A large, urban school district in central California has an ethics issue developing. Below is the information that has been uncovered so far. Senior district officials have been apprised of this situation. An official investigation has not yet been ordered.
To protect the identity of those that will/might/should eventually be investigated, individual names, company names and supporting documents are not included with this post.
1. A department director employed by the school district recommended the purchase of a new technology using $102,000 of Title I funds.
2. The department director, while employed by the school district, operates a one-person education consulting practice outside of his/her full-time employment.
3. The company that owns the technology recommended in #1 lists the department director’s consulting firm as a “partner” on their website.
4. The recommended technology purchase was approved by the district’s board of education.
5. The department director appears to have registered his/her consulting firm’s website address (domain name) two weeks before the school district’s board of education approved purchasing the technology.
What is not known is whether the department director disclosed to senior district officials his/her involvement with the firm that owns the technology. A disclosure was not included with the materials provided to the district’s board of education.
You be the judge. Based on the above information, what action should be taken against the district’s department director?
A. An investigation should be performed by the county’s District Attorney/Grand Jury.
B. An investigation should be performed by the State’s Attorney General.
C. Employment suspension.
D. Employment termination.
E. Jail.
F. No action.
G. Not enough information to make a decision.