Wearing multiple hats: school board weighs member volunteer activity

LACONIA — In consideration of proposed language to reform its volunteer policy, the Laconia School Board is weighing whether and how school board members should be allowed to volunteer in schools.

At the heart of the dispute, questions about the power dynamics between school board members and school staff run up against the importance of nurturing the active and enduring involvement of parent volunteers. 

Policy IJOC, the volunteer policy, is currently being reworked by the board's policy committee. The proposed new language under debate states that board members may not serve in leadership positions over volunteer programs in schools. They could still volunteer, but must make clear that their board member status is left at the door. 

Proponents of this language argue that there is a conflict of interest, actual or perceived, when school board members serve as volunteers. Volunteers are supervised by school administrators, who could feel pressured to give preferential treatment to organizations chaired by those who supervise the superintendent.

Opponents of this language, especially board member Laura Dunn, feel that there could not be a conflicting power dynamic because school board members, per state law, have no authority outside of meetings. She feels the board shouldn’t and can’t restrict the ability of parents — school board members or not — to volunteer in their child’s school. 

Dunn is the current president of VIPSS, the PTO at Pleasant Street School, a position she has held since before she was elected to the school board in 2019. 

An incident in June prompted board members Heather Drolet and Jennifer Ulrich to confront Dunn via email with concerns about her position within VIPSS.

The organization held a going-away party for departing Principal David Levesque at the end of a school day in June. Communication disconnects between administrators and VIPSS, according to the emails from Drolet and Ulrich to Dunn, led to logistical friction with the event and school routines.

In her email, Drolet told Dunn that she felt this event demonstrated “conflict with your role as an adjudicative board member during a controversial time.” 

Ulrich echoed this concern, writing that the event and its logistical complications had the effect of “expressing a personal message regarding the feelings some have for the principal and his departure versus celebrating all the departing/retiring staff.” Such expressions, Ulrich continued, are inappropriate for members of the school board and sow uncertainty around whether the board supports the district’s hiring decisions — especially ones as publicly contested as Levesque’s.

The non-renewal of Levesque’s contract — for still unknown reasons — divided the community. At school board meetings, some public commenters voiced solidarity for Superintendent Steve Tucker and his decision, while others demanded answers and his resignation.

Both Drolet and Ulrich asked Dunn to consider choosing between her two positions. 

In her written response, Dunn asserted that her peers had no right to ask her to step down from a position where she believes she serves purely as a parent. 

At the next school board meeting, Ulrich introduced her concerns publicly. 

“The events that occurred show a demonstration of personal feelings regarding the principal’s nonrenewal that has, in my opinion, caused conflict between [Dunn’s] responsibilities as a board member and her role as the president of the VIPSS organization,” Ulrich said. She added that the event and its communication demonstrated “a lack of impartiality” by Dunn that would inevitably be projected onto the full board.

Board Chair Aaron Hayward requested that the policy committee examine and expand the board’s volunteer policy, both generally and so that the board’s official stance on this issue could be determined in writing. 

Drolet, Ulrich and Dunn sit on that committee. 

The committee discussed the volunteer policy at meetings in July and September. Committee Chair Drolet consulted with an attorney from the New Hampshire School Boards Association, a professional nonprofit organization and lobbying group. One of the NHSBA’s services is to provide guidance and sample language on district policies.

According to consultation with attorney Will Phillips, there is no state law regarding whether school board members can volunteer, though the NHSBA “generally discourages” it. Whether or not a board policy on the matter would apply to a PTO depends on the status of that group as either officially school-affiliated or independent. The status of VIPSS is unclear.

“I know that you care deeply about volunteering in your kid’s school: I am not trying to remove you from that at all,” Drolet told Dunn at a committee meeting in July. “I’m not making this a personal, one-time thing... I believe that potential for conflict exists, I believe it happened.”

Dunn disagreed, something she made clear when the the proposed language — approved by Drolet and Ulrich over Dunn’s vote in committee — came before the full school board for a first reading on Monday.

“This is very much personally directed towards me,” Dunn said. 

Ulrich emphasized that “the intent of the language is to protect the board and its members,” not to target Dunn.

Though Dunn’s behavior is what revealed the board’s exposure to conflict of interest situations such as this, Ulrich said in an interview, “it would be of concern if it were any board member.”

The board is awaiting a legal clarification on how the language would interact with the legal affiliation of parent-teacher organizations in the district.

The policy is still under consideration, with elections on the horizon. Dunn faces one challenger in her re-election bid, who sat in the audience at Monday’s meeting.

Deliberations on this issue, as has become a tendency of this board, at times have been antagonistic and personal, raising questions about the tone board members set for the community they represent.

Board members have accused one another of a lack of respect and courtesy. They have rolled their eyes as others are speaking and interrupted one another, prompting the chair to intervene — who himself has been accused of taking a condescending tone with other members.

At the June 21 meeting, a public commenter who defended Dunn remarked, “How are we supposed to have any confidence in a board if you guys clearly don’t get along?”