There is a simple way of resolving whether Steel has a legal conflict of interest and has voted on negotiation issues while receiving health benefits from TPS through his wife's employment as a teacher with TPS. Release the enrollment forms and other documentation which shows whether he has benefits or not and whether he received benefits at any time while on the TPS board. We had asked Steel in January 2006 to release the information. There has been no response!

As board members your fiduciary and ethical obligations to this community take precedence over any other issues regarding this potential conflict. If Steel has voted on any issue in the past while receiving health benefits or is receiving benefits when a vote in taken on a new contract, would these votes be considered void if a law has been violated?

It is public record that Steel voted on the contract extension in Jan. 2007 and has voted on MOU's affecting the TFT since August 2007. Not to mention the executive sessions called throughout the year regarding "contract negotiations". The Board must exercise due diligence and assure its actions or any member's actions are within the law and in the best interests of voters and taxpayers.

If he has not received benefits as he maintains, the issue of a perceived conflict still exist. Steel should recuse himself from any role in negotiations. In fact, the board should insist he not take a role. The board should determine his role now, before potentially contentious negotiations make this issue even more of a public concern.

Why won't Steel release information that would supposedly clear up this issue? It is not a matter of trust; it is a matter of public confidence in an institution integral to the well being of Toledo. The right thing to do is to release the information!

The issue of independence is critical with contract negotiations on major policy issues imminent, if not already underway.

Attached is a letter we wrote just over a year ago asking this board to do the right thing. We are again asking this board to investigate the issue, provide the facts to the public, and determine what role if any Steel should take in upcoming negotiations.

Will this board work to improve public trust or resort to protecting one of its own and possibly itself from embarrassment?

The ball is still in the Board's end of the court. However, we will continue to bring this issue to public attention until the board acts to protect the interests of TPS residents, parents and students as opposed to the self interests of any board member or entrenched bureaucratic interests!

Excerpts from our 12/2/2006 letter regarding Steel's conflict of interest (complete letter attached):
----
Ohio Ethics Commission advisory opinion 92-017 dated November 20, 1992 states, “Division D of Section 102.03 of the Revised Code prohibits a member of a city school district board of education, who is covered by the health insurance which his spouse receives as an employee in the same school district pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, from voting, discussing, deliberating, recommending, or otherwise using his authority or influence as a board member to authorize the collective bargaining agreement……

Regardless of whether Mr. Steel receives his health insurance coverage through his wife as a TPS employee, the membership of his wife in the Toledo Federation of Teachers and her past and current union activities and responsibilities alone is a cause for concern. Last year it was widely reported that Ms. Hernandez was active within the TFT and was on the TFT Board of Directors. Ohio Ethics Commission advisory opinion 89-005 dated May 11, 1989 prohibits Mr. Steel from “voting to accept or reject a proposed collective bargaining agreement between the school district and the employees’ labor organization” if his spouse is an officer, board member, or member of the negotiating team or committee of the employee organization.”

Opinion 89-005 also states, “Although a member of the board of education whose spouse is a teacher in the school district is not generally prohibited from voting to ratify a collective bargaining agreement, he should refrain from taking a more active role in the serving as the board’s representative in negotiations with the employee organization, since such an active role may create the appearance of impropriety.”

Ohio Ethics Commission advisory opinion 85-002 dated April 11, 1985 does not deal directly with a school board member but rather the role of a public official, in this case a municipal mayor, where a family member, his brother, is indirectly impacted by two potential contracts. In such a case the opinion reads, “Therefore, it would create the appearance of impropriety if he authorized or participated in the transaction. Thus the mayor should refrain from the following: 1) influencing or approving any legislation; 2) participating in any discussions, or signing any contracts, grant applications, and other documents related to these matters; or 3) advocating either project, formally or informally.”

Links to opinions on Ohio Ethics Commission web site:

http://www.ethics.ohio.gov/opinions/89-005.html
http://www.ethics.ohio.gov/opinions/92-017.html
http://www.ethics.ohio.gov/opinions/85-002.html