BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BALTIMORE COUNTY

Ethics Review Panel

Joseph Schnitzer, Esq. Chair 6901 Charles Street
Scott Bryson, Vice Chair . Towson, MD 21204
Theresa E. Barrett Phone: 443?809?4138
T. Ross Mackesey Fax: 410?828?4084

January 22, 2018

Edward J. Gilliss, Esq.

Chair

Board of Education of Baltimore County
6901 Charles Street

Towson, Maryland 21204

Re: Complaint 17 01

Dear Mr. Gilliss:

Enclosed herewith please ?nd the Report issued by the Ethics Review Panel in the above-
referenced matter. I am also enclosing copies of the ?led Complaint and the responses
received by the Panel from the Respondents, Verletta White and Education Research and
Development Institute (ERDI).

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions for the Panel.

Sincerely,

Joseph Schnitzer, Esquire
Chair
Ethics Review Panel

Enclosures: Complaint 01 Report
Complaint l7 Ol
Verletta White Response 
Education Research and Development Institute (ERDI) Response
Copies to: Members, Ethics Review Panel
Werletta White, Interim Superintendent (w/encl.)
Andrew W. Nussbaum, Esq. (w/encl.)

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BALTIMORE COUNTY
ETHICS REVIEW PANEL

COMPLAINT 17 ERP 01

REPORT OF THE ETHICS REVIEW PANEL
THE COMPLAINT

The Ethics Review Panel (?Panel? hereinafter) of the Board of Education of Baltimore
County received a Complaint dated November 12, 2017, filed by a ?citizen of Baltimore
County,? alleging ?several instances of possible Board employee misconduct which may violate
the Board?s ethics policies.? The six (6) specific allegations raised by the Complainant are the
following:

The Interim Superintendent, Verletta White (?White? hereinafter) violated Board Policy
8361 when she ?failed to disclose earned income from consulting work she did with
ERDI [Education Research and Development Institute] hereinafter) each year
from 2013 through 

- White ?violated nearly every provision of Policy 8861 with regard to improper influence
and eroding the public trust.?

0 White ?violated several provisions of Policy 8363 regarding conflicts of interest and
prestige of office.?

- White ?violated Policy 8364, Section VII.H.1. with regard to reporting sources of earned
income for four years from 2013 to 2016.?

I ERDI is ?engaged in lobbying per the definition given in Policy 8360, Section ILN. 

0 White ?violated Policy 8362 with regard to accepting gifts from a lobbyist.?

THE RESPONSES

The Panel received a response from White, dated December 7, 2017, as well as a
response from President, dated December 6, 2017.

ERDI provided a description of what it does and how it Operates. The reSponse
noted that ERDI is an organization providing nationwide educational research services, whose
stated purpose is (1) to draw together outstanding superintendents from across America to
share ideas with one another, and (2) to develop client relationships with top corporations that
serve the education industry.? ERDI noted that the corporations are clients of ERDI ?to access
the best thinking of top educational leaders who will, as consumers of products and services in
the marketplace, help them shape their products and services to benefit all learners and
school districts across the USA and the world.? corporate partners ?meet twice a year to

test ideas, concepts, and products before a panel of experts drawn from the ERDI consulting
membership.? ERDI ?empowers school districts to provide meaningful feedback on
educational product and service developments affecting students nationwide.? ERDI provides
?educational leaders the opportunity to influence the development, refinement and delivery of
the products and services entering the educational setting,? so that those products and services
?can best meet the needs of children.? ERDI gives Superintendents ?a unique Opportunity to
comment on and shape what goes into the schools they serve.? ERDI claimed that there is no
?other venue in this country? that ?offers leaders the chance to help create and streamline the
products that affect the lives? of students.

At an conference, corporate client representatives receive a ?3?hour panel
discussion with five leading educators? and each panel discussion is ?meant to be focused on
the research and development of products services.? The agenda for the discussion is
determined by the corporate client and ?can address any issue.? ERDI claimed that the panels
of Superintendents ?provide honest, candid insight and feedback that clients typically
incorporate to upgrade their products and services and to modify their marketing plans? and
that the corporate client ?garners incredibly valuable information.? In addition to the panel
sessions, conferences include different social events to help clients truly harness the
power of networking with these top educational leaders.?

ERDI invites a ?limited number of qualified school district leaders nationwide to serve
on its institute panels in a consulting capacity.? ERDI offers each of these individuals ?an
honorarium? in recognitiOn of their ?expertise, time and commitment in analyzing and
providing feedback relating to educational projects under development.?

White provided the following information regarding her participation with ERDI. On
August 19, 2013, White received a call from the Chairman of ERDI, who advised her that she
had been recommended by her then current and previous Superintendents, to participate in
ERDI. At that time, White had been Assistant Superintendent of Schools for four years and was
in the process of being promoted to Chief Academic Officer (CAO). White was told by the
Chair that the organization was founded by a former superintendent of schools to provide
superintendents a network for professional learning and support. Because superintendents had
found value in the experience, ERDI was beginning a new group for deputy superintendents
and similarly situated employees, such as The Chair also explained to White that ERDI
?offered opportunities to network with educational leaders and provide guidance and direction
to those who are in the business of developing products and services for children.? Within a
few days of that call, White advised ERDI that she would participate.

White attended her first ERDI session in the fall of 2013 and she described it as follows:
?It was a networking experience with those in like positions, and I found it to be a bene?cial
and professional learning opportunity.? White also ?found an added benefit of lending my

experience and expertise to companies who sought advice on the products and services that

were in development for use by teachers and school administrators.? White noted that the
experience was like a ?focus group,? that occurs ?in nearly every industry.? White also
reported that there were ?no sales pitches involved during the focus group sessions.?

White reported that in the 2013?14 school year and in every school year thereafter with
the exception of the current year, she participated in twice a year and was paid $500 per
focus group panel, which occurred on weekends.

The Panel also reviewed a ?message? that White sent to the "Team BCPS Family? dated
November 9, 2017. In that document, White noted:

The fact of the matter is that is not a technology company. It is an
educational research and development company, meaning that ERDI coordinates
efforts for companies and educators to collaborate on products and services that
are in development. Sales are not involved in this process. The process is purely
for feedback. I have never been paid by a company doing business with our
school system, and the school system has never paid for trips where I
participated as a consultant. ERDI does not conduct any business with BCPS. I
participated in these sessions on my own time, using vacation days, to do so.

White also acknowledged that she did not disclose her receipt of consulting fees
from ERDL when she completed and filed her Financial Disclosure Statements for the
2013?14 through 2016-17 school years.

ANALYSIS

The Complaint alleged that White violated several provisions of the Board?s
Ethics Code and specifiCally Policy 8361 (Statement of Purpose and Policy); Policy 8362
(Gifts); Policy 8363 (Con?ict of Interest .. Prohibited Conduct); and Policy 8364 (Financial
Disclosure Statements). The Complaint further alleged that ERDI violated Policy 8365
(Lobbying), as defined in Policy 8360 (Applicability and Definitions).

After a thorough review of the facts presented to the Panel, as set forth above, the
Panel concludes that White violated Policy 8364 (Financial Disclosure Statements), by
failing to disclose the consulting fees she received from The Panel further
concludes that White violated the ?prestige of office? provision of Policy 8363, by
accepting compensation for participation in a program in her capacity as a ?school
official.? The Panel further concludes that White did not violate any other provisions of
the Ethics Code.

Although White acknowledged her failure to disclose the compensation she
received from ERDL she stated that she ?did not intentionally violate Policy 8361,? that
she completed the forms based on her ?understanding of the language in the disclosure
form and instructions;? and that she was ?under the impression that I was to list only

3

companies with whom the school system had a contract or a pending contract.? White
further acknowledged that she now understands that the consulting fees from ERDI
should have been reported. In reviewing the Complaint in this matter, the Panel noted
that the Financial Disclosure Statement is confusing and unclear as to what is necessary
to be disclosed on Schedule H. The checklist page of the Statement, under Schedule H,
states: or a member of my immediate family, received a salary or was sole or partial
owner of a business entity from which earned income was received, during the
reporting period.? Schedule Sources of Earned Income uses similar language,
asking whether the filer, or a member of the filer?s immediate family, received ?a salary
from an entity, other than the Board of Education? or whether the filer or a family
member was a ?sole or partial owner of a business from which earned income was
received.? The Panel further notes that Policy 8364, Section VII, H, also appears to limit
the disclosure to the ?name and address of each place of employment? and ?each
business entity of which the individual or a member of the individual?s family was a
sole or partial owner and? from which earned income was received. (Similar language
is set forth in the State Ethics Commission?s Model Board of Education Ethics
Regulations, found at COMAR 19A.05.00.00, Section 6(g) Thus, from the actual
language in the Policy and from the Financial Disclosure Statement, an individual filing
the Statement could well be confused as to whether the required disclosures include an
intermittent individual consultation fee from a business not owned by the individual or
a family member, which would be neither ?employment? nor ?salary.?

However, the Financial Disclosure Statement Instructions, which is a separate
document, available to individuals who are required to file the Statement, more clearly
states, with regard to Schedule H: ?You are required to report all sources of earned
income from any business entity from which you or a member of your immediate
family received a salary or earned income as a sole or partial owner of a business." The
instruction further states: ?For example, salaried employment, individual consulting
activities, private practices, and business activities involving income?producing real
property.? (Emphasis added). Although White?s receipt of the compensation from
ERDI did not come through a business entity owned by White or a family member, the
intent of the Instructions seem clear that such ?consultation activities? should have been
reported on Schedule H. Therefore, White?s failure to do so is a technical violation of the
reporting requirements.

Section VI of Policy 8363 provides that a ?school official may not intentionally
use the prestige of office or public position for private gain of that official or the private
gain of another.? The Panel concludes that White was ?invited? to participate in ERDI
conferences directly as a result of her position as an ?education leader? in the Baltimore
County Public Schools and that she was compensated financially by ERDI for that
participation. Although ERDI may not be an entity that ?does business? with the Board
of Education, it is an entity that compensated a school official for participating in a

4

program, where the official was asked to provide her expertise and experience as a
school of?cial and therefore, the Panel concludes that White used the prestige of her -
office or public position for private gain.

Based on what the Panel learned about ERDI from White and from the
organization itself, the Panel does not find that White ?violated nearly every provision
of Policy 8361 with regard to improper influence and eroding the public trust,? as
alleged in the Complaint. It appears to be the case, that ERDI is not an entity that does
business with the School System and there is no evidence that White?s participation in
the focus group sessions that ERDI organizes resulted in any ?improper influence? or
?even the appearance of improper influence,? as prohibited by Policy 8361, Section LC.
Furthermore, no evidence was presented to the Panel that White?s participation resulted
in her losing her ?impartiality'and independent judgment.? (Section LB.) It is also
noted that at the times White participated in ERDI sessions, she was not the
Superintendent of Schools, but was, instead, the Chief Academic Officer.

The Panel further finds that White?s participation in the ERDI focus groups was
not a violation of the conflict of interest provisions of Policy 8363. As noted by both
White and ERDI, ERDI is not a technology company and does not have any contractual
relationships with the School System. Rather, it is an educational research and
development company that provides opportunities for companies in the education field
to hear from education leaders regarding their products and services. Although White
received remuneration from there is no evidence that she received any money
from any company which does business with the School System. The Panel concludes
that White?s participation in the ERDI focus groups did not create a conflict of interest.

The Complaint contained two allegations regarding status as a ?lobbyist?
under the Board?s Ethics Code. The Complaint first contends that ERDI is engaged in
lobbying pursuant to the definition in Policy 8360, Section ILN. and it alleges that White
violated Policy 8362, Section and 4, by accepting ?gifts? from a ?lobbyist.? With
regard to the question of whether ERDI is engaged in lobbying, the Panel concludes that
ERDI is not engaged in lobbying activities. The stated definition of lobbying in the
Ethics Code is: ?Communicating in the presence of a member of the school board or any
school official with the intent to in?uence any official action of that member of the school
board or official (Emphasis added). Section 2 states that lobbying also means
?engaging in activities having the express purpose of soliciting others to communicate
with a school official with the intent to in?uence that o??icial (Emphasis added).
According to the information received by the Panel, the purpose of the ERDI conferences
is not to ?influence? school of?cials, but rather to provide opportunities for companies in
the business of providing products and services to schools to hear directly from ?school
leaders? regarding the research, development, and marketing of those products and

services. Therefore, the ?intent? of the organization is not to ?influence? school officials

and the entity is not engaged in lobbying.

The Complaint alleges that White violated Policy 8362, Section and 4,
because she accepted a ?gift? from ERDI. First, the Panel notes that the definition of
gift,? found in Policy 8360, Section is the ?transfer of anything of economic value,
regardless of the form, without adequate and lawful consideration.? (Emphasis added). In
this instance, the compensation received by White was not ?without consideration," and
therefore, it was not a ?gift.? The compensation was given in exchange for her
participation in the focus group and sharing her expertise and experience with those
present. Furthermore, as noted above, ERDI is not a ?lobbyist,? so White did not receive
a gift from a ?lobbyist? in any event. Furthermore, subsection 4 prohibits receipt of a
gift from a person who has ?financial interests that may be substantially and materially
affected by the performance or nonperformance of the school system duties of the
school of?cial.? ?financial interests? are not affected by the performance or
nonperformance of the School System. It does not appear to be in the business of selling
any products or services to the School System and there is no evidence that ERDI has
conducted any business with the School System.

REMEDY

Policy 8366, Section provides the procedures for the filing and processing of
a Complaint with the Panel. Section VELAAL permits the respondent to a Complaint to
?propose a settlement or cure to the Panel prior to the hearing? regarding a violation. If
the Panel ?determines that the prOposed settlement or cure is consistent with the
purposes of the Ethics Code, the Panel shall recommend that the Board accept the
proposed settlement or cure.? Furthermore, if the ?Board concurs with the
recommendation of the Panel, the Board shall accept the proposed settlement or cure.?

In her response to the Panel, White proposed the following settlement or cure:

As provided in Policy 8366, my proposed cures for any alleged violation
of Policy 8361, are my amendment of the financial disclosure forms for
the 2013-14, 2014?15, 2015?16 and 2016-17 school years, and I will no
longer participate in ERDI activities or be associated with in any
manner. in addition, the Board and have agreed that I will not engage
in consulting with any entity while 1 am Interim Superintendent.

It is the Panel?s conclusion that the settlement and cure proffered by White is
consistent with the purposes of the Ethics Code and therefore, it is the Panel?s
recommendation that the Board of Education accept the proposal. The purposes of the
Ethics Code include ensuring that the public maintain trust in their public officials and
employees and that impartiality and independent judgment of such officials and

employees will be maintained. Because confidence and trust is eroded when the
conduct of public business is subject to improper in?uence or even the appearance of
improper in?uence, disclosure of the financial affairs of Board Members and school
officials is required. The proposed cure in this case is consistent with the purposes of the
Ethics Code. White has agreed to amend her Financial Disclosure Statements to disclose
the compensation that she had received by ERDI and she has indicated that she will no
longer participate in ERDI activities or be associated with ERDI in any manner. Lastly,
White agreed that she Will not engage in consulting with any entity while she is the
Interim Superintendent. All of those conditions should assure the public that the
conduct of public business is not subject to improper in?uence or the appearance of
improper in?uence and that White?s impartiality and independent judgment will be

maintained.

Before concluding this Report, the Panel would also note the following. It is
apparent from the public reporting about ERDI, its education~related business partners,
and school of?cials, that there is considerable suspicion and possible misapprehension
about the organization and the. roles played by the various participants. In order to
avoid any future potential actual or perceived impropriety or con?ict Of interest, the
Panel recommends that at a minimum, participation in ERDI activities by any School
System employees and officials not result in any compensation or remuneration in any
form or manner and that any participation in ERDI activities be as open and transparent

as possible.

This Report has been signed by the Ethics Review Panel Members and adopted
on January 18, 2018.

Esq? Chair TheresaE. Barrett

Scott Bryson, Vige?hair JFRoss Mackesey