BOE personnel policies discussed

NJ School Boards Association liaison Gwen Thornton presents to the BOE.

Plainfield's Board of Education held a much anticipated Policy Committee meeting Tuesday evening, with the controversy around staff certifications lurking in the background, though unspoken.

The session was in two parts: a presentation by Gwen Thornton of the NJ School Boards Association on personnel policies and practices throughout the state generally, and a presentation and discussion by Schools Superintendent Dr. Steve Gallon from the local perspective.

Seven board members (newly-appointed member Sandy Chambers, who had a last minute work conflict, and Lisa Logan Leach were not in attendance), Dr. Gallon, Board Secretary Gary Ottman and the board's attorney sat around the committee table.

Other attendees included about twenty-five members of the public, Councilors Annie McWilliams, Bridget Rivers and Linda Carter, and a contingent of scribblerati.

Renata Hernandez has already posted (twice) on her observations from the meeting (see her blog here), and Maria Pellum has noted that she will post in full later today (see here). Bernice Paglia can be expected to put up her report (see here), as well as the Courier's Mark Spivey (see the Courier website here), who stayed to the bitter end -- well past his deadline filing time.

I was there for the first portion, Ms. Thornton's presentation and discussion.

Low-keyed, seemingly vastly well-informed, and evidently a seasoned Board member herself, Ms. Thornton's input was measured and -- to gauge Board members' reactions -- news to some people.

While the session was not meant to (and did not) deal directly with the staff certifications questions that have been much in the news and which the state has announced it will look into further, Thornton touched on two areas of interest in regard to that matter: Board due diligence, and making job openings widely available.

DUE DILIGENCE

With regard to DUE DILIGENCE, which is part of a fiduciary's responsibilities (Board of Ed members have a direct fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers, whom they represent), Thornton pointed out that Board members have a legal right to examine the personnel records of TWO CLASSES of individuals.

Those are (1) JOB APPLICANTS and (2) PERSONS SUBJECT TO A PENDING ACTION by the Board of Ed.

With regard to APPLICANTS, Thornton underscored that while in theory Boards have this right, in practice it would be cumbersome to examine EVERY applicant's file. Not only that, the presumption is that there is a relationship of trust between the BOE and the Superintendent, such that it is expected that the Superintendent is bringing forth the very best and most qualified candidates for a job opening.

The other circumstance is with regard to PENDING ACTIONS, which Thornton repeatedly underscored could just as likely be for POSITIVE reasons (granting tenure, promotions) as well as for NEGATIVE ones.

The circumstances under which the personnel records could be examined were also clarified. The inspection of records MUST TAKE PLACE AT THE HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE, with the expectation that the District will accommodate the reasonable requests of Board members who may not find it possible to come during regular office hours. (By implication, 'reasonable' would include making the request in a timely fashion and not putting the Board in a position of being delayed because the member was busy inspecting records at the time of a Board meeting.)

While Thornton did not address it directly (not a question asked of her), her comments made it clear that the rumored willy-nilly inspection of personnel records alleged against some Board members in the past would be in violation of board policies as construed by the state, and might even be actionable, exposing the taxpayers to financial liability for the miscreant's malfeasance.

This opportunity to inspect the personnel files is intended to give Board members the opportunity to satisfy themselves, in the case of hirings and promotions, that candidates have the required qualifications and certifications for the contemplated action. To my mind, it would be good for the Board to reserve this right of inspection to the higher appointments and promotions intended by the Superintendent. (It should be noted, however, that whether Board members availed themselves of the opportunity is one of the issues in the certifications controversy that hopefully will be clarified.)

JOB OPENINGS

In her discussion of filling job openings, Thornton discussed the many options for Districts to get the word out -- ranging from posting notices in the faculty lounges of District buildings, to advertising in newspapers, to turning to educational institutions, professional associations and the NJ School Boards Association's website.

She was quite clear that there is no LEGAL REQUIREMENT to post or broadly disseminate job openings, but at the same time asked rhetorically 'why not?' want to get the word out widely.

Thornton's remarks should go a long way to clearing up confusion over whether the gyrations around rescinding the contracts of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 and then immediately rehiring them under new job titles was somehow in violation of some rules about job postings. IT WAS NOT.

That being said, any ethicist worth his/her salt will tell you that just because a law is not broken does not mean that parties have acted ethically.

This is particularly germane because of the bad taste left in the public's mouth over the way the whole business went down this past Fall. Hopefully, a lesson will be learned here.

We can only hope.

The Board of Ed, and Christian Estevez as chair of the committee, are to be commended for the even tone of the meeting (I was not there for the second half, at which I understand there were some sparks).

Its timeliness can be gauged from the public turnout, which I understand is most often ZERO at such meetings.

---

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.