Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hopkins board discusses allegation about member's para pay; counsel and members find no evidence of wrongdoing
Summary
A public allegation that a board member exceeded the $20,000 legislative cap for dual employment was raised and discussed in open session; the member addressed the board, citing small overages tied to overtime, PD and retro pay, and legal counsel and a review by board members found no evidence of intentional violation or conflict of interest.
The Hopkins School Board opened a community-requested discussion March 17 about allegations that a board member's dual employment compensation as a paraprofessional exceeded the statutory cap for board members who work for their districts.
The individual at the center of the matter — speaking in open session at the board's request — said she has worked as a paraprofessional for five years and has attempted to remain within the legislative cap that allows dual-employment earnings of up to $20,000. "In fiscal year 2024, I earned $20,034.68. In fiscal year 2025, I earned $20,056.40," the board member said, adding those overages were attributable to mandatory overtime, professional development and retroactive pay and that she is working with the district to avoid future overages.
The board's legal counsel had previously provided a written memorandum about the statute and the facts; multiple board members stated they had reviewed counsel's analysis and district records and found no evidence of abuse of power, conflict of interest, or intent to violate the statute. Several members noted the dollar amounts above the statutory cap were small (they cited about $90 in combined overages across the two years) and that the board had spent considerable time reviewing the matter. Treasurer Hartland said the investigation and conversation were appropriate but that there was no indication of misconduct.
Council Christian Schafer reminded the board that certain attorney-client privileged analysis should not be read aloud but that he was available to answer procedural questions. The board took no disciplinary action and did not move into a closed attorney-client session; members thanked the participant for addressing the matter publicly and emphasized transparency.
The discussion closed with several board members expressing support for the member and appreciation for the transparent handling of the allegation.
