City's conflict of interest policy seems to have been ignored by many

Because of a nondisclosure agreement, we may never know all the details of the "negotiations" between former Rochester schools superintendent Annie Azarloza and the city of Rochester that ultimately led them to signing a "mutual agreement" to part ways, but what we do know in our gut is that no school board chair who is a Rochester Police officer should ever have anything to do with the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Rochester Schools System and the Rochester Police Department.
Not only does it sound improper to just regular folks; it also seemed improper to the folks who wrote the Conflict of Interest policy in Rochester's City Charter.
Section 72 of the document states that "No elective or appointive officer or employee of the City shall participate in any decision concerning the business of the City in which he has an interest which conflicts with his official duties and responsibilities."
The friction between Azarloza and Rochester Police began in the fall of last year over the handling of special education matters, including manifestation hearings, according to the Ethics Investigator Officer's report.
A manifestation hearing, also known as a manifestation determination review is a meeting convened to determine if a student's misconduct is a direct result of their disability or if the school failed to properly implement their Individualized Education Program (IEP). This hearing is crucial in deciding whether disciplinary actions like suspension or expulsion are appropriate for students with disabilities.
In the fall of 2024, unbeknownst to the School Board, a dispute arose at the administrative level between the administration and the Rochester Police Department over the these special education matters.
"After Sergeant Anthony DeLuca, the School Resource Officer at Rochester Middle School, made vague threats about arresting administrators for failing to follow the law regarding manifestation hearings, (school) administrators sought legal advice," according to the EIO's report.
The response from the school board's attorney was ultimately shown by Azarloza to former school board member Karen Stokes, which prompted Azarloza's being placed on leave in February.
The reasons why the EIO's investigative report wasn't made public for more than two months after it was completed and why the city didn't just fire Azarloza for malfeasance if it had a sound case will be the subject of conjecture for many, but what isn't subject to conjecture is that school board chair and Rochester Police Patrol Officer Shane Downs should not have come anywhere near the handling of the dispute between police, Azarloza and school administrators.
Downs probably should have recused himself from any discussion of the manifestation conflict, let alone signing the memorandum of understanding as the school board chief.
Any government oversight expert would argue that even the appearance of impropriety - in this case a blatant appearance - is to be avoided.
Right now it appears that the city of Rochester wasn't aware of its own policy as set forth in Section 72 of its own City Charter.