Committee tables ethics/conflict-of-interest change to explore nepotism language

A proposed amendment to the district’s ethics and conflict-of-interest policy (listed in the packet as policy 11 30) was tabled so the committee could examine nepotism language and bring a combined recommendation back to the full board.

Board member Mary Lofty Blondnick proposed adding verbs to item b of policy 11 30 so the policy would bar an administrative employee from not only supervising but also “hiring, transferring, or promoting” a relative or an individual with whom they have a personal relationship. Mary Lofty Blondnick said she proposed adding the verbs to clarify past issues: “I am proposing to add 3 more verbs, that that administrative employee should not be hiring, transferring, or promoting in addition to supervising.”

Several committee members raised concerns that the phrase “personal relationship” is vague and could be overly broad. Members suggested that a more typical approach is a separate nepotism policy that defines prohibited relationships and recusal procedures; committee members asked staff to investigate existing nepotism policies and return with language that preserves accountability while allowing reasonable hiring operations (for example, requiring staff with a conflict to withdraw from the hiring panel rather than barring a candidate entirely).

The committee voted to table the proposed amendment to policy 11 30 and requested that staff research a nepotism policy and return the combined recommendation at the next committee meeting so the board can consider a clearer, enforceable approach.

The motion to table was seconded and approved by voice vote; staff were directed to bring back sample language and related policy references for the June meeting.