Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables proposed staff ethics and professional conduct policy for more specificity
Summary
The Monroe County Community School Corporation Board of School Trustees voted to table three proposed policies — 1200 (administration), 3210 (professional staff) and 4210 (support staff) — asking administration to add cross-references and clearer context about where and how the policies apply.
The Monroe County Community School Corporation Board of School Trustees on Jan. 28 moved to table proposed administrative policies 1200, 3210 and 4210 for further revision, saying the draft is too broad and could be applied inconsistently across administrations.
Board members raised concerns that several bullet points in the draft policy are vague and do not make clear whether items apply only during work duties or extend into private life when conduct might still affect the corporation. Board member Aaron made the motion to table the policies and Board member Brandon seconded. The motion carried.
Board members said they support an ethics policy but want greater clarity about application, definitions and links to other existing policies. Doctor Henderson and other administrators explained the draft was intended to provide a single reference point and that more detailed definitions and overlapping policy references exist elsewhere in the corpus of MCCSC policies. Administrators said they have consulted with employee groups, including MCEA, and had two prior discussions with union representatives (December and January). Doctor Henderson said the union provided recommendations for cross references and that MCEA had generally supported having an ethics policy while asking for clarification in places.
Attorney Denise (district counsel) told trustees that legal disputes over policy application often arise when language is implied rather than explicit and recommended making the implicit explicit. Trustees singled out a line referring to “conduct that offends the morals of the community” as particularly ambiguous and asked that cross references to policies that protect individual rights (for example anti-racism and identity/inclusion policies) be added so the provision cannot be used to target employees for personal characteristics or lifestyle.
Administrators reported they have preliminarily identified eight corporation policies closely related to the administrative staff policy and seven related to support staff that could be cross-referenced. Trustees requested the administration return with a revised draft that explicitly states the contexts in which provisions apply (for example, while performing job duties or when representing MCCSC at school functions) and that provides clearer examples or subpoints for items such as “dishonesty” and “profane or abusive language.” Several trustees suggested a board work session to review a revised draft before a final vote.
The board directed administration and legal counsel to incorporate the requested clarifications and cross references and to return the policy for future consideration.
