A late addition to the new business of today’s Dayton Public Schools Board of Education meeting agenda- a first reading of change in policies of disclosure.
One can only wonder if this is because of Federal law- or because Dr. Baguirov was routinely not abstaining- but actively participating in contracts that could be potential conflicts of interest. Both the CareSource deal- which may pose a conflict since he’s an owner of a Home Health firm- and the bus deal, where he owns a trucking company and does business with the firms that the Board buys from- were very questionable.
From the new policy- note there is an odd either or option for procurement, but the second clause states:
The District will follow the procurement standards outlined in previous OMB guidance during the grace periods established. Effective with July 1, 2018 fiscal year, the District will comply with the federal procurement standards established through the Uniform Guidance.
4. Conflict of Interest and Mandatory Disclosures
The District complies with the requirements of State law and the Uniform Guidance for conflicts of interest and mandatory disclosures for all procurements with federal funds.
Each employee, board member, or agent of the school system who is engaged in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by a federal grant or award and who has a potential conflict of interest must disclose that conflict in writing to the Treasurer. The Treasurer discloses in writing any potential conflict of interest to ODE or other applicable pass-through-entity.
A conflict of interest would arise when the covered individual, any member of his/her immediate family, his/her partner, or an organization, which employs or is about to employ any of those parties has a financial or other interest in or receives a tangible personal benefit from a firm considered for a contract. A covered individual who is required to disclose a conflict will not participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by a federal grant or award.
Covered individuals will not solicit or accept any gratuities, favors, or items from a contractor or a party to a subcontractor for a federal grant or award. Violations of this rule are subject to disciplinary action.
The Treasurer discloses in writing to ODE or other applicable pass-through-entity in a timely manner all violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuities potentially effecting any federal award. The Treasurer fully addresses any such violations promptly and notifies the Board accordingly.
There may also be a Mark Baker clause- in the addition of policy on use of school buildings:
“2. No building is used for commercial or personal gain.”
There were reports that Mr. Baker was using building in the summer for private basketball tutoring, and when questioned, the district would not release relevant security footage proving the allegations, or show the building use request forms that Mr. Baker would have had to turn in.
Also included is policy on searches of students and interrogations by law enforcement. That this is coming up now, as old board members depart- for new board members to vote on, without proper community discussion is evidence of a bigger issue: why now?
The rules are particularly vague when pertaining to electronic devices – being cell phones or school issued computers:
The following rules apply to the search of school property assigned to a student (locker, desk, etc.) and the seizure of items in his/her possession.
There is also a section on strip searches:
Strip searches should be discouraged. A substantially higher degree of certainty (more than a reasonable belief) is required prior to conducting such a search. In cases in which school officials believe a strip search is necessary, law enforcement officials should be called to conduct the search.
Note- all of these rules, seem to be dancing around the fact that students, as minors, can not, and should not, be expected to know their rights, yet some of these searches could lead to criminal charges.
If I was a parent of a DPS student, I’d be incredibly cautious of allowing these rules to take effect without demanding that a legal advocate be present for the student before any of these searches take place.
What’s more concerting is that these are being proposed AFTER it was rumored that Dayton Police, acting on behalf of Children’s Services were in a high school to collect DNA samples from football players to determine if any of them are baby daddies to a staff member.
If there is a subject that should be discussed with the community in public open forum, this is it.
Instead, it seems to be trying to slide under the radar during regime change.
I highly advise you to read the whole document.
And one last thing. Although Board Docs has improved. without properly labeling this document with the actual issues contained in it- with a summary, adding a ADA compliant PDF isn’t enough to meet ADA requirements. Labeling it 1st Reading with the date- gives no insight to what it contains. This is why the entire public information system needs a revamp, if it is to be compliant for public records.