The Conflicts of Teachers on School Boards

Teachers and teachers' family members seem to be just the sort of people to run for school boards. They have either the expertise and/or the interest in education. But with them come conflicts of interest, and these can cast doubt on what they're doing there in the first place.

Teachers in the particular school district generally can't run for school board seats, but many teachers don't live in the districts where they teach. This prohibition often applies to their spouses as well, but not to their parents, siblings, and children.

But when it comes to teacher contracts, even the parents, siblings, and children have a conflict between the interests of the public and the interests of their immediate family members in getting a raise and holding on to their benefits.

According to an article in yesterday's Daily Record, this is a big problem in Morris County, New Jersey. In one district, for example, three of five school board members are teachers in other districts.

A Conflict or Confidential Information Issue?
Although there are state advisory opinions, it is up to each school board attorney to determine what to do in each situation. A November 2000 advisory opinion comes up with these complicated guidelines for school board members who teach in another district but are members of the same teachers union:

"[They] may vote on collective bargaining agreements with the local teachers' affiliate in the district in which they serve. ... the same board members would violate [the ethics code] if they were to participate in negotiations or be present at negotiations with the local affiliate of teachers.

"... there is a need for the board members who are conflicted from negotiations, but are able to vote on the contract, to have knowledge of the terms of the contract prior to the vote. Therefore, the Commission advises that the board members so situated may participate in closed session meetings of the board in which the contract is discussed after the memorandum of agreement has been signed..."

This decision divvies up participation in matters where there is a conflict in a way most people will not understand. A teacher member must stay away from the negotiations (which are usually handled by a committee, in any event), and not even know what is going on, until a memorandum of agreement is signed, and then they may attend even closed sessions on the contract, and ultimately vote on the contract.

In other words, this is being treated not as a conflict issue, in terms of a possible benefit to be received, but rather as a confidential information question. The concern appears to be that information might be leaked to the union by union members who would not themselves benefit from the negotiations. In either case, however, the school board member is wearing two hats. The difference between treating it as a pure conflict issue or as a confidential information issue involves when wearing the two hats no longer matters, and the state school ethics commission draws the line at the point where at least a memorandum of agreement has been signed.

Why Are Teachers Elected?
However, the public still sees teachers and their immediate family members voting on contracts with their own teachers unions. There are three reasons why most people elect teachers anyway. One is that school board elections are usually pretty minor affairs, with little known about the candidates and little media coverage.

The second reason is that, though board members are required to disclose conflicts of interest, candidates are not. As one citizen is quoted as saying, "I would venture to say that the majority of the taxpayers in town probably don't realize that 2/3 of their elected officials can have no impact on [millions of dollars] of their taxes."

The third reason is that teachers sell themselves as having special expertise, without noting that they have a conflict. See below for more on this topic.

Disenfranchisement
The school superintendent in the district that has teachers in three out of its five school board seats doesn't help things by saying, "I think my three members are extremely aware that they don't want to be perceived as being the NJEA [teachers union]. They can separate their responsibilities. When they sit at the board, they are board members, they're not NJEA members." It's sad to see an educator who makes so little effort to understand conflicts of interest and who cannot see things from the public's point of view.

The citizen quoted above understands the issue better. When individuals run for office without saying that they will not be able to participate or vote on the single biggest issue facing their board, this effectively disenfranchises voters.

Expertise
What about the teachers' expertise? Isn't that worth their sitting on school boards? One teacher-school board member is quoted as saying, "Whilst I can't be participatory in contract negotiations, I can lend expert evaluation on educational policy. I understand the public's frustration, but they're only looking at one piece."

But can't the teacher lend her expert evaluation on educational policy without sitting on the board? If there are teachers who want to get involved, can't they form an advisory committee on educational policy, while leaving school board members without any conflicts to deal with the unions and other teacher matters? That's the way school management works:  the administration runs the day-to-day operations and advises the board, while the board makes the policy decisions. That way, there are no conflicts, and expertise is always available. The more expertise, the better, but that does not require that the experts make the policy decisions, too. Otherwise, why bother with school boards at all?

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---