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