Common threads
“$10,000 in legal fees to draw up guidelines for a nepotism policy.”
Could have saved them a ton of cash. I made up a simple spreadsheet of the policies concerning conflict of interest and ethics, and ran through them to see if there were any common threads that the D99 policies follow. If so, that would tend to support the majority board’s position, as stated by Policy Committee Chair Megan Schroeder, that they are not singling out Boyle for special treatment.Of the 58 schools on the searchable IASB database, 2 were not currently on-line. One policy for Conflict of Interest was repeated an astounding 52 out of 56 times, with the only variable being that some said “Board of Education members,” and some said “School Board members:”
2:100 – Board Member Conflict of Interest
No Board of Education member shall have a beneficial interest directly or indirectly in any contract, work, or business of the District unless permitted by The School Code and the Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act.Board of Education members must annually file a “Statement of Economic Interests” as required by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act. Each Board of Education member is responsible for filing the statement with the county clerk of the county in which the District’s principle office is located by May 1.
LEGAL REF.:
5 ILCS 420/4A-101, 420/4A-105, 420/4A-106, and 420/4A-107.
50 ILCS 105/3.
105 ILCS 5/10-9.
This is remarkable for three reasons:
- It cites the Illinois Compiled Statutes for its legal validity.
- It specifies that board members must remember to file their Conflict of Interest statements by May 1 of each year.
- It simply states the obvious prohibition against direct and indirect benefit from any member action.
Compare that to District 99′s Nepotism Policy.
BOARD OF EDUCATION 2.100
Nepotism
The intent of this policy is to prohibit nepotism.
No Board Member shall have a beneficial interest directly or indirectly in any contract, work, or business of the District unless permitted by the School Code.
The Board will not newly employ in any capacity an immediate relative of a sitting member of the Board of Education or of the Superintendent.
In cases where a Board member has a relative already employed by the District, the Board member shall publicly disclose the nature and extent of the relationship prior to any deliberations regarding the relative. The Board member shall recuse himself or herself from any deliberations or voting on any matter related to the relative’s wages, benefits, hours, terms and conditions of employment, including a collective bargaining agreement which applies to the relative.
No employee of the District, part-time or full-time, will be assigned to a position under the direct supervision of an immediate relative.
For the purpose of this policy, “immediate relative” includes father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, cousins, the legal guardian of any such person, and someone residing in the household of a Board member. Immediate relative also includes all individuals who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption to the individuals listed in this paragraph (i.e brother-in-law, step-son, etc.).
Adopted: 1/19/76
Revised: 12/13/04; 9/24/07; 1/28/08; 1/26/09
Considerably longer and much more specific. The longest and most specific K-12 Conflict of Interest Policy that I could find, actually. Interesting in a couple regards:
- The first paragraph is identical to all 52 other Conflict of Interest Policy statements.
- There’s no linkage to legal basis.
- While the original served well for 28 years, since then it’s been so woeful it has needed revision no less than four times in four years.
- It prohibits the board member from voting on a Collective Bargaining Agreement, one of the primary things the board member is supposed to do.
- It prohibits a father from working as a trainer under his son, say for the football team.
- It goes far beyond the normal spouse prohibition to include even adopted nephews.
D58′s Nepotism Policy is brief and to the point:
POLICY 8350
DOWNERS GROVE GRADE SCHOOL DISTRICT 58
INTERNAL BOARD OPERATIONS
Employment of Relatives of Board Members
The following relatives of members of the Board of Education shall be ineligible for employment by the school district during the Board member’s term of office:
Parents
Spouses
Children – or their spouses
Brothers – or their spouses
Sisters – or their spouses
Too bad D99′s policy was not that clear cut right from the get-go.
When it comes to ethics, D99′s pages get a lot briefer, typically a generic paragraph or two. See here for 2.805 Solicitation and Acceptance of Gifts, and here for 2.807 Prohibited Political Activity. Pretty generic stuff.
2.800 Code of Conduct for Members of the Board of Education is longer, incorporating the IASB Code of Conduct. That’s where I got #9 from in my other post. Since they violated their sworn ethical purpose of hearing me speak before the board, perhaps they will censure themselves for violating their own rules? Somehow, I doubt it.
On the IASB flip side, 30 of 56 schools have an ethics policy that is, again, identical — and extremely long. You can read it if you want via this link to Lisle CUSD202′s policy, but what really struck me was this recurring prohibition:
2. No Board member or employee shall intentionally use any District property or resources in connection with any political activity.
That’s what part of the hubbub was about Monday. The Downers Grove Township Democratic Party meets at the D99 administration building. They pay the going rate for the room, and that rate is set by the administration and approved as part of district policy by the board.
Now, there’s two board members who are active in the Democratic Party, Board President Julia Beckman and Schroeder (and possibly more), but that ethical prohibition is not applicable in D99, because it isn’t in our ethics policy.
Sorry, barking up the wrong tree there, sir. The appearance of impropriety is not the same as the act. It’s fine for them to vote to approve a rental rate for a room then rented by their political organization. Granted, I’ve seen village council members recuse themselves for less, but that’s not SB99.
So D99 has a convoluted nepotism policy that is, as near as I can tell, unique. If any other K-12 district has a policy like this let me know and I’ll put it up. Despite protestations to the contrary, here in D99 this is a specific policy designed to effect one board member. Granted, it may effect a future board member, too, but what we have is here and now, and that is board member Boyle and only board member Boyle.
It almost seems like D99 is daring Boyle to push the issue by constantly upping the ante. Over half of the meetings have some nepotism discussion, vote, comments — it is a constant and ongoing reminder to Boyle that she is not welcome, she is not one of them, and she is not going to perform her elected duties if the majority has anything to say about it.
Not only can’t she vote, not only can’t she discuss, now she can’t even be in the room when the teachers contract comes up, because the majority of the board has made it so. Could GET OUT be made more clear?
Ditto for benefits; can’t vote on those. Ditto for committee appointments. There are several unfilled, which Boyle has indicated she would serve on, yet the positions remain unfilled. It only takes Beckman’s singular decision to assign Boyle to one or more of those empty positions, which include the IASB liaison.
Quick question: Since when it is okay in the United States for the majority to decide what rights the minority have? Answer: When it’s School Board 99.
Voters did not elect the board to make rules about which board members could not participate. If she shows favoritism note it, censure her, request that the Regional Superintendent investigate: we’ll gladly vote her off the board next time.
Here’s the rub: Boyle has specific duties voters elected her to perform, but the majority of the board currently feels voters’ wishes don’t matter. What matters is Boyle not be allowed to participate in any meaningful way.
The message is clear: We are going to make sure you fool residents who voted for Boyle learn your lesson. We will not allow you the representation you voted for. You do not matter.
Anybody know what it takes to DISSOLVE a school district? A referendum?
We have the start of a revolution on our hands people.
Here’s the sad part. The adults are supposed to run the school districts to educate the children. Yet, between the Boyle situation in D99 and Scott O’Connell in D58, we’ve got a bunch of adults acting like children, and poorly behaved ones at that.
And should we dare ask ckfred on what basis does he or she come to the conclusion that Boyle and O’Connell are the ones acting like children, and not the majority board oppositions?
Having been in attendance at both district meetings, I have not noticed ANY childish behavior by either so let’s not bastardize that description just because you may disagree with their opinions.
It seems like there might be “One Board Member Left Behind”……to bad
I didn’t get the impression ckfred was singling Boyle out — he referred to the “Boyle situation.”
Just saying…
All in all, this is a sad situation. The primary concern of our school board and the community should be about the quality and equality of education for all students residing within the district. I wish our superintendent didn’t need to work so hard on keeping the board civil with one another. The community consternation over nepotism policy and the infighting on the board has resulted in a lack of focus on our primary mission…the development of our students.
D99 faculty is probably well meaning but naive to think the school board has much to do with the “development of students”. Their primary responsibility is financial; serving as stewards of the taxpayers and the monies that are collected. How well students do is up to the students themselves, their parents who should motivate and assist when possible, and the teachers who are supposed to teach.
And don’t feel too sorry for this superintendent or any other. They get paid handsomely and don’t have to deal (as private business owners) with ever shrinking budgets, since every new tax year brings more money into the public school till (most of which goes into the pockets of administrators and teachers).
In the Boyle situation, McDonald should be more forceful with the board and instruct them to do away with this silly “nepotism” policy altogether and rather follow state law and codes. IMO, he is not doing his job to the fullest.
Realist may be on to something. Good counsel from staff to the school board could help. Given the unruly behavior and lack of order from school board members at their own meetings, probably very tough for a new superintendent to step up to the plate and take a few swings.
On the other hand, if the school board continues its decline, it may become even more difficult for McDonald to want to work here.
What about our school board leadership? Beckman and McCarthy? Shouldn’t they be held accountable here?
well they should be held accountable, Johnny.. but … and FYI the Superintendent does not employ the school board – the school board employs him – they have one employee -him…
Consider that his mentoring program is working. Teachers like him. He’s been putting up information on budget and planning in memos and letters. The checkbook is on-line now. He’s looking at 3-5 year long term planning (admittedly hard to do right now). He’s given the green light to initiatives that are raising scores. He’s been proactive tightening the belt. He stayed calm in a storm. He gets it; everything he’s done makes him a long term prospect.
Yes, his job is easier than a comparable private sector, but from what I saw at the one board meeting I attended, he has a Herculean task with that board as his employer.
O’Connell is the one I have a bone to pick with. He seems to care only about his tax bill, not the kids. He would drive school spending down to nothing if he could. Doesn’t matter to his kids, they go to St. Mary’s.
This idea that people need to embrace is that higher tax bills do not always mean better education. Here is an article that explains this.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/wm2171.cfm
I have to consider the source of that link: Heritage Foundation. What else would they say?
Yes, higher spending does not always mean better education. But it really bugs me when a school board member won’t spend on safety issues. His tax bill is more important.