Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nepotism Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board volleys over nepotism policy and a recent hire; proposed rewrite fails first-reading push
Summary
A proposed revision to the district's nepotism policy prompted a heated debate about a recent coaching hire and whether policy language should omit two lines that prohibit certain relative-supervisor relationships; the board moved the proposal for first reading but members disputed the vote and no final policy change was adopted.
A contentious exchange over nepotism and a recent hire dominated the Coffee County School Board’s July meeting as members argued about whether the district should accept a policy committee–recommended version of policy 1.108.
Board member Gilley raised concerns and asked why the policy committee’s draft removed lines 9 and 10 from the older district policy. “I’ve had some people bring this to my attention,” Gilley said, noting community worries about how coaching positions were advertised and filled. Gilley and other members said that under the board’s existing language, direct supervision of relatives is expressly prohibited.
Director of Schools Hargrove defended the staffing process for the coach who prompted the discussion, saying the position was posted for more than 70 days, that the candidate was recommended by her supervisors and that her official duties (6th grade head coach and JV head coach) were supervised or evaluated by administrators other than the related party. “She was recommended for hire after the job was posted for 70 over 70 days. She’s the only person that applied for the job… she was recommended by her two supervisors,” Hargrove said.
Several board members and parents pressed that the district’s policy language should be clear and districtwide; they warned removing restrictive lines could open the door to perceived favoritism. “We’ve got parents that sincerely think that there’s some home cooking going on here,” one member said.
The policy committee presented a TSBA-based version of 1.108 with two lines removed; a motion was made to adopt that committee-recommended text as the first reading. Board members then voted to end discussion (a call of the question passed) and proceeded to vote on the first-reading motion. A procedural dispute followed: some members interpreted the tally as a 4–3 vote (insufficient to carry if a majority of full membership is required), and the chair ruled the motion failed for lack of the necessary majority.
Because the motion did not secure the required support to change the policy at this stage, the district’s existing nepotism language remained in effect. Several board members urged taking the issue back to policy committee and to the fall retreat for clearer wording and to avoid singling out individual hires in public meetings.
What comes next: Board members asked to return policy language to committee with a goal of clarifying supervisor/evaluation language and to ensure the public packet matches the version being acted on before any further votes.
