Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
KASB guidance: recusal sufficient; board votes to revisit handbook language
Summary
Board counsel summarized KASB’s written guidance that a disclosed recusal was sufficient under the facts presented and that board policy cannot legally strip a member of the right to vote; the board voted to revisit its handbook and policy language on conflicts for clarity and transparency.
Board counsel read a written response from the Kansas Association of School Board Attorneys (KASB) on whether the recusal actions described at a prior meeting complied with law. Counsel summarized KASB’s findings: under the facts provided, the board member’s disclosure to the clerk and removal from the meeting satisfied statutory requirements, and there was no statute requiring a member to publicly explain why they were temporarily leaving a meeting. Counsel said KASB also advised that a recusal on a depository vote did not automatically require recusal from a vote on board officers and that a board policy cannot legally take away an elected member’s vote.
"I do not think there was a violation of law," counsel said while reading the advisory content. The board then debated whether handbook language that says members "should remove him/herself" when a personal interest exists is ambiguous and whether it should require public explanation. Several members urged clearer language and transparency; others warned against imposing requirements that exceed state statute. A motion to revisit the handbook and policy passed, and the board agreed to consider specific, written revisions and legal review. A separate motion to request a formal advisory opinion from the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission was moved and seconded but failed on roll-call vote.
Board members said they want the process clarified so the public understands when a recusal occurs and so all members follow consistent expectations. Counsel said he will assist the board in framing suggested changes and that any formal advisory opinion request to the disclosure commission could take months to return.
