At the core of the meeting was the workshop on ethics training, where Patricia Reese detailed mandatory training requirements for new board members, the functions of the School Ethics Commission, and the enforcement of ethical conduct. The workshop stressed the critical nature of board members’ adherence to the code of ethics, which includes upholding laws and regulations, making decisions in the best interest of students, and avoiding involvement in day-to-day operations. Members were reminded to handle complaints through the proper channels, referring them to the lowest level in the chain of command and notifying Superintendent John J. Niesz.

The meeting delved into the consequences of not filing required disclosure statements within the mandated 30 days following the oath of office, emphasizing potential penalties and disciplinary actions. Members were informed of the various tenets of the code of ethics and the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest, with specific cases and rulings by the School Ethics Commission serving as instructive examples.

A pointed discussion at the meeting dealt with the prohibition of acts by board trustees that could benefit themselves or immediate family members. The board attorney was identified as the primary contact for queries regarding potential ethics violations, offering representation in related cases. The distinction between recusal and abstention in voting was clarified, stressing that recusal requires complete non-participation in discussion and voting when facing legal conflicts.

Further, the board explored how relationships with district employees could affect a board member’s ability to vote on contracts or participate in negotiations. For example, if a board member’s relative works within the district, that member is barred from voting on contracts related to that relative’s position. Advisory opinions can be sought to clarify potential conflicts before any board action is taken. It was also noted that board presidents with relatives in the district face restrictions on committee assignments and involvement in personnel matters.

Board members were also cautioned about the extent of their involvement in volunteering activities, such as avoiding supervising staff or handling money, and were specifically prohibited from coaching.

Social media use by board members was another topic of concern, with the meeting emphasizing the importance of caution when posting content related to board positions or schools, as well as the use of disclaimers to separate personal opinions from official board stances. They were further advised against inappropriate communications and the continued use of campaign accounts post-election.

The board suggested regular reviews of conflicts of interest among members and administrators, with the board attorney serving as a resource for navigating ethical issues. The meeting concluded with an emphasis on governance training opportunities to enhance board member knowledge and collaboration with peers from other districts, including logistical details and acknowledgment receipts for training.