Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Vote regarding a landlord of a board member's employer?

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 10:16 AM, 'egillen476@aol.com' via SchoolBoard <schoolboardemaillist@mtlsd.net> wrote:

A question has come up on my blog, Lebo Citizens. With Mary Birks being executive director of Outreach, should she be voting on any issues that involves Outreach's landlord?
Elaine Gillen

VP Moorhead's reply

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

No. Conflict of interest. An appearance of impropriety.

Anonymous said...

Where there would be a conflict of interest if let's say Stevenson Williams decides to raise Outreach's rent next year so they can pay their school taxes on time.
Then Outreach's Executive Director/School Board President lobbies the board to raise the district's contribution to Outreach or more subtlety with a rink and a nod tries to coerce the school counselors to direct more students into Outreach.
It could happen easily enough.
In fact, and I don't know if the numbers are available publicly, has there been a sudden uptick in the number of MTLSD kids/families using Outreach since Birks became Executive?

Anonymous said...

Counsel.. wrong again.

Lebo Citizens said...

It's never a conflict, until it is.
Elaine

Anonymous said...

A recent school board member who shall not be named was an empty nester. He didn't care about the kids! He just wanted to make sure that he kept his taxes -- on a house in Virginia Manor no less -- as low as possible. To hell with the kids! We shouldn't allow anyone without an enrolled student to sit on the board. This is a real conflict of interest! I've had it up to here with these elitists.

Anonymous said...

10:07, sort of like the crusty empty nesters who opposed the turf and generally any other investment in our recreation facilities. I don't recall any empty nester Va. Manor school board members in recent history (last 5 yrs).

Anonymous said...

10:07, while I too have had it up to here with the "elitists" (I prefer clique) I disagree vehemently with your suggestion that one must have kids in school to sit on the board. Residents, empty nesters, business owners all have a stake in the game as much as parents and shouldn't be denied the opportunity to participate.
In fact, I'll bet some of these people have far more experience in running a big operation than some of the sitting board members that have little or no experience in overseeing construction, finance or educational systems.
To tell the truth I think some people that have worked their way through the PTA club (for their kids) have or were more interested in their own (or kid's advancement) interest than doing what was right for the district.

What we need to do is be more diligent in vetting those we elect to the board and pay attention once they get there.

Anonymous said...

Weren't there numbers of screens performed in the billing information? While not directly related to kids actually being seen in an on-going manner who haven't been referred by the HS screens, it's a starting point. Can't one argue that any possible increase in screens is due to an increased fear of litigation vs a legitimate increase in need vs quid pro quo between TS and Birks?

Anonymous said...

True 3:43, but then you'd also need to discern the cause for increased litigation and/or increase in legitimate need and if there is a sudden spike relative to Birks becoming Executive Director.

Do not forget that position was part-time with a salary under $30,000 annually. It jumped to full-time and the salary is approaching $70,000.
Don't you find that curious?