Court Opinion

ID: 9730017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:57:12.584736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:03.212271
License: Public Domain

FOLEY, P.J.
(dissenting). I would affirm the judgment. I can think of no rational basis for the commission’s conclusion that the school board’s nepotism policy is primarily related to conditions of employment. I therefore join the circuit court in concluding that the school board only had to bargain the impact of the policy.
The commission gave no supportable reasons for its conclusion. I find no support for the commission’s claim that any change that results in a termination of employment is mandatorily bargainable. I also find no rational basis for the commission’s comparison of a nepotism policy to a residency requirement.
In public employment, nepotism can diminish taxpayer respect and confidence. It can also create conflicts of interest and morale problems among employees. See Whateley v. Leonia Board of Education, 358 A.2d 826, 828 (N.J. Ch. 1976). A residency requirement is not concerned with taxpayer respect or confidence or conflicts of interest. The mere fact that the effect of a residency requirement and a nepotism policy may be the same as to one or more employees does not make them the same for all purposes. In the case of a nepotism policy, the underlying purpose of the policy, rather than its effect, must control.
The persons properly responsible for deciding whether a nepotism policy is needed are the school board members, who are accountable to the public. The proper place to make the decision is at the school board meeting, where discussion is open. The commission’s decision would instead improperly allow a special interest group, at the privacy of the bargaining table, to act as the exclusive representative of the public. See Unified School District No. 1 v. WERC, 81 Wis. 2d 89, 99-100, 259 N.W.2d 724, 730-31 (1977).