As I mentioned in the book, most ethics problems are a conflict of competing good values, and this is an excellent example.  It is absolutely a conflict of interest to hire the relative of a board member — or, indeed, a board member themselves.  At the same time, synagogues often hire board members or their relatives to teach in the religious school.  The smaller the community, the more common the practice.

Much as I would think twice about proceeding with such an arrangement, I have to acknowledge that in many communities, in the case of teachers in a supplemental religious school for a few hours a week, it may not be practical or desirable to enforce the usual restriction on hiring members’ relatives.

First, as with every conflict of interest, it needs to be recognized and disclosed.  That allows the organization to deal with the conflict in the open.  Such a conflict may make the teacher difficult to manage, so there needs to be a clear commitment on all sides to defer to whoever is managing teachers in doing their job.  No special treatment for the teacher in such a conflict of interest: that’s an example of arm’s-length dealing.  Obviously, the board member in question must refrain from all decisions regarding the religious school: that’s recusal.  Full recusal — with the conflicted board member not even privy to board proceedings on the topic — may not be practical, but the board member should not participate in such discussions, and it may be helpful if they leave the room.

Hiring a board member or their relative as a schoolteacher is one of the most serious conflicts of interest many synagogues will face, even if it is relatively small in scale.  To me, what makes the situation palatable at all is the small size (in hours, dollars, and centrality to the organization’s work) of a single case of hiring a schoolteacher for a few hours each week.  In a day school or a program of more than, say, 5-6 hours a week, I don’t think this conflict can be mitigated, and that it should therefore not happen.  It may be possible to mitigate it when the numbers are small enough.  But key to mitigating it is taking mitigation seriously.  Even though not more than, say, a hundred dollars a week might change hands, we need to see that someone with the power of a board seat is impossible to manage without mitigating the conflict, and that a fiduciary cannot speak or act on issues that affect their self-interest in any way.  It’s not about the amount of money; it’s about creating an environment of ethical clarity and trust.