Texas AG opinion: Superintendents can’t hire trustees’ relatives, but criminal penalties for nepotism may not apply
Friday, August 27, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Superintendents of large school districts may not employ board of trustees’ close relatives, according to an opinion by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. However, it is ‘reasonable’ to conclude that criminal penalties for nepotism would not apply to superintendents, and it is unclear if those penalties would apply to trustees who delegate hiring authority to a superintendent, according to the opinion.
The opinion says that state legislators need to clarify the statute’s language if their intent was to make those superintendents and trustees subject to nepotism penalties.
Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott requested the AG’s opinion in November, in response to a state law passed in 2007 that conflicted with a 2003 AG ruling that superintendents were not prohibited from hiring trustees’ relatives.
House Bill 2563 by state Rep. Kelly Hancock, R-Fort Worth, was filed in light of Fort Worth Star-Telegram reporting about complaints against school trustees by Keller Independent School District members, as well as a statewide perception of similar problems.
Among the bill’s provisions was language aimed at closing a loophole in the law that allowed superintendents with hiring power to skirt nepotism laws — aimed at preventing trustees from hiring their own relatives — because superintendents are not technically ‘members’ of the school board.
Abbott’s opinion also says that the 2007 statute didn’t change rules exempting small school districts–within counties with less than 35,000 people or whose largest county has less than 35,000 people–from the nepotism law.
The opinion says that while the 2007 law was obviously intended to keep superintendents from hiring trustees’ relatives, the law is not clear enough to conclude that superintendents (and board of trustees who delegate hiring power) are subject to the penalties for nepotism, which involves loss of the official position and a fine between $100 and $1,000.
“Due to the long-settled rule of law that a penal statute must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties, we refrain from concluding that the superintendent or the board members could be subject to these penalties. If the Legislature intends otherwise, it may expressly amend the statute to so provide,” according to the opinion summary.
I think it is wrong for a small town outside in a ruarl area that falls under a county that is over 35,000 to be made to follow the same rules.I live in a very small town that the school is the only thing we have and since the hurricans that we suffered throu we dont have no jobs in this area. the school broard stays the same most of the time because of the population of the town and everybody is related to just about everybody so we cannot hire the town people to work.With the economy the way it is it dose not make sense to me.Who can I talk to to help fix this problem in our fine State Of Texas Thank you Dixie Jennings
We have an issue with the School Board members being on the board and having knowledge the school district is going to hire thier. son or sister n law. Then resigning long enough for the relative to have met the timeline to be in the job. They then run and get reelected the next school year. I think the law should be changed that if any relative is working in a district you cannot be on the board. Why is it wrong to be on the board to have hiring power, and not wrong to be on the board when you have firing power. We are in a district that has laid off around 75 people and how is it that their relatives did not lose their jobs. It at the very least seem unethical Especially when you state it in the paper that this is your intent. This is a backdoor way to get relatives hired, and the good ole boy system being able to be silently played out. If you hire my relative when I am gone I will return the favor later.
