In the eyes of one Auburn Enlarged City School District Board of Education member, proposed revisions to board policies are unconstitutional and circumvent the rights of voters.

Board member Joe Leogrande is not happy with two revised policies under consideration, one dealing with ethics and board member conduct and the other empowering five of nine board members to dismiss members for ethical violations.

The board will conduct a first reading on the ethics policy tonight, while it has tabled the other until further notice.

Leogrande believes the two are inextricably linked and are designed to curtail dissent and dialogue among board members, the community and press. He articulated his grievances in a letter sent to The Citizen on Monday, which he will likely read during the meeting.

“I believe the purpose of (the code of ethics policy) is to censor and to prevent diversity of thought,” he wrote. “It is a laundry list of vague rules, to be interpreted at will by some members of the school board, in order to enforce compliance of board members who think differently and will not tolerate the status quo. It is a by-law to operate a school district under a veil of secrecy, not transparency.

He worries the first policy will be used as a tool to implement the proposal for removing a board member, which he said “undermines the school board public elections process, as well as our basic and democratic rights.”

Ginny Kent, chair of the board's Policy Committee, dismissed those claims. The point of these policies, she said, is to ensure that board members know what is expected of them with regards to ethics and code of conduct, and to hold them accountable should there be any flagrant ethical violations.

Many of the various principles specified in the code of conduct, first adopted in 2002, deal with the presentation of board proposals and decisions to the community and media. Board members can voice their opinions on district proposals before a board vote, but are expected to accept and support board decisions once they are made.

Board members can speak to the press if reporters contact them - a point Kent stresses as vitally important - but should defer to the board spokesperson regarding initiating communication with the press.

Confidential information discussed in executive session, especially when it involves personnel or specific children, should not become public, she said.

This policy is merely formalizing board guidelines that have been followed for years, she said, and establishing the mechanism for the board to revisit the code annually to see if it is working.

But Leogrande maintains that this policy puts a “muzzle” on free speech, preventing board members from speaking to the public, to the people that voted them into office.

“We do not work for the school administration; we work with them, but our job is to oversee these individuals, question their decisions if necessary and keep the lines of communication open with the public,” he wrote in his statement.

The other policy, which deals with the resignation and dismissal of a board member, reflects a state decision to grant local boards greater control to police themselves. In addition to the state education commissioner stepping in when there is a clear abuse of power, Kent said numerous districts locally and statewide have adopted language to remove board members when there are egregious ethical violations, a tool few boards have used.

“It wasn't intended to be a willy-nilly, 'I am upset with a guy across the table so I'm going to say he or she violated a principle' policy,” she said.

Nor is this policy directed at anyone currently sitting on the board, she said.

“This is a good time to housework when there really aren't any pressing issues and there aren't issues going on to make people think that there's a specific motivation,” she said.

And when it comes to revoking the will of the people, Kent said people voted for a board member to act ethically.

“This is not about losing local control over the board,” she said. “That's very important to me, that we have people that are in our community helping educating our children.”

But Leogrande believes voters should decide the fate of elected board members.

“If they want a board member to continue, they will vote for him or her in the election,” he wrote. “If they have a problem with a board member's performance, he or she will not be re-elected. It's as simple as that.”

The paragraph added to the policy that allows for the dismissal of board members is vague - what constitutes misconduct, who would initiate removal proceedings, etc. - and as a result, the policy will not come back to the full board until committee members devise clear procedures.

Board member Fred Cornelius said having procedures in place is crucial.

“It's no small thing to talk about things like discipline and removing a board member, somebody who has been put in place by a vote of the community,” he said. “I think there has to be a very well thought-out plan for taking that kind of step because I'm reluctant, without a good cause, to kind of circumvent the will of the people.”

Staff writer Alyssa Sunkin can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 239 or alyssa.sunkin@lee.net