B-W School Board Rejects Nepotism Policy Revisions

The Baldwin-Whitehall School Board rejected district-wide nepotism policy revisions on Wednesday night. The far-reaching revisions would have prohibited the hiring of any employee to the who is a family member of a current board member in the district, the superintendent, or any other district administrator, supervisor or professional staff.

The revisions considered a "family member" to be a parent, grandparent, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, step-son, step-daughter, grandchild, nephew, niece, first cousin, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law, uncle, or aunt, or the current spouse of any of those relatives.

A motion to approve those revisions failed, 5-4, with only board members Sam DiNardo Jr., Diana Kazour, John B. Schmotzer and Martin Michael Schmotzer supporting them. Fellow board members Nancy Lee Crowder, Kevin J. Fischer, George L. Pry, Laurencine Romack and Kevin A. Stiffey voted “no.”

Also before the board were identical nepotism policy revisions that included the district’s classified employees, or service workers.

Martin Schmotzer was the school director who, at a past board meeting, suggested splitting the vote into two parts: one without classified employees included (his preference) and one with (should that be the board’s will).

After seeing the first item—without classified employees—fail, Martin Schmotzer motioned to table a vote on revisions that included the classified employees.

“It’s going to fail anyway,” Martin Schmotzer said, “but I think it’s a moot issue at this point.”

Kazour seconded the tabling motion, which passed, 7-2. DiNardo and Stiffey cast the only “no” votes on tabling.

“I agree with it on the educational side (and) the professional side, but I will not agree to it if it includes the word ‘classifieds,’” John Schmotzer said at . “I think that the need of having cafeteria helpers, lunch aides, bus drivers—I think we are restricting the school district in obtaining a lot of qualified people who may be a relative to other classifieds and so forth. So I will have to vote ‘no’ unless that word is taken out.”

On Wednesday night, John Schmotzer explained his “yes” vote on the item that excluded classified employees.

“I think it totally eliminates and takes away the cloud of suspicion of how people get their jobs in this district,” he said.

Pry, the board president, explained his “no” vote on Wednesday, which came on the only item actually voted on—the one that excluded classified employees.

“I believe it’s too restrictive of a policy (anyway),” he said. “I am happy that the classifieds are not in here. I think that’s important. I still believe that this is too restrictive of a policy in a district of this size.”

Crowder and Fischer said that their “no” votes stemmed from the same rationale.

Martin Schmotzer disagreed, saying, “Don’t tell me that we’re going to lose qualified applicants. Go onto PA-Educator.(net). We have (tens of thousands) of applicants that want teaching jobs, so let’s not hide behind this.

“It’s good government, it’s transparency at its best, and it solves our problems that do and can and will arise both in the past and in the future about who we’re gonna hire.

“I left the classifieds out of this on purpose because the majority of our over 700 employees are classifieds, and there’re multiple members of their families that work classified positions … 

“A lot of school districts … are operating in the old-fashioned union mentality that you have to have a parent or a brother or a family member in the school district to get someone else hired … And I just don’t think that’s right. I don’t think we’re opening up our school district to all the applicants … 

“I would love for this (strict nepotism policy revisions) to be one of the last things that gets accomplished before I walk out the door (leave the board).”

Check back with the Baldwin-Whitehall Patch later on Thursday for more odds and ends from Wednesday night’s school board meeting.