Conflicts of Interest:
Nepotism
Please note that a law passed in
2007 changed how the nepotism laws affect hiring in large districts. These
changes apply to all hires made after September 1, 2007. This document describes
the nepotism laws currently in place.
Q: What is nepotism?
A. A public official may not
appoint, confirm the appointment of, or vote for the appointment or confirmation
of the appointment of an individual to a position that is to be directly or
indirectly compensated from public funds if the individual is related to the
public official or another member of the board by blood (consanguinity) within
the third degree or by marriage (affinity) within the second degree. Tex. Gov’t
Code §§ 573.002, .041. School district officials who have the power to appoint
or employ these persons are subject to the nepotism rules.
Q: Which relatives by blood
(consanguinity) are affected by the nepotism prohibition?
A. Relatives within the third
degree. An individual is related to the public official by blood within the
third degree, if the public official is the individual’s:
1. Parent or child (first degree)
2. Grandparent, grandchild, sister,
or brother (second degree)
3. Great grandparent, great
grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew (third degree)
Q: Which relatives by marriage
(affinity) are affected by the nepotism prohibition?
A. Relatives within the second
degree. The marriage prohibition applies if the public official’s spouse is the
prospective employee (first degree); or if the public official’s spouse is the prospective
employee’s:
1. Parent or child (first degree)
2. Grandparent, grandchild, sister,
or brother (second degree)
The marriage prohibition also
applies if the prospective employee’s spouse is the public official’s:
1. Parent or child (first degree)
2. Grandparent, grandchild, sister,
or brother (second degree)
A relationship by marriage extends
only to blood relatives of a board member’s spouse and the spouses of a board
member’s blood relatives. It does not include a relative-in-law of board member’s
spouse.
Q: Who is considered a “public
official” under the nepotism prohibition?
A. For nepotism purposes, a public
official of a school district is a member of the school board or an officer of
the school district. Tex. Gov’t Code § 573.001(3). Depending on the county population
and your district’s delegation of hiring authority (see below) the term public official
could include school board trustees, the superintendent, and sometimes both.
Q: When is the superintendent a
“public official” for the purposes of the nepotism prohibition?
A. A superintendent is a public
official for purposes of nepotism if he or she has final hiring authority for
the employment position. The Texas Education Code permits a school board to delegate
some or all of its hiring authority to the superintendent. Tex. Educ. Code § 11.1513(a)(2).
Commonly, this delegation of hiring authority is limited to at-will employees.
If the school board has delegated
hiring authority, the superintendent is subject to the nepotism laws to the
extent of that delegation. If, for example, a board delegated final hiring authority
for at-will employees to a superintendent, the superintendent could not hire
his wife for an at-will position at the district. The board, however, could
hire the superintendent’s wife for a contract position.
To the extent the board has
retained hiring authority, the superintendent is merely an employee or agent
and is not a public official subject to prohibitions under the nepotism statutes.
Pena v. Rio Grande Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 616 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Civ. App.— Eastland
1981, no writ).
Q: When is a trustee a “public
official” for the purposes of the nepotism prohibition?
A. Generally, a trustee is always
going to be a public official for nepotism purposes. Therefore, the school
district in which the trustee serves is not allowed to hire a trustee’s
relative within a prohibited degree of relationship.
A limited exception to this
definition of public official applies only to districts in “small counties,” counties
with a population of fewer than 35,000 people. For districts in small counties,
the term public official does not include a school board trustee when the superintendent
is filling an employment position for which the superintendent has hiring authority.
Tex. Educ. Code § 11.1513(a), (f)-(g).
Q: What constitutes a “small
county” for the purpose of the nepotism prohibition?
A. A small county is one with a
population of fewer than 35,000 people. According to the law, the nepotism
prohibition does not apply to a relative of a trustee if the board delegates
hiring authority to the superintendent and the school district is either
completely within a county with a population of fewer than 35,000, or in more
than one county, if the county in which the largest portion of the school
district is located has a population of fewer than 35,000.
Tex. Educ. Code § 11.1513(g).
At Last, Scrutiny for
Public-Union Deals
A growing movement is opening labor
negotiations so taxpayers can see how their money is being spent.
By MATTHEW J. BROUILLETTE
May 21, 2015 7:08 p.m. ET
57 COMMENTS
If you’ve ever spent hundreds on a
smartphone or thousands on a new car, you know what it’s like to hunt for the
best deal. Yet when paying for state and local government services worth
billions, Americans often hand politicians a blank check without ever knowing
if they could get more for their money.
Year after year, elected officials
behind closed doors negotiate labor contracts for 19 million state and local
government workers. The result? Skyrocketing salaries, health-care costs and
pension benefits are making services like public schools and policing
unaffordable for taxpayers. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
compensation for government workers nationwide has grown 21% since 2000,
compared with only 9% in the private economy.
Fortunately a growing list of
states now shine light on secretive contract negotiations with public-employee
unions—putting taxpayers back in charge. In April, Idaho’s governor signed a
bill requiring open meetings and records in all executive labor negotiations.
Colorado did the same last fall for public-school district contract talks.
Similar legislation is advancing in Washington, and the Pennsylvania Senate
passed two transparency bills this month.
The first of the Keystone State’s
bills provides the public with independent cost estimates of the state’s
government union contracts before ratification. Separate legislation requires
such contracts to be made accessible on government websites at least two weeks
before they’re signed. A similar bill awaits the governor’s signature in
Nevada.
Giving the public advance notice
and cost estimates on billion-dollar agreements might seem like basic reform,
but it has been met with some opposition. “It’s simply anti-labor, anti-worker
legislation,” Tom Herman, the president of Service Employees International
Union Local 668 told the news website PennLive. Of course the union stands to
profit from keeping the process secret.
To date, 12 states offer some kind
of public access to the negotiating room. More state and local governments
should offer a clear view of what taxpayers are on the hook for. After all,
taxpayers supply the money to employ government workers, and labor contracts
can be years- and even decades-long financial commitments.
It’s natural for people who hire
representatives, like real-estate agents or attorneys, to monitor their
performance—and the price at which it comes. The same should be done with
elected officials who often have incentives to serve themselves rather than
their constituents.
The public pension crisis facing
states from California to New Jersey to Illinois is a great illustration of
politicians and union leaders making backroom deals that taxpayers could never
afford. Overly generous benefits aren’t the only concern: A conflict of
interest exists when elected officials bargain with public unions behind closed
doors.
Pennsylvania’s Democratic Gov. Tom
Wolf must negotiate contracts worth $3.4 billion with 16 labor unions by this
summer. Six of these unions contributed more than $2.6 million to Mr. Wolf’s
election campaign, and so the governor has a strong incentive to reward his
financial backers.
Despite the state’s budget deficit,
Gov. Wolf this week agreed to one-year extensions for two unions with pay
increases and no concessions in health-care benefits. Taxpayers learned about
the deals, which will cost $23 million more than the previous year, from a news
release.
Surprisingly enough, transparency
is beginning to garner support even among some labor leaders. When Maryland’s
Howard County decided in 2013 to open talks for school workers, the head of the
local teachers union, Paul Lemle, supported the change. “Great public schools
are not built just with bricks, but with a good contract and good relationships
between the school system and its employees,” he said. And in New Mexico, the
Albuquerque Teachers Federation offered open contract meetings as a way for the
public to understand union positions.
In the end, open collective
bargaining is a growing national movement because it’s good government. Allowing
public access to contract negotiations will tame spending and shift control
back to citizens, where it belongs.
Mr. Brouillette is president and
CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation, a free-market think tank in Harrisburg, Pa.
Greg Selinger accused
of making union deals to win NDP leadership
Leadership contest was a 'drive-by
attack on democracy,' says PC Leader Brian Pallister
CBC News Posted: Mar 09, 2015 12:54
PM CT Last Updated: Mar 10, 2015 6:04 AM CT
The NDP leadership race is over and
Greg Selinger staying on as premier and party leader, but Progressive
Conservative Leader Brian Pallister says he believes Selinger cut deals with
union leaders to secure the win.
Selinger fended off challenges from
former cabinet ministers Theresa Oswald and Steve Ashton to keep his job at the
party's leadership convention in Winnipeg on Sunday.
Pallister said the fact that New
Democrats voted back Selinger, who faced a revolt from former members of his
own cabinet last year, reflects poorly on the party.
Furthermore, he said NDP members
didn't have a say in the outcome of the leadership race, but the unions did.
"This was a drive-by attack on
democracy," Pallister told reporters.
"We need a province where
everybody feels like they're equal and they have an equal opportunity for
success. And I don't think if you ask the NDP members who were in that hall
this weekend, they feel that way, and I know Manitobans don't feel that
way."
Part of Selinger's success came
from union support. He came into Sunday's convention with the backing of the
Canadian Union of Public Employees and the United Food and Commercial Workers.
He later gained delegates from the
United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg after Ashton was dropped from the ballot
following the first round of voting.
"The premier of Manitoba is
now the premier because he cut deals with public-sector union bosses in a back
room last week and he guaranteed himself … the support of the United Food and
Commercial Workers, he somehow got the firefighters to support him, and he did
that with taxpayers' money and he needs to come clean on what he promised those
groups," Pallister said.
"Those are union boss leaders
who, quite rightly, are fighting for the best interest of their members, and
they would have directed their votes to go in support of Premier Selinger for a
reason. They didn't do it for a lark."
Selinger committed to 'treat people
fairly'
Selinger said Pallister's claims
are not accurate.
"I made it very clear that I
would not be making any specific commitment to anybody other than to treat
people fairly and make sure that whatever we do serves the best interests of
Manitobans," he said.
United Fire Fighters president Alex
Forrest agreed that no deal was made.
Premier Greg Selinger talks with
CBC's Marcy Markusa after winning the Manitoba NDP leadership election Sunday.
"It was a very tough decision
to begin with whether we were going to support Greg Selinger or Steve Ashton,
but there were no backroom deals. There was none of that," Forrest told
CBC News.
"Premier Selinger has been a
tremendous advocate for firefighters — for resources, for assisting us to be
able to do our job, making tremendous changes to workplace health and safety —
so that's why we went to Greg Selinger on that second ballot."
Selinger will take the party into
the next provincial election, scheduled for April 2016.
Flin Flon NDP MLA Clarence
Pettersen said the internal turmoil and the leadership race were tough on
everyone in the part, but he looks forward to the future.
"I think Greg himself has
changed," Pettersen said.
"I think we needed a shakeup,
we got a shakeup, and because of the shakeup we're going to move forward in a
unified team."
Pallister said now that the NDP
leadership race is over, he hopes MLAs can "get back into the business
that matters to Manitobans instead of watching this curious infighting."
The Australian
Union Deals Led to $1.4
million Windfall
Brad Norington
September 6, 2014
Source: News Corp Australia
THE Electrical Trades Union in
Victoria scored a $4.5 million bonanza in “management fees” and other payments
in just 12 months, by pushing employers across the state into preferred supplier
deals negotiated by its then leader Dean Mighell.
The extraordinary arrangement meant
the ETU pocketed a 20 per cent commission on the premiums paid by employers to
cover their workers for incomeprotection insurance in the 2013 financial year.
The employer group representing
firms in the industry, the National Electrical and Communications
Association, also benefited,
receiving almost $330,000 in directors’ fees and other income in the same
period.
When Mr Mighell quit as secretary
of the ETU’s Victorian branch in March last year, the company given exclusive
rights by his union to procure incomeprotection insurance hired him as a consultant.
He was paid a $100,000 upfront fee and a $15,000amonth retainer by ATC
Insurance Solutions to “open doors” by securing introductions to other unions.
With Mr Mighell’s help, the Maritime
Union of Australia came on board with a similar scheme to the ETU’s. Mr Mighell
had a “falling out” with ATC this year and ceased working as its consultant.
A fortnight after the termination
of his contract, Mr Mighell sent the company an invoice for a $165,000 “bonus
payment”.
Details of the lucrative payments
for the ETU and Mr Mighell were revealed during proceedings of the royal
commission into union corruption in Sydney yesterday. The ETU, now led by Mr Mighell’s
successor, Troy Gray, continues to receive the payments.
The commission’s counsel assisting,
Jeremy Stoljar SC, said the focus of investigations was why the
ETU had chosen specific service
providers, what payments were received, the extent of disclosure and whether
the union scheme unnecessarily inflated employer costs and building project
costs. He said “management fees” were really commissions paid to the union. The
ETU had been able to secure preferred supplier agreements beneficial to the
union by signing employers, in wage negotiations led by Mr Mighell, to
“framework” enterprisebargaining agreements. Each proforma agreement reached
with electrical contracting firms required that they used providers associated with
the union to make payments for workers’ incomeprotection insurance,
severancepay fund, longserviceleave fund and superannuation.
The Australian Industry Group said
last night the ETU scheme was the “most glaring” example of the millions of
dollars paid each year to unions by insurance companies and brokers. The Ai
Group, in a submission to the commission, said insurers and brokers offered
incomeprotection insurance products to employers at inflated prices and paid a
percentage of the takings to unions. Ai Group chief executive Innes Willox
accused unions of coercing employers to buy insurance products from organisations
with which they had financial arrangements.
“Some construction unions appear to
have a business model of deliberately engaging in unlawful industrial conduct,
and budgeting for the consequent fines,” Mr Willox said.
“The revenue streams from
redundancy funds and insurance products need to be closed off to break this
business model and restore the rule of law.”
In the 2013 financial year, the ETU
received $3.7m in management fees for its involvement in
incomeprotection insurance. It
also received more than $500,000 in trust income and $330,000 in directors’
fees.
Mr Mighell, who attracted attention
in 2007 when Kevin Rudd forced him out of the Labor Party for swearing, told
the commission that his union had made full disclosure in accounts.
Challenged by Mr Stoljar, Mr
Mighell disagreed that individual employers were not made aware the
ETU was the beneficiary of
preferredsupplier deals when they signed up to enterprise agreements.
He said management fees were “no
secret” in the union. He had often talked with members about using the income
to finance ambulance or funeral funds.
The former ETU leader disagreed
with Mr Stoljar that the union did nothing in return for receiving a 20 per
cent surcharge on insurance premiums. Apart from administration, he said the
ETU played an important role in compliance when employers failed to pay owed
entitlements.
ATC Insurance Solutions chief
executive Chris Anderson said he held discussions with Mr Mighell in 2010 about
his employment prospects with the company after the ETU, but they were “completely
separate negotiations” from those related to the scheme. Mr Anderson confirmed
Mr Mighell introduced his company to the MUA.
Additional reporting: Ewin Hannan
