The May 7 workshop at Fayette County School Board did not come with a lengthy agenda, but it did come with concerns over a policy that some parents viewed as questionable.

Though not one specifically under current review, school board attorney Phil Hartley said later that the policy on school board purchasing did not conflict with state law.

Some in the community have expressed concerns over the Board Purchasing Policy first adopted in 1998 and revised in December 2007. That policy states that, “Purchases from board members or companies in which the board member or a member of his/her family has a controlling interest must be approved by the board. Purchases from employees or companies in which employees, spouse or children have a controlling interest and are in a procurement decision-making role are prohibited, without the approval of the board or superintendent of schools or his designee.”

Hartley responded May 8 to questions about the policy stating it does not violate the law, including the recently passed House Bill 602, signed into law last week by Gov. Sonny Perdue.

“I understand there have not been any circumstances in which the board has made a purchase from a board member,” Hartley said. “Most purchases would violate state law, but there are a few exceptions. Again, I would note that the board has never implemented the exceptions. Under the new statute ... there will be circumstances where a purchase from a board member will be legal, but the board will have to specifically approve it, just as the current policy requires. We will be submitting a suggested modification of this paragraph ...”

Hartley added that there is nothing illegal or that violates the statute about purchasing from the family member of a board member, but the policy is designed to require board approval before this happens.

The newly amended HB 602 states that, “No member of a county board of education in this state shall sell to any county board any supplies or equipment used, consumed, or necessary in the operation of any public school in this state unless there are fewer than three sources for such supplies or equipment within the county; provided however, that any purchase pursuant to this subsection for supplies or equipment that is equal to or greater than $10,000 shall be approved by a majority of the members of the board in open session.”

Concerned parent Tami Morris was one of several who questioned the board purchasing policy and whether it provides a sufficient degree of transparency expected by some taxpayers in the community.

“Regardless of what the board members intended, allowing board members to do business with the district would be considered an obvious conflict of interest by most people,” Morris said in a recent letter to the board. “I am encouraged to see that the board attorney feels that our board has not done business with board members in the past. What concerns me is the focus on interpretations of the law versus the ethics of the law. Just because a law exists doesn’t make it ethical. As a community, we need to be clear on what our priorities are.”

There are nearly 50 current policies recommended by Hartley for deletion from the policy manual. Responding to a question by board member Marion Key during the workshop, Hartley said it was a good idea to review existing polices on an annual basis.

“You could take the policy manual and reduce it by two-thirds or more and still have the mandated policies,” Hartley said. “If you schedule a review every two years that will keep you out of the process you’re going through right now.”

Commenting on that process, board member Janet Smola said, “the process has taken a very long time to get to a manageable form. It’s taken two years.”

Hartley divided the policies into three distinct types, including those required by state or federal law, those not needed and could be abolished and those not mandated but required for good governance, such as a policy for closing schools during ice events.

Those policies no longer needed fell into three sub-categories, Hartley said. Some of those policies are already governed by law and can be legally dangerous if not interpreted precisely. Others include policies that essentially say nothing, such as the board policy requiring an attorney. Still other unneeded policies are those that have not been reviewed or changed in 15-20 years.

Smola referenced a current board policy on conflict of interest that Hartley has recommended for abolishment. That policy deals with the prohibition of board members to sells supplies, equipment and other items to the school system. Smola said, and Hartley agreed, that the policy is not needed because the issue is addressed in state law.

DeCotis said it had been approximately two years since Hartley had looked at the entire list of policies. He said that, depending on the policy, the review process includes the school board attorney, school system staff and school personnel along with citizens’ committees, construction committees and PTOs. The school system could always use more input and suggestions on policy reviews, DeCotis said.

The recent policy review ran up against a time-frame obstacle in the recent past when several central office staff intended to review the policies retired, DeCotis said. Those responsibilities went to the new staff hired for those positions, he said, creating a time lag in the review.

And as for the current review, school board members Terri Smith, Lee Wright and Janet Smola had previously reviewed the policies, followed by Marion Key and Dr. Bob Todd in recent months.

Public participation relating to future policy submissions, and all board business, is now being made through the eBoard section of the school board website. The move is part of the Boards of Distinction process that began in January.

School system staff are working out the kinks in the new website section, but already in place prior to the regular monthly meetings are the supporting documents that accompany agenda items.