65° F
7 Eanes school district athletics director Darren Allman got a vote of confidence from school board members Tuesday night during a study session that included a discussion of the district’s conflict of interest policy.
The discussion stemmed from a business relationship between Allman and former district bond advisory board chairman David Perkins. Allman, Perkins and the school district became topics of criticism recently when it became public knowledge that Allman and Perkins had gone into business together to form Coach Concepts, a company that Allman told board members will offer for-profit athletic training programs to the public.
The board asked Superintendent Nola Wellman to see what policy other districts have in place to make sure people advising the district do not have conflicts of interest or a financial stake in the eventual decisions being made.
“There are absolutely no allegations being made here,” said Clint Sayers, who along with board member Paul Stone brought the issue up for discussion. “I am just here to see that we don’t have any kind of conflicts that would preclude the successful passage of a bond. Anything we do should be completely above board and transparent.”
Sayers said he felt that people the district appoints to make recommendations to the school board should be held to the same standards that board members are held to. He also said Wellman should have informed the board when she first became aware the district athletic director had gone into business with the chair of the bond advisory committee.
“I think that anyone who agrees to serve on a committee for the district should be willing to sign a conflict of interest statement so that we are not caught blindsided and the community is not caught off guard (by issues of possible conflict),” Sayers said. “There are reasons that we, as board members, have to disclose the fact if we do business with someone who does business with the district. There are needs for checks and balances.”
When asked by board member Ellen Balthazar where he thought the possible conflict of interest in the business partnership lay, Sayers responded, “ Doesn’t it kind of smell that there might be a problem out there if you have someone making a recommendation to the board where they might benefit financially from that recommendation?”
Board members Stone, Colleen Jones and Robert Durkee supported an investigation to see if the district needed to have a policy dictating possible conflict of interest procedures for committee volunteers.
“I think we are all agreeing that there has been absolutely nothing inappropriate that has happened,” Stone said. “This is an opportunity for us. The district should always be clear and transparent.”
Balthazar and Wellman said they did not think district volunteers should be required to disclose possible conflicts of interest.
Allman told board members that he notified Wellman when he first formed the business with Perkins and that he followed district requirements for its employees in the matter. Wellman also told board members that Allman spoke to her early on in his business process and that he had taken every step required by a district employee in setting up an outside business.
“I never had any doubt that Coach Allman didn’t do exactly what he was supposed to do,” Sayers said. “My bigger concern is with this bond advisory committee. I am more concerned with turning over this entire bond recommendation process to someone who has absolutely no accountability.”
Last night during the EISD board meeting, it was revealed that Superintendent Nola Wellman solicited $5000 donations from community members to fund the phone survey. Who wrote the checks? So why did David Perkins (Chap Club board member and Bond Committee Chair) inform the board on May 10 (when he refused to release all of the results) that he funded the survey out of his own money? And here’s what else we learned: EISD Board resident Jim Strickland helped write the phone survey questions.
Accountability is key!
The Picayune reports,
“Board member Ellen Balthazar and Wellman said they did not think district volunteers should be required to disclose possible conflicts of interest.”
The position taken by our superintendent and board member should be duly noted. David Perkins was an appointed agent of the district, not a mere volunteer. He had access to governmental property that wasn’t afforded other members of the taxpaying community. Here’s the Eanes legal board policy that applies to this issue.
http://www.tasb.org/policy/pol/private/227909/pol.cfm?DisplayPage=DBD(LEGAL).pdf&QueryText=DBD
Mr. Stone is wrong. Everything about this situation is inappropriate.
Maybe he isn’t paying attention, so I’ll recap. It’s as easy as 1, 2, 3.
1) Mr. Perkins has established a for profit business with an EISD employee. That business relationship was not disclosed to the board.
2) Mr. Perkins used his role as a citizen adviser on a public bond committee to conduct a survey that, he says, indicates that EISD residents will support the proposed Athletic Facility. Mr. Perkins has refused to provide the board with questions asked on the survey, the methodology used, and the data from the survey he conducted that would allow an independent review of his “findings.”
3). Perkins stands to profit if the Athletic Facility is built and can be rented by Mr. Perkins’ for profit business.
I have no real issue with Coach Allman’s role here, but Mr. Stone, really, Mr. Perkins’ conflict is flashing red. Anyone can see it.
And it is entirely inappropriate. Utterly, completely, and truly inappropriate.
And yes, Ms Balthazar, the district should require a disclosure from any volunteer about potential conflicts of interest. Doing so here would have saved you a lot of time, and this district and Coach Allman a ton of embarrassment.
“Vote of confidence?” This is a school board and there was no vote. The Chap Club board member/Bond Chairman is in business with the Head Football Coach/Athletic Director. I’m confident that’s a problem, especially when it wasn’t disclosed but instead was exposed.
Clint Sayers was conspicuous by his absence during the “Action” part of the May 26 trustee meeting. He was there for everything but the “Action” section of the agenda. According to the agenda, there was supposed to be an action taking on a policy regarding potential conflicts of interest in EISD volunteers.
No vote was taken; no mention of the fact that it was sitting there on the agenda and was purposely skipped was made.
Perhaps Clint left because he didn’t like the atmosphere in the room.
There was no vote of confidence. There was no vote, at all.
When potential conflicts are not disclosed in advance, the end result will be compromised. I have no insight into the facts of this situation, having only followed it in the Picayune. But when I’m dealing with people, I do everything I can to understand what they have to gain or lose from the outcome of our discussions. In my experience, if one can figure out why someone wants to work with you, you can move faster and get a better outcome. Unfortunately, in business, there is no obligation for the other side to tell you what they’re thinking.
Not so in the world of volunteers. When a person volunteers to work on a public project then all potential conflicts should be disclosed. For example, if the person volunteering to help design new band uniforms has a business that makes band uniforms, wouldn’t the people paying for the band uniforms want to know that? More importantly, shouldn’t they know that in advance? Because if the resulting design happens to incorporate a feature only one manufacturer in the world could provide, well, anyone could see that the potential conflict wasn’t potential at all: it was real. And if the project has to start all over again to produce a more universal design, then time was wasted for no good reason.
It seems to be good public policy for EISD to understand the motivations of anyone they are appointing to a committee that represents the taxpayer. Perhaps the conflicts are small; if so, knowing that in advance would be a good thing. But when the conflict is irreconcilable (for example, the volunteer stands to earn income from the outcome of the project) then not understanding the potential conflict in advance can cost time and money, when a simple disclosure could have avoided the entire bru-ha-ha.
Dr. W. and Ms Balthazar should reconsider: transparency is good for the public, and knowing in advance the motivations of the people on one’s committee will always be helpful and garner more support for the end result. The opposite is also true; not understanding the motivations of the volunteers in advance can create a sense of impropriety even when no such impropriety exists.