Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Conflict topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter accuses board members of a conflict; district staff says stipend votes were vetted
Summary
A public commenter cited the district's ethics slide and alleged board members voted on stipend assignments that could benefit family members; district staff responded that the positions were vetted through the executive county superintendent and that stipend assignments were voluntary and vetted.
A member of the public raised a conflict-of-interest concern during public comment, citing a recently presented school ethics slide and asking why board members who have family members employed by the district voted on a stipended personnel item shortly after that ethics presentation.
The commenter said the slides referenced the school ethics act and argued that votes on stipend positions for administrators who supervise family members created an appearance of conflict. "One of the slides discussed would be found in the meeting business agenda ... which states, no school official shall use or attempt to use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges," the commenter said. The commenter called out specific board members by name and asked for an explanation.
A district staff member replied that the stipend positions were voluntary assignments taken on by seated administrators, that the executive county superintendent was aware of and endorsed the board’s votes, and that the matter had been vetted. "It was not an example of conflict of interest," the staff member said. The staff member added that the approvals were unanimous among voting board members and that supervisors named in the personnel items were not members of the NJEA or part of the Education Association in the context cited by the commenter.
The exchange was conducted during the public comment period; the board did not take additional formal action on the allegation at the meeting.
