Schools

Nepotism Policy Is Debated at B-W School Board Meeting

Far-reaching revisions would eliminate the hiring of family members district-wide.

resident Eric Crane, of 301 Southvue Drive, used public-comments time at the beginning of a Baldwin-Whitehall School Board meeting on Wednesday night to voice his disagreement with revisions being considered to the 's nepotism policy.

Those far-reaching revisions, which the board has not yet voted on, would prohibit the hiring of any employee to the district who is a family member of a current board member in the district, the superintendent, or any other district administrator, supervisor or professional staff, or classified employee.

The B-W School District would consider 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.

Find out what's happening in Baldwin-Whitehallwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

"The policy seems, in my opinion, to be a bit stringent," Crane said. "That policy would not permit the niece of a part-time bus driver to get a job as a teacher ... which, to me, is totally unreasonable.

"As long as the school district follows its hiring policies and makes sure that one relative does not have managerial responsibility for another relative, it should not be an issue."

Find out what's happening in Baldwin-Whitehallwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Toni Yurkovic, a resident of 2210 Dippen Ave. and the president of the Baldwin-Whitehall Service Employees Association union (Local 95-02-11-8), spoke after Crane.

"I would say, half of this (district's) classified employees (service workers), you wouldn't have them if it wasn't families coming here," Yurkovic said. "We all live here. We work here. We choose to work with the children.

"My son came all the way through from kindergarten until he graduated from Baldwin-Whitehall. I just think it's shame that, if you do that (enact those revisions), you're going to lose a lot of good employees."

Yurkovic was talking about the district limiting itself to non-relatives in future employment searches, as the revisions being considered by the board would not affect anyone already employed by the district.

Later in the meeting, board member John B. Schmotzer said that he would vote "no" on approving the revisions.

"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.'

"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."

Fellow board member Martin Michael Schmotzer agreed with John in that the district would be excessively limited by including service workers in the revisions. Martin Schmotzer suggested, instead, to split the vote into two parts: one without classified employees included (his preference) and one with (should that be the board's will).

He went on to say, "Is it a tough policy? You're darn right it's a tough policy, and it was meant to be tough because, too many times ... there's conflicts of interest.

"I want a tough policy. I want this stuff (conflicts of interest) out of this room once and for all ... I want it to be black and white."

The board is expected to vote on the item, or split-up items, in November.

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


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here