Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Ethics Nepotism topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hazleton Area board adopts narrower anti‑nepotism policy after rejecting stricter version
Summary
The Hazleton Area School District board on a roll call vote rejected a stricter anti‑nepotism proposal (Option A) and approved a narrower, boilerplate Option B policy after debate over whether the change would meaningfully alter current hiring practices.
The Hazleton Area School District Board of Directors voted to adopt a revised anti‑nepotism and conflict‑of‑interest policy (item 161, Option B) following a contentious discussion in which a stricter proposal (Option A) failed.
Board members first considered Option A, a version identified by proponents as more robust; after public comment and board discussion the motion failed in a recorded vote. The board then took up Option B — described in debate by several members as a standard or “boilerplate” policy that would largely codify existing practice — and approved it by roll call.
Supporters said adopting Option B brings a written policy into district governance and provides a clear reference for personnel and HR staff. Critics said Option B did not go far enough. During discussion one board member characterized the version as a “do‑nothing” measure and urged colleagues to consider a stronger policy; another board member said the document mirrored widely used model language from the Pennsylvania School Boards Association.
The board recorded votes during the Option B roll call. Board members recorded the following tallies (as announced by the chair): Barletta — yes; Bonomo — yes; Chapman — yes; Dr. Childs — no; Mrs. McBride — yes; O'Donnell — no; Szymanski — yes; Jankovich — no; Yuhas — yes. After the vote the chair announced that Option B passed.
The board took public comment on the new motion before voting; no changes were made to Option B in the meeting. The board did not adopt the more restrictive Option A.
The board did not set an implementation timeline for the new policy in the discussion recorded at the meeting; any procedural steps (administrative implementation, staff training, public posting) were not specified on the record.
