AUBURN - Auburn Enlarged City School District Board of Education members clashed over the language and interpretation of a revised ethics policy Tuesday.

Members spent considerable time during the regular board meeting discussing a revised policy dealing with ethics and board member conduct and responding to criticisms from fellow board member Joe Leogrande that the policy, along with a second proposed policy that would empower board members to dismiss members for ethical violations, would stifle free speech, close communications with the media, and circumvent the rights of voters.

The board conducted a first reading on the ethics policy - first adopted in 2002 - during the meeting, while it has tabled the other until clear operational procedures are in place.

“It's our job to relate what we learn to the media and to the public,” Policy Committee Chair Ginny Kent said. “There is nothing in this policy that would ever stifle anyone working under this ethical code to talk with the media.”

Board members are welcome to articulate their opinions on various school matters - as long as its not confidential information - if contacted by reporters, Kent and Michael Stearns said, but are not expected to initiate communication with the media.

Kent offered Leogrande the opportunity to suggest different language for the code of ethics, specifically in the section that defines the relationship between the board and the press, to make him more comfortable.

The board accepted the first reading of the policy by a vote of 8-1 with Leogrande against. With Leogrande against, the board will continue to revise the policy until final approval.

Earlier, Leogrande read aloud a letter sent to The Citizen on Monday voicing his grievances with the two policies. He called the code of ethics 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.”

Furthermore, he worried that the first policy could be used as a tool to implement the proposal for removing a board member.

Some board members were surprised by Leogrande's statement, saying that this was the first time they have heard him voice concern over the policies.

Susan Scheuerman said the board was taking time away from conducting the first reading to respond to those concerns.

Fred Cornelius, who is working on devising procedures on how to go about removing a board member if there is an egregious ethical violation, said he is aware now more than ever of the need to have these policies in place.

“I've been a person who is reluctant to get involved in the idea of circumventing the will of the people,” Cornelius said, “but I also understand the concerns of board members that say, 'How do we as a board function if we can't speak freely in executive sessions?' ... I think we need a policy on how we can act.

“I think we need to be adults and act appropriately. We shouldn't need, this but we do. The more we discuss this the more I think we need the other policy. ... The community is upset by this and they have a right to be, but I think we are at a point that we have to do this.”

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