Portland SD 1J's Policy Committee spent substantial time debating a proposed amendment to the district's ethics and conflict-of-interest policy that would restrict current board members from applying for or accepting employment with the district, with a narrow exception proposed for school-based positions.

The draft amendment under discussion would prevent current board members from applying for or accepting district employment unless the board member sent a written notice to all board members stating their intent to potentially pursue school-based employment. Proponents said the notice-and-exception approach provides transparency while allowing flexibility for school-based hires; opponents said the proposal could be overly prescriptive, could raise barriers to board service for lower-income candidates, and may duplicate or conflict with Oregon ethics statutes.

Committee members traced the amendment through many prior committee and board steps, noting multiple earlier meetings and readings and that the version in the committee packet differed slightly from the version circulated after the last full board discussion. One committee member said an earlier version properly removed the school-based exception, while the version in the committee packet erroneously retained strikethroughs and introduced a discrepancy.

Speakers debated core policy trade-offs. One board member argued the policy should be permissive on school-based employment because the superintendent and hiring managers (for example, principals or department directors) carry out most hiring decisions and separation exists between board oversight and site-level hiring. That member warned that a school-based ban could discourage economically diverse candidates from running for the board: "we may economically have a difficult time and 2 years in May choose to go back to work and not able to serve on the board anymore," the member said, adding that an overly prescriptive policy could raise the bar for entry to serve.

Other members warned of the imbalance of power when a sitting board member applies for positions in the superintendent's span of control and argued the exception should be narrow. One committee speaker said the policy should prioritize public trust: "I think it's setting high ethical standards," that speaker said, adding that any exception would need public-facing mechanisms to ensure transparency beyond private notifications among board members.

Committee members discussed implementation mechanics and transparency options. Several members suggested that private written notification to fellow board members would not by itself create public notice and recommended a public-facing mechanism (for example, posting an intent-to-apply report) if an exception remained in the policy. Participants also noted state ethics statutes were relevant; one member cited ORS 244.04 and ORS 244.045 as existing statutory provisions addressing post-employment and conflicts of interest.

No motion was made to send a specific amended version to the full board. Committee members agreed the item should remain in committee for further work, with several members urging broader review to avoid unintended consequences and to ensure any final language protects students and does not unduly restrict potential board candidates.

The committee adjourned at its scheduled end time without forwarding an amended ethics policy to the full board; staff and committee members will continue to refine the language and address concerns about transparency, equity, and administrative flexibility.