Dear Editor,

I would like to share some thoughts I have about the recently adopted HCSD nepotism policy.

According to the nepotism policy, “The school district then reserves the right to transfer one of the employees to another department or assignment” rather than examining the issues as they relate to our unique community, and which also happen to be very different than the dynamics in Washoe County.

This policy begs the question…by adopting this policy, is the HCSD board recognizing that they are not practicing equal opportunity in employment (a violation of the law by the way)?

Finally, if you can’t trust your family, who can you trust?  Why wouldn’t the district personnel just talk sensibly to the affected parties when they are putting themselves and the schools in a bad position?  What happened to leadership?  Or, was this just a reaction to poor management?  It would be interesting to know what drove the policy behind the scenes.

Family favoritism is rarely the issue in my experience, while friend favoritism runs rampant in every profession.  Family ties generally put additional accountability on the part of the affected member.  Hillyer and Deputy at least have a clue here.

Additionally, why would any board want to go through the constant decision-making process of such a policy to make exceptions (and, you know that there will be many)?

Grievances will be a lot of fun I’m sure.  Everyone around here is related to somebody it seems like, either by blood or by marriage.  The town is just too small for this nonsense.

Speaking of grievances, in dealing with law for some time, I thought about the implications of the decision and did some research.  The Board may have made a mountain out of a molehill on this one…

What has the Supreme Court said in these matters?  See: School District of Drummond v. WERC (1984)…

“The Board is not prohibited from considering the issue of conflicts of interests, but if the District wants to impose nepotism limitations on employees who are subject to collective bargaining, it cannot ignore the limitations.”

Nevada state laws also offer some guidance, which I would bet money was overlooked (isn’t this the Board and school attorney’s job to know!?!!!)…

NRS 288.150 Negotiations by employer with recognized employee organization: Subjects of mandatory bargaining; matters reserved to employer without negotiation.

1.  Except as provided in subsection 4, every local government employer shall negotiate in good faith through one or more representatives of its own choosing concerning the mandatory subjects of bargaining set forth in subsection 2 with the designated representatives of the recognized employee organization, if any, for each appropriate bargaining unit among its employees. If either party so requests, agreements reached must be reduced to writing.
2.  The scope of mandatory bargaining is limited to:
(a) Salary or wage rates or other forms of direct monetary compensation.
(b) Sick leave.
(c) Vacation leave.
(d) Holidays.
(e) Other paid or nonpaid leaves of absence.
(f) Insurance benefits.
(g) Total hours of work required of an employee on each workday or workweek.
(h) Total number of days’ work required of an employee in a work year.
(i) Discharge and disciplinary procedures.
(j) Recognition clause.
(k) The method used to classify employees in the bargaining unit.
(l) Deduction of dues for the recognized employee organization.
(m) Protection of employees in the bargaining unit from discrimination because of participation in recognized employee organizations consistent with the provisions of this chapter.
(n) No-strike provisions consistent with the provisions of this chapter.
(o) Grievance and arbitration procedures for resolution of disputes relating to interpretation or application of collective bargaining agreements.
(p) General savings clauses.
(q) Duration of collective bargaining agreements.
(r) Safety of the employee.
(s) Teacher preparation time.
(t) Materials and supplies for classrooms.
(u) The POLICIES for the transfer and reassignment of teachers.
(v) Procedures for reduction in workforce.
3.  Those subject matters which are not within the scope of mandatory bargaining and which are reserved to the local government employer without negotiation include:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (u) of subsection 2, the right to hire, direct, assign or transfer an employee, but excluding the right to assign or transfer an employee as a form of discipline.
(b) The right to reduce in force or lay off any employee because of lack of work or lack of money, subject to paragraph (v) of subsection 2.
(c) The right to determine:
(1) Appropriate staffing levels and work performance standards, except for safety considerations;
(2) The content of the workday, including without limitation workload factors, except for safety considerations;
(3) The quality and quantity of services to be offered to the public; and
(4) The means and methods of offering those services.
(d) Safety of the public.
4.  Notwithstanding the provisions of any collective bargaining agreement negotiated pursuant to this chapter, a local government employer is entitled to take whatever actions may be necessary to carry out its responsibilities in situations of emergency such as a riot, military action, natural disaster or civil disorder. Those actions may include the suspension of any collective bargaining agreement for the duration of the emergency. Any action taken under the provisions of this subsection must not be construed as a failure to negotiate in good faith.
5.  The provisions of this chapter, including without limitation the provisions of this section, recognize and declare the ultimate right and responsibility of the local
government employer to manage its operation in the most efficient manner consistent with the best interests of all its citizens, its taxpayers and its employees.
6.  This section does not preclude, but this chapter does not require the local government employer to negotiate subject matters enumerated in subsection 3 which are outside the scope of mandatory bargaining. The local government employer shall discuss subject matters outside the scope of mandatory bargaining but it is not required to negotiate those matters.
7.  Contract provisions presently existing in signed and ratified agreements as of May 15, 1975, at 12 p.m. remain negotiable.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1377; A 1971, 1503; 1975, 919; 1983, 1622; 1987, 743, 1496, 1607; 1989, 1165)

PROHIBITED PRACTICES

NRS 288.270  Employer or representative; employee or employee organization.
1.  It is a prohibited practice for a local government employer or its designated representative willfully to:
(a) Interfere, restrain or coerce any employee in the exercise of any right guaranteed under this chapter.
(b) Dominate, interfere or assist in the formation or administration of any employee organization.
(c) Discriminate in regard to hiring, tenure or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any employee organization.
(d) Discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee because the employee has signed or filed an affidavit, petition or complaint or given any information or testimony under this chapter, or because the employee has formed, joined or chosen to be represented by any employee organization.
(e) Refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with the exclusive representative as required in NRS 288.150. Bargaining collectively includes the entire bargaining process, including mediation and fact-finding, provided for in this chapter.
(f) Discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, age, physical or visual handicap, national origin or because of political or personal reasons or affiliations.
(g) Fail to provide the information required by NRS 288.180.
2.  It is a prohibited practice for a local government employee or for an employee organization or its designated agent willfully to:
(a) Interfere with, restrain or coerce any employee in the exercise of any right guaranteed under this chapter.
(b) Refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with the local government employer, if it is an exclusive representative, as required in NRS 288.150. Bargaining collectively includes the entire bargaining process, including mediation and fact-finding, provided for in this chapter.
(c) Discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, age, physical or visual handicap, national origin or because of political or personal reasons or affiliations.
(d) Fail to provide the information required by NRS 288.180.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 1508; A 1975, 924; 1977, 757)
NRS 288.280  Controversies concerning prohibited practices to be submitted to Board.  Any controversy concerning prohibited practices may be submitted to the Board in the same manner and with the same effect as provided in NRS 288.110, except that an alleged failure to provide information as provided by NRS 288.180 shall be heard and determined by the Board as soon as possible after the complaint is filed with the Board.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 1509; A 1977, 758)

The following excerpt from http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Mar-No/Nepotism.html was interesting in light of the recently adopted policy…

If practiced fairly (itself a contentious term in this regard), nepotism can be a true asset Sharon Nelton suggests, citing the example of Thomas Publishing Company. In 1998 there were seven third- and fourth-generation family members working for the company. The third-generation president, Tom Knudson, encouraged nepotism among their independent sales contractors because he believed it resulted in high performance, stability, and long-term commitment. 

Chad Kaydo also writes that nepotism may be viable. For example, a top salesperson's relative may have many of the same qualities that make the representative successful. Recruiting family members can therefore boost both performance as well as retention. For instance, one senior contractor began working for Thomas in 1940.

By 1998 his wife and three of his adult children (two daughters and a son) all worked for the company. The son encountered a challenge when calling on a client at odds with the senior contractor. He easily and politely diffused the situation using the diplomacy techniques he had gleaned from his father, the very senior contractor the client disliked, and gained a larger-than-usual sale. 

In the 2000s the tide in business seemed to be turning toward policies that encouraged hiring qualified relatives and spouses, with idea that good people tend to associate with good people. Jacquelyn Lynn noted that such policies can promote employee satisfaction by aiding individual efforts to balance professional and personal lives. Hiring family members can also provide benefits to companies, for example by reducing their health insurance costs. 

In Asia the majority of entrepreneurs look to the family, rather than the broader populace, for the succession of the business. Studying Asian nepotism practices, Leon Richardson holds that nepotism works as well as any other management choice as long as one never tolerates incompetence. He notes that the Japanese successfully use nepotism, with senior men and women enjoying power and not hesitating to fire an incompetent "nephew."

In addition, many Latin American countries accept nepotism as the norm and are baffled by the often negative U.S. attitude toward the practice. As one South American executive commented, "If I cannot hire and trust my own family, just who can I trust?"

Ty Webb