Evangeline Parish School Board flounders on assignment policy

A standing room only crowd filled the meeting room as the Evangeline Parish School Board voted to introduce an assignment policy and to await final approval from the ethics department.
Special counsel John Guice, during the meeting, clarified the wording of the current policy for the board. He also made suggestions according to what the law requires.
“You as a board delegate assignment authority to your superintendent,” he said. That’s not optional. In the case of vacancies and new and existing positions, favorable consideration shall be given to qualified applicants among current employees. I think that’s important. You work hard, and your employees aspire to be rewarded for their efforts, and so I think it’s commendable that you direct your superintendent, all things being considered, we want the most qualified person. But in cases of ties and in cases where a local person is qualified, we want to give that person favorable consideration. That is retained in this draft.”
Guice went on to explain substituted changes. “In order to avoid conflicts of interest, or the appearance of same, no assignment shall be made which would result in an employee being directly supervised by a member of his/her immediate family. So that takes out ‘desire,’ the wishy-washy word, if you will, and put ‘no’ and ‘shall’ there. That gives a firm direction. This is what is required by the ethics code. For purposes of this policy, a principal shall be considered to directly supervise all employees assigned to positions at his/her school. Also department heads shall be considered to directly supervise all employees assigned to positions in his/her department. The above provisions do not preclude a person’s continued assignment to a school or to a department at which his/her immediate family member is the principal or department head, as long as the person was employed in such school or department for at least one year prior to the principal’s or department head’s appointment and a Disqualification Plan (providing an alternative observer/evaluator) has been approved by the Louisiana Board of Ethics.”
Also in the policy, the ethics board allows an immediate family member to teach a special program on campus, as long as they are not assigned to the faculty and their immediate family member is not their supervisor. No additional hire or assignment shall violate the provisions of the Louisiana Code of Ethics.
The provision also does not apply to an immediate family member of the athletic director of a school, which may employ an immediate family member as a coach where he/she is athletic director. Immediate family members include the person’s children, the spouses of the person’s children, the person’s brothers and their spouses, the person’s sisters and their spouses, parents, spouse, and the parents of the person’s spouse. Nothing in this policy shall preclude an immediate family member of a principal or department head from using the facility at which the principal or department head is assigned for the instruction of a specific course or program, as long as such immediate family member is not assigned to the staff of the subject school or department.
School board member Mike Fontenot asked Guice if the proposed changes of policy could be approved by the ethics board. Guice said he had never seen a board policy approved by the ethics board, but he talked with the ethics board about every provision in the policy. He said he has no problem asking.
Board member Wanda Skinner said, “Maybe we should hear from ethics before we do anything, because I don’t want to be charged with doing something that’s unethical. I don’t want to have to pay a fine. To me we’re putting the cart before the horse. We should get that clear with ethics, and if ethics says that’s okay, then I’m sure none of us will have a problem.”
Guice said the policy does coincide with ethics. Skinner asked him to go ahead and ask ethics and to submit their response to the board.
Guice said the board could introduce the policy and wait to adopt it at the next meeting or suspend its current policy and adopt the revised policy that night, which would have needed to receive a two-thirds vote. Skinner said she would rather wait to get approval from Ethics.
Fontenot made a motion to introduce the policy and get the opinion from the ethics board before putting it in place. The motion failed.
Board member Scott Limoges then made a motion to suspend the policy and consider the revised policy. The motion also failed.
Guice said they should at least take some action to either introduce the policy or introduce it and get an opinion. He said it would likely take until December to get the opinion from the ethics board. “If they do not give opinions, then you will have at least introduced it tonight, and you can vote your conscious at the next meeting.”
Peggy Forman said, “If we find out that they don’t give an opinion on it, then we should put it on the next board meeting and clear it.”
She made that motion, and the motion passed to introduce the policy and wait to hear from ethics if they have an opinion, so that the board may vote their conscious at the next meeting.