Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Nepotism topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board member requests review of nepotism policy; item not added to agenda
Summary
A Sumner County School Board member asked to add discussion of board policy 1.108 (nepotism and fraternization) after an apparent personnel placement; the motion was not seconded and was not added to the meeting agenda. Director of Schools Dr. Langford described personnel authority and said the director approved the placement.
A Sumner County School Board member asked the board July 22 to add discussion or action on board policy 1.108, “Nepotism and Fraternization,” citing concerns that a former bookkeeper had been moved to an office manager role in the same building as her husband, who the member said had been made a principal.
The request to add the item to the meeting agenda was not seconded and therefore was not added for formal discussion. The board continued with the posted director’s report.
Why it matters: The board member said the placement could violate board policy and state law and asked the board to consider whether corrective action or reprimand was needed. That would be a formal personnel oversight step if pursued.
Director of Schools Dr. Langford, who delivered the district report that followed, said personnel decisions fall to the director and must be handled with attention to employees’ privacy. “It is my job as director of schools to make personnel decisions based on the good of the district,” Dr. Langford said during the meeting. He said the policy requires prior approval of any exceptions by the director and that the policy does not categorically prohibit relatives from working at the same location if the job duties do not require them to work together.
Board members who pressed the item sought a clear statement from the board about whether the placement should be reviewed under policy 1.108. Board member Kingham asked whether a grievance process should be pursued through the board attorney if someone believed the policy had been violated. Dr. Langford replied that the matter is a personnel decision and that concerns could be taken up with legal counsel if a formal grievance were filed.
No formal motion to investigate or discipline was adopted at the July 22 meeting. The board member who proposed adding the topic may bring it back on a future agenda subject to the board’s rules for adding personnel matters to a public meeting.
