> SOUTHERN INDIANA — Two Greater Clark County Schools board of trustees members should have abstained from recent votes that involved retaining and hiring family members.

According to a June 20 News and Tribune story headlined, “Corden Porter extension on hold by GCCS board,” board President Christina Gilkey voted in favor of renewing the district’s contract with its agent of record, Edward Culpepper “Pepper” Cooper. Gilkey is Cooper’s niece.

After the meeting, Gilkey was reported as saying she could understand why some community members may view her vote as a conflict of interest, but said she disagrees with that point of view. She was quoted as saying, “He doesn’t pay my bills, he does a great job, the superintendent recommended it, so I voted on it.”

Gilkey said she did not involve herself in conversations about renewing the contract and she has no contractual relationship with Cooper. She also said she would not note her vote on the district’s annual conflict of interest disclosure. The measure passed 4-2.

In a News and Tribune story headlined “Selling themselves: GCCS board approves billboard,” from July, the board voted to approve moving four staff members to principal positions in the district. One of the four is Principal Darcie Igleheart, who was moved from Bridgepoint Elementary to New Washington Elementary School. Igleheart is board member Ernie Gilbert’s daughter. He voted in favor of the personnel report, but said after the meeting he didn’t feel doing so was a conflict of interest. The measure passed unanimously.

In Greater Clark’s code of ethics of school board members, which begins with a statement that board members should, “strive to provide the ultimate professional and ethical service to the school corporation,” subsection B under section six, titled “My Relationship to Myself,” deals with conflicts of interest. That section reads, “I will avoid being placed in a position of conflict of interest, and will refrain from using my board position for personal or partisan gain.”

Is voting to retain your uncle as an agent of record providing the ultimate professional and ethical service to the school corporation? Is voting on a personnel report that includes your daughter avoiding being placed in a position of conflict of interest?

Gilkey and GIlbert’s votes weren’t all that shocking. Cooper was already the agent of record, and it was recommended by the superintendent and Cooper presumably doesn’t pay Gilkey’s bills. Approval from the board is usually just a formality when it comes to personnel reports, and Igleheart was already a principal.

Both of these measures may have passed whether there were abstentions or not. But, Gilbert and Gilkey shouldn’t be allowed to influence decisions that determine whether a member of their family gets a job or not. They should excuse themselves and let the chips fall where they may.

According to the statement regarding conflict of interest/nepotism for board members, “Purchases of supplies, equipment or services shall not be made from suppliers, or companies in which a member of the board has a substantial interest.”

It could be argued that this statement refers to situations where a board member votes to purchase something from a company they are an employee or owner of. It could also be argued that Gilkey and Gilbert have a substantial interest in the employment of their family members.

Interestingly, the statement of conflict of interest/nepotism for board members is much shorter and much less broad than the one for employees. According to the statement for staff conflicts of interest, “It is the intent of the board that no employee shall engage in or have a financial interest, directly or indirectly, in any activity that conflicts or raises a reasonable question of conflict with his/her duties and responsibilities in the school system.”

Under those guidelines, Gilkey and Gilbert definitely engaged in an activity that raised a reasonable question of conflict with his/her duties and responsibilities to the school system.

Now, of course as board members, Gilkey and Gilbert have a different set of guidelines, but that begs the question of why board members are held to a different and lesser standard when it comes to conflicts of interest than Greater Clark staff. If anything, shouldn’t a decision-making board be held to even higher ethical and moral standards than the staff of the organization they make decisions for?

Did these board members commit some heinous injustice? No. Did they involve themselves in a conflict of interest, despite their assertions to the contrary, that could have been avoided by abstaining from the vote? Yes.

— Michael Reschke is the copy editor at the News and Tribune. Reach him at michael.reschke@ newsandtribune.com.