Board member Bob Burn challenges the legality and responsibility board voting.
Mike Ziegler
– Photo Editor-
During the Feb. 23 STLCC Board of Trustees meeting, changes to faculty and staff health benefits were presented to the board for approval and failed to pass by one vote with two trustees, Libby Fitzgerald and Hattie Jackson, abstaining from voting due to the potential conflict of interest by receiving health insurance from the college as retired STLCC employees.
Trustee Bob Burns was the only voting member that voted against the approval of the new healthcare program. With Burns’ vote, the Board did not reach the required four yes votes to approve the benefit changes.
During the meeting, Burns said trustees Fitzgerald and Jackson do not have to abstain from voting and, in this case, the college was not following the Missouri State Statute addressing prohibited acts by elected and appointed public officials and employees.
“This is not something I was aware of,” Board Chairwoman Melissa Hattman said. “Given tonight and given the circumstances, I took a stand by the precedent that had been set and that is what I needed to follow.”
Missouri State Statute Section 105.452, sub-section 1, sub-paragraph 4, prohibits public officials from “favorably act[ing] on any matter that is so specifically designed so as to provide a special monetary benefit to such official or his spouse or dependent children, including but not limited to increases in retirement benefits.”
According to the Missouri Revised Statutes, in the case of appointed public officials and employees, “special monetary benefit” must materially affect a public employee in a substantially different manner or degree the public or a certain class; in this case, employees of the college.
“The state statute clearly states that they can vote as long as this proposal is not just strictly benefiting them, but it benefits a unit of 1,400 employees and even though they are retirees and they are getting this insurance, they could be voting on it,” Burns said.
STLCC board policy on conflict of interest limits trustees to follow all Missouri State Statutes and, in addition, says board members must “avoid conflict of interest with respect to their fiduciary duties to the College.”
Hattman, after consulting with other board members and the college lawyer present, continued the vote with Fitzgerald and Jackson abstaining.
“The issue is they could have voted but they chose not to and Melissa Hattman said, ‘Well that’s not board precedence,’ so fine I’ll accept that. But I don’t like abstentions,” Burns said. “I think when you are elected to an office you should vote.”
At St. Charles Community College, board policy states that in the case of a conflict of interest, board members cannot vote on or debate the approval.
Trustees Jackson and Fitzgerald did participate in board discussion and debate before the vote was cast during the Feb. 23 meeting.
“Since Trustee Burns was able to actually provide a statute number and everything then I think we will certainly look into,” Hattman said. “That can very well affect the ability of the board to vote on future issues around the college.”
Hattman said she was not sure if it would be looked into in time for the 5:30 p.m., March 29 meeting being held at Meramec when the benefits changes will likely be presented and voted on by the board again.
“I respect [Hattie Jackson and Libby Fitzgerald] to the utmost degree. They are dear friends of mine. I wasn’t in any way, shape or form scolding them,” Burns said. “I was saying the misinformation was that by state statute they couldn’t vote and that’s not the truth.”
