The Scranton School Board advanced proposed changes to the district\u2019s nepotism policy Wednesday after a motion to table the matter pending further discussion failed.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s anti-nepotism rules.<\/p>\n
That vote came after a majority of the board rejected Fox\u2019s motion to table the proposal. Fox, who feels the process is being rushed, called wording in the proposed policy update \u201cvague\u201d and worries it might weaken the nepotism policy overall.<\/p>\n
A second reading and vote on the policy changes are planned for the board\u2019s next meeting Monday.<\/p>\n
The changes<\/p>\n
Where the current policy says the district \u201cprohibits nepotism in the selection, hiring and assignment process,\u201d the new version reads: \u201cThe district is committed to fair and transparent hiring practices. This policy establishes safeguards against nepotism in the selection, hiring and assignment process\u201d consistent with Pennsylvania Public School Code requirements.<\/p>\n
Fox specifically highlighted that change Wednesday.<\/p>\n
The updated version would also tweak the policy\u2019s definition of nepotism to read: \u201cNepotism means the preferential hiring or favorable treatment of relatives of the Board or Superintendent in the employment process.\u201d<\/p>\n
That\u2019s different from the current policy\u2019s definition, which simply says nepotism \u201cmeans the hiring of relatives of the Board or Superintendent.\u201d<\/p>\n
The proposed version leaves unchanged the list of relations that constitute relatives under the policy: \u201cfather, 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
But it changes language outlining the superintendent\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
The current policy requires the superintendent to alert the board when such a relative is a finalist for a \u201cfull-time\u201d position, but the new version would extend that responsibility to any position. It also adds language explicitly requiring the notification occur \u201cprior to Board action on the hiring recommendation,\u201d something Borthwick pointed to in defending the would-be update.<\/p>\n
Other changes apply to the \u201cGuidelines\u201d section of the policy, including a portion that currently reads: \u201cNothing 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
The proposed version replaces \u201cdisqualified\u201d with \u201crecused\u201d and \u201cselection process\u201d with \u201cevaluation of that candidate.\u201d It also adds a new sentence that reads: \u201cThis recusal shall not invalidate the selection process or disqualify the candidate from consideration.\u201d<\/p>\n
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 \u201cemployee to be supervised,\u201d and requires a nonrelated supervisor conduct employment evaluations if such a transfer is not possible.<\/p>\n
The added language as proposed reads: \u201cIn 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
The debate<\/p>\n
In making her motion to table, Fox said she\u2019s not opposed to updating policies but wants to further discuss the proposed nepotism policy changes during a meeting of the board\u2019s policy committee, which she chairs. Fox\u2019s motion failed after only she, Cleary and Director Joseph Triano voted to table, with five other directors opposed.<\/p>\n
Fox voiced misgivings during the brief back-and-forth that followed. Where the original policy \u201cstrictly prohibited\u201d hiring relatives of the superintendent or board members, the new policy \u201callows it with some constraints, but they\u2019re very vague,\u201d she contends.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis original policy, which was adopted in 2014, prohibited nepotism, and this new policy is \u2018committed to fair and transparent hiring practices,\u2019 but doesn\u2019t prohibit it,\u201d Fox said. \u201cSo that\u2019s why I thought this was a really important topic to be able to talk about through committee.\u201d<\/p>\n
Director Joe Brazil then asked if there were any occasions under the current policy, which uses the word \u201cprohibits,\u201d where a member of a director\u2019s family was hired. Borthwick said such a hiring occurred July 26, 2021.<\/p>\n
While Borthwick didn\u2019t mention anyone by name, he was apparently referencing the hiring of then-Director Michelle Dempsey\u2019s husband, Richard Dempsey, as an assistant principal at West Scranton Intermediate School. The newspaper\u2019s coverage of that meeting<\/a> almost five years ago quoted then-Solicitor John Audi, who addressed the \u201celephant in the room\u201d while defending the personnel move.<\/p>\n \u201cSince I\u2019ve been here \u2026 we have strived to be as clean as we can be and we have maintained that, and we don\u2019t 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\u2019ve been on this board,\u201d Audi said at the time. \u201cAnd we\u2019ve followed the rules and policies to a T.\u201d<\/p>\n