Search This Blog

Sunday, September 15, 2019

Follow-Up

(from THIS site)

I'm referring to this posting about Scranton School District (SSD).  Here's what I've learned:
  • The hired teacher is related to Director Lesh through marriage, although not in his immediate family.
  • I was told that Director Lesh had nothing to to with the individual's hiring.
  • The SSD Board was not told about the more distant familial relationship.
  • The hiring would fall outside of the SSD's (arguably laughable) anti-nepotism policy*.  
Like many things in the SSD's administrative history, this instance seems to just skirt the boundaries of impropriety.  Technically the policy was not violated, but it does tell a story that this particular hire was not questioned during the last board meeting.  I mean it's not as if the SSD has had problems with this in the past (I'm being sarcastic...it has been a problem; see this posting from August 23, 2013).  

As I've noted before, given the significant legal and ethical lapses of the SSD Administration in the past, one would think that the SSD Board would have gone the extra mile and disclosed the relationship, even if it did not technically violate the policy.  I do realize that there is a lot of the SSD Board's plate, but part of that is because prior versions of the SSD's administration failed to pay proper attention to both the letter and the spirit of the law. 

By the way, unlike the SSD's Conflict of Interest policy, there appears to be no real sanction or consequence if the board were to not follow the Anti-Nepotism policy.  Why is that?  Well, I suspect that's the case because the Anti-Nepotism "policy" isn't really a policy...it's actually a guideline.  The distinction is important because a policy effectively says "you must do this"; a guideline says "it would be kind of nice if you did this".  The Anti-Nepotism policy guideline is actually a "trust us, we'll do the right thing" kind of document. 

In the end, this is not the SSD's final hour, and I'll confess some sense of dismay at the Scranton Times for failing to report on the issue.  As soon as the name "Lesh" appeared in the board meeting notes, the individual's hiring should have been put on hold pending a review.  That isn't required per the SSD's anti-nepotism policy guideline, but it would the right thing to do for what has historically been an ethically challenged organization. 




(*) You can find all of the SSD's policies by following this link.  Here is the text of the anti-nepotism policy guideline (red text by me):

Purpose

The district prohibits nepotism in the selection, hiring and assignment process.

Definitions

Nepotism means the hiring of relatives of the Board or Superintendent.

Relatives shall mean father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, step-son, step-daughter, grandchild, nephew, niece, first cousin, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, uncle, or aunt.

Delegation of Responsibility

As soon as the Superintendent becomes aware that a finalist for a full-time position is a relative of a current Board member or the Superintendent, s/he shall notify the Board. All candidates shall be required to complete a written form disclosing any relationship with any current Board member or Superintendent.[1]

Guidelines

Nothing in this policy should in any way reflect on the teacher selection process, provided that in the event a relationship is identified between a member of the selection committee and a candidate, the member of the selection committee who is related to the candidate, shall be disqualified from participating in the selection process.[1]

No persons shall be assigned, or reassigned to a position that requires that the employee directly supervise or be supervised by a relative. Should such a relationship occur, the employee to be supervised shall be transferred to another position with no diminution of his/her employment status. In the event such a transfer is not possible, a nonrelated supervisor shall conduct the employment evaluation. This policy and its implementation shall not cause the resignation of any Board member or discharge of any employee should a relative be elected or hired/transferred to a position of supervision.

It is the intention of the Board that this policy not prohibit the selection, promotion or transfer of any person in the employ of the district prior to the date of the adoption of this policy.

Sunday, September 8, 2019

If a Tree Fell in the Woods (or if a Relative were Hired in the Scranton School District)...

With apologies for the impossibly long title.

(photo by the author)

During the September 3rd meeting of the Scranton School Board (the Board/SSB), something unusual happened, namely that Director Lesh actually attended.  This has not been a regular occurrence over the course of 2019.  Something else happened that may not be unusual in the history of the Scranton School District (SSD), namely nepotism.  Emphasis on the word "may" by the way; more on that in a moment.

During the above-referenced meeting, the Board hired Ms. Dawn Lesh as a fifth-grade teacher.  Reference HERE.  If you've heard that last name before then congratulations...you have a functioning short-term memory.  Yes, Ms. Lesh has the same last name as Director Lesh, who just happened to show up for a meeting.  To vote for Ms. Lesh, among other business.

Note that the SSD has been a hot-bed of nepotism.  Case in point:  The former business manager, who admitted to one felony as part of an on-going corruption probe (reference HERE), has a spouse working for the SSD.  That's one of many familial relationships in the SSD.

Problem established, is Ms. Lesh related to Director Lesh?  I don't know.  Strangely, the family relationship...or lack of family relationship...was not referenced at all by the Scranton Times.  Not in the report from the meeting.  Not in any reporting since the meeting.  I even contacted two reporters at the Scranton Times to inquire about this omission; one got back to me and said that they wanted to ask Director Lesh about that, but he is rather stealthy when it comes to press accountability.  The second reporter hasn't responded to an email I sent a few days ago.

Why am I even writing about this?  Two reasons:
  1. I love Scranton.  I was born there, I (now) work there, and no matter where I live, Scranton will always be my home.  I want the city and the SSD to be successful.  
  2. There's a reason why the SSD is awash in friends and relatives...namely that over the years no one cared while successive leadership regimes treated the district as a personal/family employment agency.  That lack of concern is a symptom of cancer that has rotted the SSD for decades and has left the SSD on the verge of a state takeover.
The above noted, if Ms. Lesh is not related to Director Lesh, then she deserves to be free of the tarnish by association.  Being a teacher is hard enough these days, especially in Scranton and she deserves the public's support (as do all of our teachers).  She also deserves a public affirmation that her hiring was based on talent and ability alone.

If Ms. Lesh is related to Director Lesh...as a daughter, daughter in law, niece (by birth or marriage) or any other familial relationship...then this a new low for a school district known for new lows.  In fact, I would argue that this is the worst insult of all, as the SSB recently voted for a recovery plan that will negatively impact taxpayers for years to come.  Implicit in the recovery plan is the idea that the SSD is changing for the better; blatant nepotism is among the worst of the "old" SSD sins.  This would be a step back for a school district that is already backed up to a cliff of its own making.

By the way, nepotism is always wrong In every instance and manifestation.  Giving a relative a job, no matter how well qualified they are, reinforces the idea that public service exists for the personal enrichment of the powerful and well-connected.  It also denies the SSD the talents of individuals who just happen to have the wrong last name.

Enough said.

The taxpayers of Scranton, those who have paid (and will continue to pay for) the for SSD's corruption in the past deserve to know if that corruption is still a thing of the present.