The Irresponsible Handling of One Man's Conflicts in Two School Districts
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/comparison-two-county-ethics-initiati…; target="”_blank”">A
week ago, I wrote</a> about the weaknesses of an ethics initiative in
Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. This week, in neighboring Lackawanna County, the responses to <a href="http://scrantontimestribune.com/projects/1549.pdf" target="”_blank”">a March 25
state ethics commission decision</a> has shown truly irresponsible handling of one man's
conflicts in two school districts.<br>
<br>
<b>Lakeland School District</b><br>
<a href="http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/boss-too-busy-for-ethics-1.790376&q…; target="”_blank”">An
editorial in yesterday's <i>Times-Tribune</i></a> 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.<br>
<br>
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.)<br>
<br>
The editorial calls this "a stunning lack of accountability" on the
part of the school board and school administration.<br>
<br>
<b>Carbondale School District</b><br>
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 href="http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/former-lakeland-and-carbondale-area-sc…; target="”_blank”">a
<i>Times-Tribune</i> article</a> from last Wednesday).<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/attorney-general-reviewing-lakeland-an…; target="”_blank”">an
article in Thursday's <i>Times-Tribune</i></a>, 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. <br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
However, the school superintendent said that the EC decision would not
affect the bus contract.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
<b>Perceptions of Impropriety Across the Local-State Boundary</b><br>
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)?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---