Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Chris Jenner Anti-Pay-to-Play Ordinance Gets Front Page Play in Monday’s Northwest Herald.
I was pleased to see the Northwest Herald give such prominent play to Cary Grade School Board member Chris Jenner’s anti-pay-to-play initiative yesterday.
It was right on the top of the front page and covered all of the essential elements of the story.
The NW Herald even pointed out that
1) Carpentersville District 300 (and here and here and here and here and here and here and here) and
2)Woodstock 200 (and here and here) helped finance their tax hike committees with contributions from school vendors and potential school vendors.
The action is the first time I have seen any school district acknowledge that allowing its tax hike committees and school board members to accept contributions from vendors just might create a conflict of interest.
Is it any less unethical than when Democratic Party Governor Rod Blagojevich does it?
McHenry County Blog's article ran 5 days before.
It was right on the top of the front page and covered all of the essential elements of the story.The NW Herald even pointed out that
1) Carpentersville District 300 (and here and here and here and here and here and here and here) and
2)Woodstock 200 (and here and here) helped finance their tax hike committees with contributions from school vendors and potential school vendors.
The action is the first time I have seen any school district acknowledge that allowing its tax hike committees and school board members to accept contributions from vendors just might create a conflict of interest.
Is it any less unethical than when Democratic Party Governor Rod Blagojevich does it?
McHenry County Blog's article ran 5 days before.
Comments:
<< Home
Though it is appealing for the intent, did the board members present how referendums would be funded in the future when needed? they are expensive to pay for printing, mailing, etc.
When the community needs to have one, how will it be paid for?
I do not understand the NWHerald headline, in that it implies that donations are corrupt practice or illegal. Funds raised are legal by state law and there is nothing corrupt about the money.
I believe that the newspapers create part of the problem with the public perception by using desciptive words that at times do not match the facts.
Remember that this is caused and the result of state laws that local governing bodies try to operate within.
What an uphill battle to keep working on...
When the community needs to have one, how will it be paid for?
I do not understand the NWHerald headline, in that it implies that donations are corrupt practice or illegal. Funds raised are legal by state law and there is nothing corrupt about the money.
I believe that the newspapers create part of the problem with the public perception by using desciptive words that at times do not match the facts.
Remember that this is caused and the result of state laws that local governing bodies try to operate within.
What an uphill battle to keep working on...
nd2knw,
I'm not sure what you mean by "how would referendums be funded?"
If you're talking about vote Yes (or vote No, for that matter) campaign literature, Election Interference statutes prevent the school district from pushing its own tax hike (using tax dollars to get more tax dollars). Groups that advocate one side or the other must be independent of the school district. If members of the community think the right thing to do is try to raise their neighbor's taxes, they can raise funds for printing, mailing, etc. themselves. Money for that should not come from the school district, or those that it does business with.
The point of the policy is that a business or individual shouldn't contribute to a referendum or board member campaign, then be rewarded by getting business with the district. The title of the policy section is actually "Vendor / Contractor Conflict of Interest", not "Vendor Corruption".
If a company is awarded business because it contributed to a political campaign -- rather than because it offered the best product / service at the best price -- some would consider that corruption.
I'm not sure what you mean by "how would referendums be funded?"
If you're talking about vote Yes (or vote No, for that matter) campaign literature, Election Interference statutes prevent the school district from pushing its own tax hike (using tax dollars to get more tax dollars). Groups that advocate one side or the other must be independent of the school district. If members of the community think the right thing to do is try to raise their neighbor's taxes, they can raise funds for printing, mailing, etc. themselves. Money for that should not come from the school district, or those that it does business with.
The point of the policy is that a business or individual shouldn't contribute to a referendum or board member campaign, then be rewarded by getting business with the district. The title of the policy section is actually "Vendor / Contractor Conflict of Interest", not "Vendor Corruption".
If a company is awarded business because it contributed to a political campaign -- rather than because it offered the best product / service at the best price -- some would consider that corruption.
As I started out, the intent I agree with.
However, based on your assumption, weren't some of the vendors selected by the Board prior to a referendum and many vendors might have been doing business with a District before.
Also, how would a business (assume long term relationship with the District, not just related to the referendum) support a referendum if they agreed with the District direction?
Maybe this is included in the policy?
Does this also include teachers unions, IEA and local chapters, and individual teachers, employees that make over $10,000 annually?
since they also have a vested interest.
If the referendum committee is separate from the District as you referred to, then how does the District policy apply to donations from the sources that are identified?
However, based on your assumption, weren't some of the vendors selected by the Board prior to a referendum and many vendors might have been doing business with a District before.
Also, how would a business (assume long term relationship with the District, not just related to the referendum) support a referendum if they agreed with the District direction?
Maybe this is included in the policy?
Does this also include teachers unions, IEA and local chapters, and individual teachers, employees that make over $10,000 annually?
since they also have a vested interest.
If the referendum committee is separate from the District as you referred to, then how does the District policy apply to donations from the sources that are identified?
nd2knw,
It's possible existing vendors could have contributed to past referendum or board member campaigns. The policy indicates that the district expects existing and recent vendors not to contribute to such campaigns going forward, until they effectively no longer have a relationship with the district.
The point of the policy is that a vendor or contractor doing business with the district cannot contribute to political campaigns that affect the district because of appearance of, or actual, conflict of interest. If they agree with the district's direction, they can support the district by continuing to provide excellent products and services at excellent prices. That's why they should get business with the district, not because of whose palms they grease.
This policy is only directed at vendors and contractors. It doesn't apply to teacher unions, IEA and local chapters, individual teachers, or employees. There are other policies that cover employee conflict of interest.
I'm not clear on your last question. The modified policy applies only to vendors and contractors doing business with the district.
It's possible existing vendors could have contributed to past referendum or board member campaigns. The policy indicates that the district expects existing and recent vendors not to contribute to such campaigns going forward, until they effectively no longer have a relationship with the district.
The point of the policy is that a vendor or contractor doing business with the district cannot contribute to political campaigns that affect the district because of appearance of, or actual, conflict of interest. If they agree with the district's direction, they can support the district by continuing to provide excellent products and services at excellent prices. That's why they should get business with the district, not because of whose palms they grease.
This policy is only directed at vendors and contractors. It doesn't apply to teacher unions, IEA and local chapters, individual teachers, or employees. There are other policies that cover employee conflict of interest.
I'm not clear on your last question. The modified policy applies only to vendors and contractors doing business with the district.
Chris,
Just trying to think about this subject more, maybe to apply it to other districts.
If this doesn't apply to teachers unions, then iea can still take part of the dues and support or not support referendums? Seems that this policy stopped short of teeth, were you thinking of avoiding issues with teachers?
Could this set up a legal case, say if a business does donate under legal steps, as in the past, and the district stops business with them? What if they adhere to all other bid specs, etc.?
Also, architects, engineers etc are usually working with the District prior to a referendum question, due to planning and so on for maybe years. So it is not sure that your premise of play and pay is valid. Is it a leap to connect dots?
Maybe vendors will appreciate the policy cuz they will not be asked nor expected to contribute?
It will be interesting to see if others in referendum planning areas try to follow with similar policy statements. Not to be cynical, but if 26 is not planning a referendum for years to come, this was a safe issue to adopt.
Post a Comment
Just trying to think about this subject more, maybe to apply it to other districts.
If this doesn't apply to teachers unions, then iea can still take part of the dues and support or not support referendums? Seems that this policy stopped short of teeth, were you thinking of avoiding issues with teachers?
Could this set up a legal case, say if a business does donate under legal steps, as in the past, and the district stops business with them? What if they adhere to all other bid specs, etc.?
Also, architects, engineers etc are usually working with the District prior to a referendum question, due to planning and so on for maybe years. So it is not sure that your premise of play and pay is valid. Is it a leap to connect dots?
Maybe vendors will appreciate the policy cuz they will not be asked nor expected to contribute?
It will be interesting to see if others in referendum planning areas try to follow with similar policy statements. Not to be cynical, but if 26 is not planning a referendum for years to come, this was a safe issue to adopt.
<< Home
