Ok, will try to make this as short and concise as possible. Here's the situation. The Glass brothers, Chris and Brian. Brian teaches at ACHS and long time softball coach, since 2001. Chris also teaches ay ACHS. Principle at end of school year moves up to Central Office. Chris is promoted to ACHS Principle over the summer, right now on an interim basis. Here's where it gets interesting.

 

Ky. Dept. of Education has regulations in place to prevent "nepotism". Within these regulations, an employee may not work at the same school where a relative is Principle, brothers of course meeting the definition of relative. Well, there is an open position at the middle school, brother Brain is offered that position and he accepts...problem solved, right? Nope. His position as head softball coach is also in conflict with the regulation. A few days ago Brian Glass is informed he will have to step down as coach of the ACHS girls softball team per the "nepotism" clause, a position he has held for 12 years and been VERY successful at. He is absolutely devastated, as are many of the parents. Big article in The Anderson News last week about it.

 

Now, you tell me, is that just dumb or what. I know why that nepotism rule was put in. It's there to prevent a Principle from coming into a school and hiring his/her kin folk all over the place and prevent abuse of the position. I get that, and in theory it's not necessarily a bad thing. But in this situation it's just dumb.

 

The school and all involved are looking for a solution, but as of right now Brian Glass is not considered the softball coach any longer. I hope they can get this worked out.

I'm betting the guy has a longtime assistant? Make him/her the head coach while this guy stays on and calls the shots. That's what happened at Nelson County.

 

Now, you tell me, is that just dumb or what. I know why that nepotism rule was put in. It's there to prevent a Principle from coming into a school and hiring his/her kin folk all over the place and prevent abuse of the position. I get that, and in theory it's not necessarily a bad thing. But in this situation it's just dumb.

 

I, too, understand why the rule was put in. However, I'm surprised that there's nothing about a "grandfathered-status" (my term), in which a case like this would allow it, either as him as a teacher and/or coach. I mean, there's no actual hiring process going on. It's a pre-existing situation.

I, too, understand why the rule was put in. However, I'm surprised that there's nothing about a "grandfathered-status" (my term), in which a case like this would allow it, either as him as a teacher and/or coach. I mean, there's no actual hiring process going on. It's a pre-existing situation.

 

Agreed. There was a "grand father" clause in the regulation, but it only covered those in the position before the regulation went into effect in 1990, anything after is free game. And I'm with you, there was no hiring process going on here, so what's the freaking problem. And I guess in actuality it's not ACHS that's actually making the ruling, they are just following what they have to, so my thread title might be a little misleading.

I'm betting the guy has a longtime assistant? Make him/her the head coach while this guy stays on and calls the shots. That's what happened at Nelson County.

 

Something like that might have to happen. All the assistants are para-professionals, not sure if ACHS would allow any of them to technically move into the head coaching position or not. Volunteer head coach maybe? If he's not getting paid, then would he be considered an "employee" of the high school? I think a waiver from the KDE is being looked in to, but I don't know if that's something the KDE would do or not.

In fairness, it isn't a Anderson Co HS stupid ruling, it is a KY DOE ruling.

 

It is unfortunate, and I agree that it seems unfair, however this ruling has been in place a long time and they are not flexible on it. The law says you cannot be employed in a school where a relative is the principal. I know it applies to coaches, substitute teachers and teachers, I am not sure if it applies to custodians, cooks, etc., but I think it does.

 

Just recently Belfry lost a fantastic math teacher because her husband was chosen as the new principal. It sucks, but the nepotism rule is a good one by and large and it prevents many times more problems than it creates. Cases like this really bring to light the down side, though.

In fairness, it isn't a Anderson Co HS stupid ruling, it is a KY DOE ruling.

 

It is unfortunate, and I agree that it seems unfair, however this ruling has been in place a long time and they are not flexible on it. The law says you cannot be employed in a school where a relative is the principal. I know it applies to coaches, substitute teachers and teachers, I am not sure if it applies to custodians, cooks, etc., but I think it does.

 

Just recently Belfry lost a fantastic math teacher because her husband was chosen as the new principal. It sucks, but the nepotism rule is a good one by and large and it prevents many times more problems than it creates. Cases like this really bring to light the down side, though.

 

You're right and I kind of corrected myself in my second post. However, on the ruling, I equate it to some of these "100% no tolerance" policies you see in place at many schools where some kids are punished for situations that the "no tolerance" really wasn't put in place to punish but because common sense flew out the window a long time ago they get punished anyway.

I actually don't see the problem with the rule. It was in place well before the brothers started teaching. It may be unfortunate but had they reviewed the rules they would have known of this before the brother accepted the job as principal of the school.

 

Say the coach starts doing a really poor job, or worst case scenario ends up in a lawsuit over something, I'm sure it'll be awkward with his brother being principal.

 

 

On another note, usually the principal of a school decides how many will be split up for athletics and that could be a conflict with his brother being a coach at the school.

 

 

Again, it's unfortunate but the rules are in place for a reason.

... the nepotism rule is a good one by and large and it prevents many times more problems than it creates.

 

I can't agree more. Nepotism is amost universally awful. This is a rare and odd case.

Wish the title of the thread had neoptism in it.

Coaches are on year to year contracts correct? If that is the case then by renewing the contract each year you are in some ways hiring or rehiring the coach. Now agree what is going on sucks and I hope they work it out some how.

I can't agree more. Nepotism is amost universally awful. This is a rare and odd case.

 

Don't disagree, however when common sense is left out of the equation and one is locked in to the "no tolerance" mind set, stuff like this happens.

 

The article in the paper kind of summed up the situation as yeah it stinks, it shouldn't happen, but life isn't fair and no one said it's gonna be fair. Sometimes I hate that phrase and think it's misused all the time. Here's the problem problem with that mind set. True, "life" isn't always fair. Things in "life" can just happen with no rhyme or reason, good stuff happens to bad people, bad stuff to good people, etc. etc. That's because there are no "rules" when it comes to life, or I should say that "life" doesn't play by the rules. HOWEVER, there are rules in a civilized society, and "unfairness" can be greatly mitigated in many instances with correct application of the rules. This is an "unfair" ruling, at least in my opinion, that doesn't have to happen.

How are coaches officially hired in schools anymore? Is it done through the principal? The athletic director? Or is it done with the site-based councils? (And yes, I know the principal is a part of those councils...but, couldn't he/she abstain from any vote regarding a relative?)

How are coaches officially hired in schools anymore? Is it done through the principal? The athletic director? Or is it done with the site-based councils? (And yes, I know the principal is a part of those councils...but, couldn't he/she abstain from any vote regarding a relative?)

Hiring is done through the site based councils, but the principal has the final say. Prinicpals have tremendous influence over everything that happens within the walls of the school they control, and rightfully so. There is just too much potential for abuse there to allow any nepotism or any chance of nepotism. IF a principal has principles, he could abstain in those circumstances, however, I don't think you can enact the law to rely on them to do so.

Good rule used the wrong way.... It's a common sense case, but unfortunately that isn't so common anymore...