Email
Print
Nepotism policy questioned
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: March 10, 2009
I believe that Iredell-Statesville Schools' Superintendent Terry Holliday's hiring of his wife, as an administrator, was possibly a violation of the district's nepotism policy.
The I-SS nepotism policy states that in making recommendations for the selection of personnel, the superintendent will give every consideration to conditions which could result in the employment of two members of an immediate family where one member would be in a position of influence over the other's employment, promotion, salary or other related management and personnel considerations. It also states that no administrative or supervisory personnel will directly supervise a member of his or her immediate family.
I recently requested copies of the contracts and job descriptions of several I-SS administrators, including those of Dr. Holliday, superintendent, and his wife, Denise, an administrator. Along with Dr. Holliday's contract, I also received a letter from the superintendent.
In his letter, Dr. Holliday states that the system's nepotism policy "has been followed to the letter," as he does not supervise his wife, nor has he ever been in a supervisory capacity over his wife.
However, in Dr. Holliday's contract, under "Duties," it states that the superintendent shall be responsible for all student affairs, instructional and curriculum affairs, employment affairs, fiscal affairs and business affairs.
Therefore, Dr. Holliday supervises all school activities and all school employees, as he should as superintendent. In my view, this means that he violated the first part and the second part of the nepotism policy when he hired his wife. Also, in Mrs. Holliday's contract, it states that she may be transferred to another position in the school system at the discretion of the superintendent.
That certainly sounds like direct supervision to me.
In looking over Mrs. Holliday's contract and job description, I discovered something that is even more disturbing than a violation of the I-SS nepotism policy.
In her contract, signed on Sept. 10, 2007, Mrs. Holliday states that she meets the requirements of her administrative position and that she is qualified for that position. But under the minimum education, training and experience section of her job description, it states that a master's degree is required as well as having relevant experience as a principal or other senior leadership position.
According to the latest I-SS payroll information, Mr. Holliday has only a bachelor's degree and a standard teaching certificate. It is also my understanding that prior to this administrative position, Mrs. Holliday was a classroom teacher.
That would mean that she did not meet the qualifications of her position when she was hired and does not meet them now.
In my opinion, this raises questions about mrs. Holliday signing her contract stating that she met the qualifications of the administrative position. Dr. Holliday also signed her contract knowing that she did not meet those conditions.
Recently, another I-SS principal was suspended for not having the proper certification. It seems to me that the superintendent's wife should be held to the same standards as other I-SS employees.
Dr. Holliday, as superintendent, and Mrs. Holliday, as a school administrator, should be setting positive examples for all I-SS employees and students. In my view, they are not doing so.
Email
Print
ADVERTISEMENT
Advertisement
