Committee trims conflict‑of‑interest language for staff vs. board members
Summary
Review of Policy 3.60 (Conflict of Interest) resulted in committee direction to remove board‑member procedural language from the employee policy and retain staff reporting requirements about suspected board conflicts; staff will revise prior to the next meeting.
Upper Dublin's policy committee reviewed proposed updates to Policy 3.60 addressing conflicts of interest and instructed staff to refine the document to keep employee‑level content while removing procedural material intended for the board.
A committee member recommended excising mentions of board‑member conflict procedures from the employee policy and retaining only the passage that requires employees to report perceived conflicts of interest by board members. "Any perceived conflict of interest of a board member that's detected or suspected by the employee, that should stay in here because that relates employees. Everything else relates to a board member, I think, should be excised and live in the board member policy," the member said.
Staff indicated the language is based on PSBA suggested wording and that there are no legal requirements mandating board procedural text in the employee policy; staff agreed to make the requested adjustments before the next policy meeting.
The committee did not adopt the revised policy at the August meeting; staff will prepare an adjusted draft that separates board procedures from the employee policy and will return the revised language to the committee.
