You are here
The Irresponsible Handling of One Man's Conflicts in Two School Districts
Monday, May 17th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
A
week ago, I wrote about the weaknesses of an ethics initiative in
Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. This week, in neighboring Lackawanna County, the responses to a March 25
state ethics commission decision has shown truly irresponsible handling of one man's
conflicts in two school districts.
Lakeland School District
An editorial in yesterday's Times-Tribune best sums up the issues. An auditor's report disclosed in 2007 that one school district's then transportation coordinator had arranged for no-bid transportation contracts with a company owned by his domestic partner, using vans he originally owned. The contracts had been approved by the school board. And yet when this information came out, the school board and the superintendent took no action. Instead, they said the matter would be handled by the state ethics commission, which the superintendent claimed had more teeth than the school district.
How could an EC have more teeth than an agency that can rescind contracts, discipline and even fire employees, and sue for restitution, if necessary? An auditor had investigated the matter, and there was apparently no disagreement concerning facts. Why would the EC even have to get involved at that point? (A separate question is why it took three years to reach a decision.)
The editorial calls this "a stunning lack of accountability" on the part of the school board and school administration.
Carbondale School District
But the situation in the second school district is even worse. Not only did that district also hire the same coordinator and also contract with his domestic partner, even after the audit report had come out (and only a month after hiring the coordinator), and not only did it make no investigation nor have the matter sent to the state EC. In addition, the school board awarded a $4.8 million transportation contract to the company of the coordinator himself, which apparently did not legally exist until a month after the contract was awarded (see a Times-Tribune article from last Wednesday).
According to an article in Thursday's Times-Tribune, an employee of another bus company sued the district for awarding the contract to an employee, causing the transportation coordinator to resign. The contract was bid out again, and the former coordinator was awarded the contract again, as if the resignation had solved all the perception problems.
One would think that the EC decision would have some effect on how the second school board dealt with the domestic partner's contract. But the article says that the board solicitor, due to "the possibility of further investigation of this matter," will not comment on the state Ethics Commission findings, but that "the district will cooperate with any investigation that may be conducted."
However, the school superintendent said that the EC decision would not affect the bus contract.
The state attorney general, on the other hand, is supposed to be reviewing the ethics decision. Why aren't local authorities willing to act, even now?
Perceptions of Impropriety Across the Local-State Boundary
Is it just a coincidence that the former transportation coordinator's brother is a state representative, now running for the state senate for the district that includes Lackawanna County (his current district includes parts of both school districts)?
This raises an interesting question: does an immediate family member of a state elected official have a greater obligation to deal responsibly with possible conflicts? I would say he does, because unlike ethics codes, the public's perception of impropriety does not have jurisdictional boundaries. If the public feels that a state official's family is getting preferential treatment at the local level, that's just as bad as the feeling that a local official's family is getting preferential treatment.
In a perfect world, the two school boards would be making serious apologies to their constituents, trying to rectify their inaction as best they can, and making sure via policies and rules that such problems will not arise in the future. In a perfect world, a state official would do everything he could to prevent his family members from getting involved in matters such as these. But it's not a perfect world, so what we tend to get is inaction and denials of responsibility, adding insult to the injury already caused to public trust.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Lakeland School District
An editorial in yesterday's Times-Tribune best sums up the issues. An auditor's report disclosed in 2007 that one school district's then transportation coordinator had arranged for no-bid transportation contracts with a company owned by his domestic partner, using vans he originally owned. The contracts had been approved by the school board. And yet when this information came out, the school board and the superintendent took no action. Instead, they said the matter would be handled by the state ethics commission, which the superintendent claimed had more teeth than the school district.
How could an EC have more teeth than an agency that can rescind contracts, discipline and even fire employees, and sue for restitution, if necessary? An auditor had investigated the matter, and there was apparently no disagreement concerning facts. Why would the EC even have to get involved at that point? (A separate question is why it took three years to reach a decision.)
The editorial calls this "a stunning lack of accountability" on the part of the school board and school administration.
Carbondale School District
But the situation in the second school district is even worse. Not only did that district also hire the same coordinator and also contract with his domestic partner, even after the audit report had come out (and only a month after hiring the coordinator), and not only did it make no investigation nor have the matter sent to the state EC. In addition, the school board awarded a $4.8 million transportation contract to the company of the coordinator himself, which apparently did not legally exist until a month after the contract was awarded (see a Times-Tribune article from last Wednesday).
According to an article in Thursday's Times-Tribune, an employee of another bus company sued the district for awarding the contract to an employee, causing the transportation coordinator to resign. The contract was bid out again, and the former coordinator was awarded the contract again, as if the resignation had solved all the perception problems.
One would think that the EC decision would have some effect on how the second school board dealt with the domestic partner's contract. But the article says that the board solicitor, due to "the possibility of further investigation of this matter," will not comment on the state Ethics Commission findings, but that "the district will cooperate with any investigation that may be conducted."
However, the school superintendent said that the EC decision would not affect the bus contract.
The state attorney general, on the other hand, is supposed to be reviewing the ethics decision. Why aren't local authorities willing to act, even now?
Perceptions of Impropriety Across the Local-State Boundary
Is it just a coincidence that the former transportation coordinator's brother is a state representative, now running for the state senate for the district that includes Lackawanna County (his current district includes parts of both school districts)?
This raises an interesting question: does an immediate family member of a state elected official have a greater obligation to deal responsibly with possible conflicts? I would say he does, because unlike ethics codes, the public's perception of impropriety does not have jurisdictional boundaries. If the public feels that a state official's family is getting preferential treatment at the local level, that's just as bad as the feeling that a local official's family is getting preferential treatment.
In a perfect world, the two school boards would be making serious apologies to their constituents, trying to rectify their inaction as best they can, and making sure via policies and rules that such problems will not arise in the future. In a perfect world, a state official would do everything he could to prevent his family members from getting involved in matters such as these. But it's not a perfect world, so what we tend to get is inaction and denials of responsibility, adding insult to the injury already caused to public trust.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
