EAST PROVIDENCE — A nepotism policy for the School Department was adopted earlier this week by the School Committee despite some believing it will not hold up in court if challenged against the U.S. Constitution.

The rule prohibits giving district jobs to relatives of administrators and School Committee members. “Relatives” are defined as parents, grandparents, siblings (half-siblings as well), children (biological and otherwise), grandchildren, spouses, extended family, in-laws and any other person residing with a committee member or administrator.

It also forbids hiring preferences on the basis of friendship, business or financial relationships. The prohibition can be waived, however, by a vote from the committee.

School Committee member Steven Santos, the policy’s author, based the district’s new regulation on policies in other communities and advice from the Rhode Island Association of School Committees.

“Most companies have strong nepotism policies and we definitely need one in East Providence,” Santos said in a previous meeting. He first suggested the rule in January and the language was sent to legal counsel for review.

Santos believes the policy is “not designed to be restrictive” and “well defined.”

“I think this is based on a belief that family and relatives working together is a bad thing,” said committee member Stephen DeCastro at Monday’s meeting. DeCastro, who works for a family-owned company, has criticized the rule the moment it was first proposed. “We find in our company it is the exact opposite … a good thing.”

He said the relatives have more of a stake in the business and want to “do better.”

“Some of the best employees we have [in the district] were related to School Committee members and administrators,” DeCastro continued. “I don’t think it is a bad thing.”

He also questioned how the policy will be enforced, how does the applicant notify the district that it has relatives — DeCastro said do they check off some box on the form or take a DNA test — and what happens if the applicant doesn’t tell and “slips through the cracks.”

Finally, DeCastro said there shouldn’t be a separate process simply because of the “blood in their veins” or a marriage.

“You know there is going to be a Constitutional challenge,” he said.

Schools Supt. Jacqueline Forbes also said she didn’t know how the administration would implement the policy and because of the concern, she and others drafted another policy that they believed still met what Santos wanted accomplished with the policy, but could also “pass Constitutional muster.”

The biggest change between Santos’ language and the administration’s draft was the word “friendship” was removed. Forbes said it was too broad a term.

The state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union also raised concerns back in January. Executive director Steven Brown, wrote that prohibiting hiring based on friendships was “vague” and “unenforceable.” He also wrote that there were “a number of problems” with the proposed employment ban on jobs for relatives and the waiver process.

“The nepotism policy would give members of the public an opportunity to speak on a waiver consideration, but the public comment policy [adopted by the committee earlier this year] would prohibit them from making any negative comments about the person whose employment is at issue, thus rendering much of the point of this public input mechanism ineffectual,” Brown wrote.

Brown and DeCastro also said there is already an Ethics Commission in place as well as “sufficient” statewide rules on conflicts of interest.

“You want our kids [district students and graduates] to come back,” said chairwoman Mildred Morris, who has a daughter and son-in-law employed with the district, though they would not be affected by this policy. “You want to be proud of them and then you put them through this nonsense. … It’s unconstitutional and discrimination.”

Committee member Anthony Carcieri called the policy a “transparency” measure and supported it.

“It’s not precluding or excluding anybody,” he said.

When the vote finally occurred, Santos, Carcieri and member Robert Faria (who was concerned about the term “friendship” voted for the policy without any changes and recommendations from the draft school administrators proposed. Morris and DeCastro voted against it.

DeCastro again stated the district would have to spend money defending the policy “when, and not if,” it gets challenged. Morris also said it will only discourage “East Providence’s own from even applying.”

Carcieri said, “It’s just the nepots we want to keep out.”

apina@projo.com