Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board flags potential conflict-of-interest issue for candidates employed by third‑party contractors
Summary
Board members debated how a policy barring district employees from board service should apply to third‑party contractors — specifically transportation — and agreed to seek legal guidance on language clarifying whether contracted services create disqualifying conflicts.
Board members raised a potential conflict-of-interest problem for future candidates who work for companies that contract with Williston Basin School District 7.
The draft policy states "a member of the board shall not also be an employee of the district." Board members asked whether the phrase should extend to third‑party contractors who effectively work for the district, citing transportation as a likely example. "Is that interpreted also to include folks that the district would contract with ... I'm referencing transportation in particular," one board member asked.
Participants noted differences between incidental contractors (for example, a local electrician) and high-value, long-term contracts (for example, a transportation provider). One board member suggested adding clarifying language such as "third‑party/contracted services" to the policy; others said the issue should be reviewed by the district's legal counsel. "Let's run it by legal ... and see what they would suggest," the consultant said.
The group did not change policy language during the workshop; Jason was asked to forward the draft paragraph to legal counsel (Chrisann) and return recommended language so the board can insert clear guidance about third‑party contractor relationships and recusal requirements if needed.
