotism rules.
That vote came after a majority of the board rejected Fox’s motion to table the proposal. Fox, who feels the process is being rushed, called wording in the proposed policy update “vague” and worries it might weaken the nepotism policy overall.
A second reading and vote on the policy changes are planned for the board’s next meeting Monday.
The changes
Where the current policy says the district “prohibits nepotism in the selection, hiring and assignment process,” the new version reads: “The district is committed to fair and transparent hiring practices. This policy establishes safeguards against nepotism in the selection, hiring and assignment process” consistent with Pennsylvania Public School Code requirements.
Fox specifically highlighted that change Wednesday.
The updated version would also tweak the policy’s definition of nepotism to read: “Nepotism means the preferential hiring or favorable treatment of relatives of the Board or Superintendent in the employment process.”
That’s different from the current policy’s definition, which simply says nepotism “means the hiring of relatives of the Board or Superintendent.”
The proposed version leaves unchanged the list of relations that constitute relatives under the policy: “father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, step-son, step-daughter, grandchild, nephew, niece, first cousin, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, uncle, or aunt.”
But it changes language outlining the superintendent’s responsibility to alert the board upon becoming aware that a finalist for a position is a relative of the superintendent or a current board member.
The current policy requires the superintendent to alert the board when such a relative is a finalist for a “full-time” position, but the new version would extend that responsibility to any position. It also adds language explicitly requiring the notification occur “prior to Board action on the hiring recommendation,” something Borthwick pointed to in defending the would-be update.
Other changes apply to the “Guidelines” section of the policy, including a portion that currently reads: “Nothing in this policy should in any way reflect on the teacher selection process, provided that in the event a relationship is identified between a member of the selection committee and a candidate, the member of the selection committee who is related to the candidate, shall be disqualified from participating in the selection process.”
The proposed version replaces “disqualified” with “recused” and “selection process” with “evaluation of that candidate.” It also adds a new sentence that reads: “This recusal shall not invalidate the selection process or disqualify the candidate from consideration.”
Finally, it adds language to augment part of the current policy barring employees from being assigned or reassigned to a position where they directly supervise or are supervised by a relative. Should that relationship occur, the current policy requires the transfer to another position of the “employee to be supervised,” and requires a nonrelated supervisor conduct employment evaluations if such a transfer is not possible.
The added language as proposed reads: “In the event that neither a transfer nor an alternative supervisor arrangement is feasible, the Board may, by majority vote, approve any other arrangement that adequately addresses the conflict of interest.”
The debate
In making her motion to table, Fox said she’s not opposed to updating policies but wants to further discuss the proposed nepotism policy changes during a meeting of the board’s policy committee, which she chairs. Fox’s motion failed after only she, Cleary and Director Joseph Triano voted to table, with five other directors opposed.
Fox voiced misgivings during the brief back-and-forth that followed. Where the original policy “strictly prohibited” hiring relatives of the superintendent or board members, the new policy “allows it with some constraints, but they’re very vague,” she contends.
“This original policy, which was adopted in 2014, prohibited nepotism, and this new policy is ‘committed to fair and transparent hiring practices,’ but doesn’t prohibit it,” Fox said. “So that’s why I thought this was a really important topic to be able to talk about through committee.”
Director Joe Brazil then asked if there were any occasions under the current policy, which uses the word “prohibits,” where a member of a director’s family was hired. Borthwick said such a hiring occurred July 26, 2021.
While Borthwick didn’t mention anyone by name, he was apparently referencing the hiring of then-Director Michelle Dempsey’s husband, Richard Dempsey, as an assistant principal at West Scranton Intermediate School. The newspaper’s coverage of that meeting almost five years ago quoted then-Solicitor John Audi, who addressed the “elephant in the room” while defending the personnel move.
“Since I’ve been here … we have strived to be as clean as we can be and we have maintained that, and we don’t want this to in any way be used against us, because we followed the same exact procedures we followed in every other hire since I’ve been on this board,” Audi said at the time. “And we’ve followed the rules and policies to a T.”
The 2021 board ultimately voted to approve a personnel report that included Richard Dempsey’s hiring, with Michelle Dempsey abstaining and then-Director Sean McAndrew opposed.
“So we had a policy that said prohibited, but it happened,” Brazil said Wednesday. “OK.”
Borthwick reiterated his view that the proposed “rewrite” strengthens the district’s anti-nepotism policy.
“It requires that, should central administration and the superintendent discover that there is a relative applying for a job, that they are to immediately notify the board,” he said. “That was not in there previously, so the board would be made aware more quickly.”
The updated policy also “precludes board members from being part of the interview process should a relative be applying for something,” Borthwick said.
Cleary, who backed Fox’s unsuccessful motion to table the matter pending additional discussion, said, “I don’t know what the hurry is.” Directors just received the proposal on Friday, Fox said.
Building work
In other business Wednesday, the board awarded a roughly $311,270 contract to Dillsburg-based Lobar Associates for interior demolition and related work to prepare the former Friendship House building at 1509 Maple St. for students by the beginning of next school year, Borthwick said.
School directors voted in December to purchase the East Mountain building from the nonprofit Friendship House in a $2.5 million transaction that included several parcels. It will ultimately house an expansion of the district’s Monticello Program for students in kindergarten through second grade, helping the district address capacity concerns and accommodate a growing special education population, per a December press release.
Part of the district’s Electric City Academy at 1739 Dickson Ave., Monticello is a center-based program for special education students. The expanded program will complement and augment the district’s school-based programs for such students, which will continue, district leaders said late last year.
The vote to award the contract to Lobar was unanimous.