Since the word got out that School Board Vice President Carol Mitchell was named the real-estate broker to handle the upcoming private land purchase on Market Street for the Weiming Education Group, the question of ‘conflict of interest? has been raised both in the public and amongst social-media community groups.
Even though the district’s attorney Lusk & Albertson P.L.C. has ruled that ‘there is no conflict of interest,? Mitchell, an associate broker with John Burt Reality, has decided to ‘step down? in representation on the deal.
‘I’m going to let Weiming choose who they’re going with. If (the purchase agreement) would have closed in January, which it’s not going to prior to the vote (of the board on the updated contract between Weiming and the district), it would have been one thing,? she said. ‘Since it’s not going to close in that time, personally I’m not comfortable, so I am going let them find someone else (to be the broker on the deal).?
Mitchell said she could see where people would see it as a conflict and ‘wasn’t comfortable? herself.
‘I never was going to vote (on the contract) if I was representing them at that time and that’s why I just decided I’m stepping back. They will get someone (else) to work with. I don’t want to be involved in it,? she added. ‘I just don’t want someone to come back and say ‘well you sent them here or there?? I’m not sending them anywhere. I’m just stepping out of it at this point.?
Mitchell noted that in the long run she’ll make up for the deal ‘somewhere else down the road.?
The public first learned of Mitchell’s involvement at the Jan. 7 regular board meeting, in which there was discussion of Weiming’s new direction to purchase private property on Market Street rather than using school property. It was during that discussion that Trustee Joyce Brasington raised the question ‘Will anybody from the board be benefiting personally (or) financially through the purchase of that property??
Superintendent Dr. William Skilling noted that Mitchell representing Weiming was a separate from her duties on the school board ‘because the district is not involved.?
‘So in other words, the district is not involved in securing the property, purchasing the property so the taxpayers aren’t involved,? he said.
The ‘only possible relevant statutory provision? that Richard E. Kroopnick of Lusk & Albertson found that might prohibit Mitchell’s representation of Weiming was in MCL 15.321 (Contracts of public servants with public entities (excerpt) Act 317 of 1968), which states:
(a) ‘Public servant? includes all persons serving any public entity, except members of the legislature and state officers who are within the provisions of section 10 of article by legislative act. (b) ‘Public entity? means the state including all agencies thereof, any public body corporate within the state, including all agencies thereof, or any non-incorporated public body within the state of whatever nature, including all agencies thereof.
‘Here Oxford Community Schools is not a party to this transaction which is between two private parties,? Kroopnick wrote.
He also reviewed the Board of Education’s Bylaws, section 0144.3, which is entitled ‘Conflict of Interest.?
‘Board members shall perform their duties in a manner free from conflict of interest. To this end: A, No Board member shall use his/her position as a Board member to benefit either himself/herself or any other individual or agency apart from the total interest of the school district.?
‘In our opinion, this provision can only be understood to mean that a Board member may not benefit from his/her position, at the expense of the School District. Here, the School District is a legal stranger to the transaction. Any commission that may be earned by the Board member is not money that would have otherwise belonged to the School District,? Kroopnick concluded. ‘For the reasons above, it is our opinion that there is no conflict of interest in this circumstance.?
Skilling told this reporter his concern is that they ‘never do anything that’s not legal? either as administrators or board members and that’s why they ‘check these things out.?
‘My main concern is that we’re not doing anything that would create a conflict of interest or do anything that’s inappropriate or in violation of either board policy, state statute or state law, etc,? he said. ‘After discussing this with two different attorneys in the firm that we have a retainer they both concluded the same thing that there is not a conflict of interest. That satisfies it for me personally.?
The board is set to vote on the updated operating agreement between Oxford Schools and Weiming at the Feb. 11 meeting.