Board ethics: in states and communities, the ongoing struggle to codify appropriate behavior of school board members

School Administrator, Sept, 2004 by Paul Riede

Hiltz discovered a lot of other less dramatic loopholes and some areas that weren't covered at all. Because the policy, like many others, was based on a legislative model, it did not cover certain behavioral issues specific to school board members, such as the limits of a board member's powers and the appropriate ways to communicate with the public.

Hiltz decided the policy badly needed revision. He was surprised at the resounding lack of enthusiasm that greeted the idea.

"I was a lone ranger for a while," he says. "I got pushback from many folks, including some board members."

Reactions among his board colleagues ranged from apathy to a fear that a revised, higher-profile ethics policy could be used for political purposes, with board members on opposite sides of a policy debate lodging ethics complaints against one another.

Eventually, Hiltz and another board member began revising the policy, tightening language and making clear it applied to all district employees, not just the five-member board. He even tried to get the policy to apply to the board attorney, but upon advice from the National School Boards Association rejected that idea because lawyers already are sworn to their own ethical code.

A significant change involved developing a new financial disclosure form. The previous form, described by Hiltz as "pretty close to meaningless," simply asked board members (and selected employees) if they had any interest in companies that do business with the school system. Now it requires them to disclose all companies in which they have a stake of $2,500 or more.

As important as the specific changes, Hiltz says, is the heightened attention the revised policy received throughout the district following its adoption in 2003. Board members and staff now are more likely to reflect on the consequences of their words and behavior and to act on perceived improprieties they see, he adds.

"We're not making it just a policy that's in the book," he says. "We've made it clear that ethics is important and should guide the actions of the staff."

Maverick Views

Most state school board associations have recommended codes of conduct. But as some local boards have found, broaching discussions about the civil behavior of school board members can turn ugly quickly--especially when they are prompted by the perceived bad conduct of a member.

The Avonworth school board in suburban Pittsburgh adopted a code of ethics in 2002 after board members became upset that one maverick member had divulged matters discussed in a private board session. Last year, that member and two others refused to sign the code because they saw it as a political weapon being wielded by the board majority.

The code closely follows a template created by the Pennsylvania School Boards Association. It stresses that board members have no legal authority as individuals and that they can wield power only as a board. It warns against trying to micromanage the district or interfere with the superintendent or staff. And it urges members to act "in a spirit of harmony and cooperation" with other board members and to uphold the final decisions of the board even if they disagree with them.