Abstract
In 2015, the superintendent of the Jackson County School District revised the existing nepotism policy, and, subsequently, his wife was hired to a newly created position of director of innovation at a salary nearly twice the average paid to teachers in the district. Because of community reaction, the Jackson County School Board met in special session to address the situation. This case, presented in three sequential parts, raises a number of questions: When does nepotism exist? What constitutes unethical behavior on the part of a school district leader? How should a school superintendent react when confronted by alleged misconduct? How should a school board proceed when faced with community outrage? How can a school board regain public trust? This case can be useful in graduate courses to generate discussion of ethical behavior and the consequences of unethical behavior in educational leadership and administration.
Introduction
This is a sequential case involving a school superintendent, a school board, and the local community in the Southeastern United States. The name of the school district and the names of those involved have been disguised. The case is presented in sequential segments to provide students with an opportunity to analyze and discuss various aspects of the case as it unfolded over a period of months.
Case Narratives
Nepotism and the Jackson County School Board (A)
Fred Wrangle was appointed as Superintendent by the Board of Education in Jackson County in July 2013. In September 2015, Wrangle’s wife was hired to a newly established position of director of innovation in the district office for a salary of US$95,000 per year. The Jackson County school district had a policy addressing nepotism, which Wrangle had revised months earlier to permit the hiring of family members as long as they did not directly supervise a family member. However, when word of the hiring of Wrangle’s wife reached the press, a number of members of the community took issue with the decision. A few members of the 11-member Board of Education have also called for Wrangle’s resignation. Investigations carried out by the local press soon discovered that Wrangle’s wife had also been hired in his previous positions as superintendent of other school districts in another state and had served as a consultant to her husband’s current district. Now, the school board must decide what action, if any, to take.
The Jackson County School District
The Jackson County School District has an enrollment of about 20,000 students with a graduation rate of 75%. With more than 30 schools, it is the 10th largest school district in the State with an operating budget of more than US$300 million. The school district, located in the Southeast, is governed by an 11-member board comprised of six men and five women who are elected to 4-year terms on a staggered basis. Will Gibbons serves as Chairman of the Board. Regarding academic quality, in 2012, the district was recognized as “overperforming” in relation to other school districts in the State. Teacher salaries in the district are described as “modest,” and there have been stories in the local newspaper recently about teachers leaving the district because of the “low pay.” Average teacher salary in 2016 was US$48,000, among the highest average in the State. However, the school district’s cost of living is the highest in the State. Adjusted for the cost of living, the average teacher’s salary is estimated to be US$40,000. The starting salary for teachers is US$34,500. From the previous school year, about 12% of the district’s teachers failed to return. Within the last year, the school board approved a cost-of-living supplement for teachers. Teachers will receive a US$1,000 bonus each year until the supplement totals US$5,000. Superintendent Wrangle has also advanced a proposal to work with other county agencies and build affordable housing for teachers to aid in recruitment and retention.
Superintendent Fred Wrangle
Fred Wrangle was appointed superintendent of the Jackson County School District in July 2013. He was selected from more than 120 applications from candidates in 42 states. Previously, he had served as a superintendent in three separate school districts in a neighboring state. He is a 30-year education veteran, working as a teacher, director of vocational and technical education, assistant superintendent for instruction, associate director for curriculum and technology, and finally as superintendent of multiple school districts. He holds a bachelor’s degree in business, a master’s degree, and a PhD in educational administration. He is the recipient of multiple awards for outstanding leadership and was nominated 3 times for the Superintendent of the Year award. Under his leadership, the school district has made significant progress in recent years, with across-the-board improvements in student achievement and significant savings from more efficient operations. On-time graduation rates have increased dramatically and the drop-out rate fell, particularly among minority and economically disadvantaged students. Also, students and teachers have earned numerous state and national honors in both academics and athletics.
Jackson County School District nepotism rule
The School District’s “Staff Ethics Rule,” as revised in 2010, states,
The board will not accept a recommendation for the appointment of a family member of the Superintendent for a position in the District Office, as a principal or assistant principal, or for any other position directly supervised or evaluated by the Superintendent.
In the summer of 2015, Superintendent Wrangle changed this rule just after the school system advertised an administrative position that his wife was eventually hired to fill. He said that he rewrote the rule to mirror the language he has used in other school systems. A copy of the 2010 nepotism policy is contained in the appendix.
Typically, Boards of Education have a Policy Committee that is a standing Board advisory committee which accepts proposals regarding new policies. The Superintendent is usually responsible for calling to the Board’s attention any policies that are out of date or appear in need of revision.
The new nepotism rule requires that family members do not directly supervise each other—defined as having the ability to hire, evaluate, or recommend someone for termination. They also cannot work in the same school building or administrative unit—such as finance or food services—without approval from the superintendent. “Those are the rules that I’m comfortable with,” said Wrangle. “Those are the rules that have served me everywhere I’ve been,” he said.
Superintendent Wrangle said he did not remember exactly when he eliminated the old language or when he told the Board of Education that his wife had applied for the new job. He also stated that he was unaware of his wife’s plans to apply for the position at the time he changed the district rule. When asked, Wrangle stated he was not involved in the hiring process and added that he had no concerns about the appearance of nepotism in the nature or timing of her hire. His wife was hired by and reported to a direct report of Wrangle. “There’s nothing I did that was dishonest or dishonorable,” Wrangle said. “I think everything I’ve done since I’ve been here is above-board and transparent.”
Tim Gardner, a spokesperson for the school district, commented in an email that “It’s typical, when a superintendent takes a position in a new district, for the new superintendent to modify that district’s practices and procedures to fit the personal management style he’s developed over the years.” He continued, “A change to an administrative rule does not require school board approval.” Gardner added that Wrangle has revised more than 60 rules during his tenure in Jackson County.
Will Gibbons, chairman of the Board of Education, was quoted as saying that he was “comfortable” with the district’s rule on nepotism and had no issue with the hiring of Wrangle’s wife. “My number one priority is to get the best people we can for positions.”
Husband–wife employment history
The hiring of Superintendent Wrangle’s wife for the newly created position of director of innovation in the Jackson County School District was not the first time she had been hired for a high-level position in a school district where her husband served in a top post. In one prior school district, Celia Wrangle worked as a teacher and human resources coordinator. At the time, her husband was an instructor and later became an assistant superintendent. In a second school district, Celia Wrangle was hired as an assistant principal and then later became an administrator, working with new teachers, 1 month after her husband was appointed superintendent. In Fred Wrangle’s most recent position before coming to Jackson County, Celia Wrangle was hired to a newly created role as curriculum coordinator, just 3 months after her husband had been appointed as superintendent.
Also, Mrs. Wrangle was hired, for nearly 6 months, as a consultant to the Jackson County School District headed by her husband. Celia Wrangle was paid more than US$6,000 for her work of training teachers and producing career- and technology-education workbooks, according to district spokesperson Tim Gardner. Her one-woman firm was awarded the job over eight other applicants. Mrs. Wrangle was hired by an internal team led by the chief instructional systems officer, Dale Street, who would become Mrs. Wrangle’s immediate supervisor. Mr. Street reported directly to Superintendent Wrangle.
According to Tim Gardner, Mrs. Wrangle “was interviewed and determined to be the most qualified and capable candidate. Her resume and work history are outstanding and show ample evidence of her experience and expertise.” Celia Wrangle’s LinkedIn page shows that she has above 30 years of experience in teaching, administration, project management, and education management. Specialty areas include career coaching, technical education, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) integration, strategic planning, and innovative program development. She also holds a master’s degree in educational leadership and administration.
The district’s former nepotism rule did not forbid Celia Wrangle—or any other family member of a district employee—from doing contract work for the district. It simply stated, “the matter shall be reported to the Superintendent immediately to determine if a conflict of interest exists.” As superintendent, Fred Wrangle determined that his wife’s contract work was not a conflict of interest. According to Gardner, that hire “did not require school board approval and was vetted by staff.”
The hiring issue
One week ago, Celia Wrangle was hired by the Jackson County School District for the position of director of innovation, a job newly created by her husband, Superintendent Fred Wrangle. Mrs. Wrangle does not report directly to her husband, but her hiring supervisor does. The hiring of the superintendent’s wife for a position paying in excess of US$90,000 per year was met with anger and outrage by many citizens in the district as teacher salaries have been a contentious issue in Jackson County for several years.
Decision time
Because of the controversy generated in the community by the hiring of Mrs. Wrangle, the Jackson County Board of Education called a special meeting later in the week to discuss its personnel hiring practices and the district’s nepotism policy. The meeting included a closed session and an open session with an opportunity for public comment.
Nepotism and the Jackson County School Board (B)
In October 2015, the Jackson County School Board met in special session to discuss the conduct of its superintendent, Fred Wrangle. Wrangle had recently changed the nepotism policy of the school district and, just 1 week ago, his wife, Celia Wrangle, was hired for the newly created position of director of innovation. Many in the community have expressed outrage upon learning of the hiring of Mrs. Wrangle, especially because average teacher pay in the county is about US$48,000 and the salary for Mrs. Wrangle’s position was US$90,000.
During the public comment session at the beginning of the meeting, 25 people spoke. All 21 members of the general public were critical of Wrangle for changing the nepotism policy and the circumstances surrounding the hiring of his wife. Some were also critical of the board. However, four employees of the district were present and spoke in support of Wrangle’s leadership. In a statement sent to the board prior to the meeting, Wrangle apologized to the chairman and promised that, if given the opportunity, he would rebuild the public’s trust and the school district’s credibility.
After nearly 90 min of public comment, the board met for 3 hr in closed session. When the board emerged from the closed session, Will Gibbons, the Jackson County School Board Chairman expressed continued confidence in Fred Wrangle’s leadership. The board noted, however, that Wrangle would be up for a performance review in coming months. Gibbons also announced that Wrangle’s wife, Celia Wrangle, had resigned from the position of director of innovation the previous Saturday, just 1 week after she had been hired. Gibbons also announced that the position will be placed “on hold” while the superintendent evaluates all administrative jobs to determine which are necessary and appropriate in light of current budget constraints. The school board also pledged to review and create its own nepotism policy as well as review and approve all future districts hiring on a monthly basis.
Some members of the community who had attended the meeting blasted the board for its inaction and support of Wrangle. As one resident put it, “The board’s lack of response, its lack of willingness to face this problem, is very distressing to me.”
At their next regular meeting, the school board approved a revision of the nepotism policy by a 6 to 4 margin. The new policy states the following:
The [District] will assign employees so that one immediate family member, that is, spouse, parent, child, or sibling, does not have direct supervisory authority over another. For purposes of this section, direct supervisory authority will be defined as the ability to hire, evaluate, or recommend the termination of individuals an employee supervises.
In addition, no members of the same immediate family, certified or support staff, will be hired to work in the same administrative unit or school building or under the same immediate supervisor without prior approval of the superintendent. This procedure, however, will not affect the continued employment of personnel who are related to other staff members.
When an immediate family member of the executive leadership, the facilities planning and construction officer, or personnel in the procurement and contracting offices is offered employment with a current contracted service or construction vendor associated with the [district] and/or a company that has submitted a bid offer package to the district, the matter shall be reported to the superintendent immediately to determine if a conflict of interest exists.
For all practical purposes, the new nepotism policy is the same as the one Wrangle had instituted earlier in the year prior to the hiring of his wife.
Nepotism and the Jackson County School Board (C)
In October 2015, the Jackson County School Board met in special session to discuss the conduct of its superintendent, Fred Wrangle. Wrangle had changed the nepotism policy of the school district and his wife, Celia Wrangle, was subsequently hired for a newly created senior-level position at a salary of US$90,000 per year. She had been hired previously as a consultant by the same district and received a fee in excess of US$6,000. Given local teacher salaries which average about US$48,000 per year, many in the community expressed outrage upon learning of the hiring of Mrs. Wrangle, and a special session of the school board was convened.
Following a closed-session meeting of the school board, the board chairman, Will Gibbons, announced that Celia Wrangle had resigned from her position a week before the meeting and expressed continued confidence in the leadership provided by Fred Wrangle as superintendent. However, he went on to say that Wrangle would be up for a performance review within the coming months. Shortly thereafter, Gibbons resigned his chairmanship and his seat on the school board. Subsequently, the Board elected a new chairwoman who said she does not think Fred Wrangle violated any rule or acted unethically in approving his wife’s hire.
In April 2016, a local newspaper carried a story that Superintendent Wrangle would go before the State Ethics Commission later in the year. According to the notice sent to Wrangle, the hearing explored alleged ethics violations based on a complaint filed by a resident of the district. A similar complaint had also been filed by a local whistle-blower website run by a businessman within the district.
The State’s Ethics Act states, in part, that
A public official, public member, or public employee may not knowingly use his official office, membership, or employment to influence a government decision to obtain an economic interest for himself, a family member, an individual with whom he is associated, or a business with which he is associated.
The State Ethics Commission reported that they had found probable cause to hold a hearing to consider allegations that Superintendent Wrangle had knowingly used his position to sign a consulting contract between his wife and the district and had changed the district’s nepotism policy, thereby allowing his wife to be hired to the newly created district job. The commission will determine whether these two actions constitute use of official office to obtain an economic interest for a family member, an act prohibited by State law. If the panel of commissioners finds Wrangle to be in violation of the law, it could issue a public reprimand or levy an administrative fine of up to US$2,000. The panel could also refer any criminal activity to the State attorney general, who could prosecute the misdemeanor carrying penalties of up to a US$5,000 fine, 1 year in prison, or both.
Following receipt of the notice to appear before the Ethics Commission, Wrangle stated
I’m going to cooperate fully with the Ethics Commission, and I’m confident that all of my actions as superintendent have been lawful, ethical, and in the best interests of children. What’s best for students is the foundation of every decision I make.
Wrangle has the option of requesting a closed hearing or opening the hearing up to the public. In an Op Ed piece, a local newspaper has called for Wrangle to open the hearing to the public. The column asserted “. . . if Wrangle wants to insist he’s done nothing wrong, now is the time to make the claim in public.” However, the newspaper added, “Unfortunately, it will come before a lame ethics commission that acts mostly in secret, ultimately finding very little wrongdoing by public servants.”
After the announcement of the hearing, Robert Basset, founder of a local citizens’ advocacy group, repeated his call for Superintendent Wrangle to resign or for the school board to fire him, rather than waiting additional months for the commission to hold the hearing. “This has gone on long enough,” he said. “Waiting a few months longer is really unfair to the parents, the taxpayers, the voters, and the students.”
Earlier in the month, the Wrangles listed their home for sale. Wrangle commented that putting their home up for sale had nothing to do with the State’s ongoing ethics investigation and doesn’t mean he’s leaving the district. “I plan to be here for many years,” he said.
Questions for Discussion (A)
Are there ethical issues involved in this case? If so, what are they?
Are there human resource management issues involved in this case? If so, what are they?
Who is at fault for the situation that has developed? Superintendent Wrangle? His wife? The District Board of Education?
What actions, if any, should the Board of Education take?
Questions for Discussion (B)
Did the school board make the right decision?
Did Celia Wrangle do the right thing by resigning her position?
Should the school board chairman have disclosed that Wrangle’s wife had resigned her position during the open session of the meeting?
Should the hiring of Fred Wrangle’s wife be a factor in his upcoming performance review?
What, if anything, can the school board do to regain the public trust?
Questions for Discussion (C)
Should Wrangle open the hearing to the public?
Does the Wrangles’ listing their home for sale suggest that Wrangle expects to be found guilty or be terminated by the school board?
What action do you think the State Ethics Commission will take?
Teaching Note
Synopsis
This case is about nepotism, alleged misconduct on the part of a school district superintendent, and school policy. A superintendent who revised the nepotism policy and subsequently created a new position to which his wife was hired at a substantial salary is called into question for unethical behavior.
Audience
This case was developed for graduate students enrolled in educational leadership, instructional leadership, principal preparation, or school policy coursework. The case provides students with the opportunity to consider a number of important educational leadership issues, including nepotism, ethics, and policy in a sequential format. When assuming a principalship or superintendency, there is a complex set of circumstances concerning personnel and human resources. This case reflects the following standards from the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders 2015 published by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA):
Learning Objectives
After analyzing this case and completing the recommended activities, students will be able to
Identify ethical issues in a narrative
Define nepotism and explain why it is not illegal under the Human Rights Act
Identify circumstantial factors not relevant to the case
Interpret, write, and evaluate policy on nepotism
Summarize Wallace v. Department of Commerce (2007), a federal case 106 M.S.P.R. 23, §2 and describe how this finding might apply to the case
Assess the actions of a superintendent and school board
Recommend future actions for a school board and state ethics commission
Analyze the role of Human Resources in cases of alleged nepotism
Nepotism, School Policy, and Ethics
The phenomenon of nepotism is complex. In public schools, school boards have made attempts to create policy to mitigate the occurrence of nepotism. Research on nepotism is sparse, but “although there is some research on nepotism, no systematic theoretical representation of the construct of nepotism exists” (Darioly & Riggio, 2014, p. 243). This makes writing policy regarding nepotism extremely challenging.
In general, the meaning of school policy is multifaceted. Canaday and Duke (1991) stress that
1. Policy is an assertion of intents or goals 2. Policy is the accumulated standing decisions of a governing body by which it regulates, controls, promotes, services, and otherwise influences matters within its sphere of authority 3. Policy is a guide to discretionary action 4. Policy is a strategy undertaken to solve or ameliorate a problem 5. Policy is a sanctioned behavior 6. Policy is a norm of conduct characterized by consistency and regularity in some substantive action area 7. Policy is the output of the policy-making system 8. Policy is the effect of the policy-making and policy-implementing system as it is explained by the client. (pp. 1-2)
They further assert that, although local policy is subject to scrutiny and regulation by higher authorities, there is still a great deal of local district discretion when it comes to creating and adopting policy (Canaday & Duke, 1991).
The development, implementation, and interpretation of school policy on nepotism and other matters are crucial components of school leadership. Decisions must be made daily based on policy and policy interpretation. Regarding this case, “hiring a professional spouse in order to successfully recruit a ‘superstar’ candidate may have ethical implications even if the personnel department follows competitive hiring procedures” (Reed, 1988).
In particular, to avoid the challenging nuances of writing effective nepotism policy, some organizations use broad policy that entirely prohibits the hiring of certain relatives. This can be construed as exclusionary and “singles out family relationships as a basis for excluding people from an organization” regardless of qualifications (Jones & Stout, 2015).
This approach is often used because it is widely believed that “nepotism and cronyism are bad for organizational performance” and “undermine organizations and the people who work in them” (Pearce, 2015, p. 43). Cases such as Keckeisen v. Independent School District 612 have upheld the nonrenewal of an administrator’s contract because of a conflict of interest due to marriage to a subordinate (Jones, 2012, p. 21). Educational leaders must be diligent about their actions to ensure that decisions and behaviors do not interfere with the main focus of student achievement. Perceived abuse of power in the office of the superintendency can have harmful effects on a school district. Ethical concerns have caused many a superintendent to step down (Ujifusa, 2012). Furthermore, “morale has been used as a legal argument for allowing ‘no spouse’ rules (Thorne v. City of Ed Segundo, 1983; Yuhas v. Libby-Owens, 1977)” (Jones & Stout, 2015, p. 9).
Nepotism can have additional internal implications beyond morale such as promotion issues and external implications such as school district image. Other possible complications, although not widely reported, include scheduling difficulties for synchronous vacations, one spouse resigning leading to the other spouse resigning, and personal disagreements spilling over into the workplace. Yet, there is an argument for the hiring of spouses. The spouse may be the best-qualified candidate, turnover may be reduced, and the hiring of the spouse can be a recruiting tool (Wong & Kleiner, 1994).
To balance these competing interests, Riggio and Saggi (2015) suggest
Organizations need to do two things: (a) Ensure that evaluations of new hires and procedures for performance assessment are objective, fair, and valid measures of competence in performing the job, and (b) ensure that organizational leadership is direct and straightforward in combating employee perceptions of nepotism and cronyism by authentically acknowledging that social connection preferences exist but demonstrating that they do not lead to unfair favoritism in hiring, promotion or treatment. To the latter point, it is the perception of nepotism in its most negative sense that really causes organizational problems. (pp. 19-20)
In addition to utilizing best practices in hiring, organizations must “fully integrate trust and trustworthiness” to keep morale issues at bay (Palmer & Fleig-Palmer, 2015, p. 22). Thus, the intricacies of nepotism, and the more recent, broader term of social connection preference, continue to plague school districts. Much policy is reactionary. This case lends itself to a rich discussion of the definition, implications, and policies of nepotism.
Because “education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States,” a substantial amount of funding comes from state and local resources. This funding reflects the local responsibility (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). School districts, in fact, are considered local governments and are subordinate to their states. Unlike other entities considered local governments, school districts have only one function which is to provide public elementary and secondary education. Because this single function is a state responsibility, school districts consequently have more state oversight in the form of a State Board of Education.
When evaluating the Wrangle case study, precedent may be garnered from Wallace v. Department of Commerce (2007). This federal case addresses prohibited nepotism according to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Wallace was a federal employee of high rank whose sister made her aware that she was interested in applying for a position that was under the authority of Wallace. Wallace recused herself from involvement in the hiring process. Although Wallace’s sister was selected for the job, it was determined that the prohibited personnel practice of nepotism did not occur as the employer “failed to establish that Wallace’s mere presence in the chain of command at the time of the selection constitutes a violation of the nepotism statue” (Wallace v. Department of Commerce, 2007). No advocacy occurred in this case.
Additional Discussion Questions
Is there ever an instance where nepotism is desirable? (Suggested resource: Bellow, 2003).
How might the hiring and supervising of Celia Wrangle affect her supervisor who reports directly to her husband?
Explore how the following information would affect this case, if at all Celia Wrangle had a PhD Celia Wrangle was nationally known as an expert in her field Celia Wrangle had left her position as a fully tenured professor to follow her husband to this school district? Celia Wrangle went by her maiden name, Celia Williams Superintendent Wrangle hadn’t led the effort to rewrite the school board policy
Human Resources was certainly involved in the hiring of the superintendent’s wife. What sort of investigation, if any, should be made into the role and documentation of the district Human Resources department in the interviewing and hiring of Celia Wrangle?
At what point, if any, should the school board attorney have stepped in?
Should circumstantial factors, such as the Wrangles putting their house on the market, have been part of the decision process?
Would any of the candidates who were not hired for Celia Wrangle’s position have grounds for a lawsuit? Explain.
What is the difference between nepotism and favoritism?
What should prompt policy revisions? How frequently should school district policies be reviewed and by whom?
Discuss the federal law prohibiting nepotism, particularly as it plays out in Wallace v. Department of Commerce (2007). How might the federal law be applied to this case?
Recommended Student Activities
Epilogue
The State Ethics Commission hearing scheduled for August 2016 was canceled after Superintendent Wrangle admitted guilt to two counts of three ethics violations as part of a deal to avoid an upcoming hearing. Wrangle was publicly reprimanded and must pay a US$2,500 fine and a US$500 administrative fee. The disposition was part of a consent order built around the three specific charges under the broader umbrella of using his position for financial gain for his family. The superintendent pleaded guilty to signing his wife’s contract for consulting work with the district and presenting his wife’s candidacy for hire before the school board. Both constituted violations of the Ethics Act of 1991. However, the Commission agreed not to pursue a charge that Wrangle altered the administrative [nepotism] rule regarding language about the hiring of a superintendent’s family member. The Commission stated, “In not pursuing this count, the Commission is in no way condoning the actions of Respondent [Wrangle] in changing this rule. The Commission believes, at a minimum, that Respondent’s action to change the rule creates an appearance of impropriety.” Meeting in executive session for 4 hr at an already-scheduled work session the next day, the Jackson County School Board announced that it would not take any further action. Superintendent Wrangle said that he was hopeful that the Ethics Commission’s decision would restore credibility and trust to the district. At a subsequent meeting, the school board approved a draft of a revised conflict of interest policy that states, “No member of the Superintendent’s immediate family shall be eligible for employment within or as a contractor to the [school district] in any capacity.” However, at a board meeting weeks later, the draft was amended and approved for the school district’s policy manual to read, “No member of the Superintendent’s immediate family shall be eligible for employment within, or as a contractor to, the [school district] in any capacity, unless approved by the school board.”
Footnotes
Appendix
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.