That’s today’s question over at BoardBuzz - and it’s an interesting one:
“… According to this article in the Times-Tribune, “The design team chosen to oversee the Scranton School District’s $60 million construction project donated at least $21,500 to a Democratic committee supporting School Board candidates since it was named to take over the project.” Not only that, apparently the district’s CEO (i.e. superintendent) also contributed to campaigns. BoardBuzz smells a conflict of interest.
And the paper notes, “The donations from the design team have not been limited to the committee.” One school board member received $500 from one of the companies.
One concerned party, Barry Kauffman, executive director the Pennsylvania chapter of government-watchdog group Common Cause, suggested that, “It would be appropriate for the School Board to pass a code of conduct rule that would prohibit school officials from contributing to the campaigns of board members.”
BoardBuzz wonders if this has happened in other school districts. Does your district have a policy in place to prevent similar conflicts of interest? Leave a comment and tell us about it.”
As a candidate for Cooperstown Central School’s Board of Education this past year, I had to do a fair amount of research regarding the legality/ethics of partisan activity by District employees and officials. Having to deal with such activity was the unfortunate reality of running a campaign that made school officials and sitting board members both nervous and more accountable than they wanted to be.
Also, I’ve read a fair amount of New York State school law and decisions by the New York State Education Department. I have an embarrassing command of prior issues/cases that might lead one to question the depth and richness of my social life.
Thankfully, the issue here isn’t me or the state of campaign practices in Cooperstown, it’s a Superintendent’s ability to contribute to partisan campaigns involving school affairs.
I thought I’d weigh in and left the following comment:
There are two issues here: potential kickback contributions, which I won’t address, and a District employee’s right to contribute privately to a school-related campaign. I’ll treat the second issue.
There is indeed a conflict of interest, but we must balance that conflict with an individual citizen’s right to advance affairs in his private life. Just as teachers are allowed to vote for the school budget from which their salary comes [provided they live in the District], a Superintendent has every right to engage in partisan activity on his own time - as long as there is a clear delineation that it is wholly a personal stance and does not come from the school or District. Partisan activity would be much more difficult to justify if the contributor was not a taxpayer and resident of the District whose elections he was influencing.
We had a related issue here in New York State in 2004-2005. A board member used his private time [and time is a currency analogous to a monetary donation] to advocate against adopting the his school’s budget. The submitted petition was dismissed for, among others, this reason:
“Petitioner argues that respondent improperly advocated against the proposed budget and submits budget election fliers which she claims respondent was responsible for distributing. While it is improper for a board of education, as a corporate body, to be involved in partisan activity, individual board members are entitled to express their personal views about issues concerning the district and engage in partisan activity, provided school district funds or resources are not used (Appeal of Goldin, 40 Ed Dept Rep 628, Decision No. 14,572; Appeal of Allen, 39 id. 528, Decision No. 14,300).”
Readers can view the full decision by NYSED at the following URL:
http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume44/d15158.htm
While one may judge a Superintendent’s ethics negatively if they contributed funds to a school board member’s campaign, such support appears to be legal if it is understood or explicitly stated that the contribution comes from the private citizen and not from a representative of the school. The private citizen is free to contribute; the Superintendent is not free to contribute if stated contributions use district funds/resources or if the school official implicates partisan support by the school or District.
Though Common Cause and others would like to see school boards adopt a code of conduct, local school boards simply don’t have the authority to regulate an individual’s actions in this way. Watchdog groups or concerned citizens can ask candidates [or elected officials] and District administration in open meetings whether they will commit to the stance in an unofficial way - that would be perfectly appropriate. It would, however, remain unofficial.
If an individual or group tried to make such a code of conduct official, they would open themselves up to a First Amendment lawsuit and would likely find themselves on the losing end.
If we regulate a Superintendent’s ability to engage in private partisan campaigning because he is a district employee and school leader, we would also need to bar him from voting on such matters as a member of the public. That, for 101 reasons, would be a mistake.
I find the phrase “slippery slope” both inadequate and banal, but it would be very difficult to justify why we would treat a Superintendent in that way while letting every other school employee participate freely.
Though it’s unfortunate that we even have to examine this issue, I hope this opinion adds a bit of value to the debate.
Many thanks,
Matthew K. Tabor
[email protected]
www.matthewktabor.com
Your thoughts?
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Repairman 09.05.07 at 9:17 pm
Can a superintendent contribute to a board member’s campaign? Possibly. All the arguments about participating freely in a democracy apply to the supe as well as anyone else. But there are big downsides.
If you’ll permit me, I’d like to rephrase the question and look at it from a different angle. Should a superintendent contribute to a board member’s campaign? Emphasis on “should.”
Let’s consider the case of John Jones, superintendent of Onagonka Schools in northern Minnesota who is thinking about making a contribution to a board candidates campaign (fictional character, fictional district)…
From a board members perspective (I’m in my second four-year term), John’s exercise of whatever rights he has in this domain would signal me that he isn’t thinking strategically, and therefore, might actually be the wrong person for the job of superintendent. After all, supe’s have to be smart and savvy. It’s a tough job, and anyone who can’t figure the angles in this case doesn’t inspire my confidence.
Here’s why…
First, good superintendent-board relationships lead to high accomplishment in any district. Ingredients include honesty, transparency, and impartiality. “Integrity” on the part of all involved would be a good word to cover the bases.
Second, that relationship is fragile and not easily maintained. It’s hard enough to strive for perfection, but unforgivable to purposefully detour into stupidity.
From a political point of view (and I really hate that part), what if John’s candidate loses? Has the supe put him or herself out on a limb? Has he fulfilled his duty to maintain the impartiality of his relationship with the board? John has to work hard on mending fences with the new board member, and could easily have avoided this situation by staying out of it.
If John’s candidate wins, not only will the board’s perception of John change, but they will be looking askance at the new board member as well! “What’s going on here?” they’ll be thinking. Is John trying to “pack the court?” Speaking of courts, the court of public opinion made up of “the taxpayers” will be another body looking with suspicion on this turn of events.
Finally, since the board is the body that hires and fires John, and determines his remuneration, he might be seen by the court of public opinion, and possibly the state ethics commission, as trying to influence the conditions of his employment.
Any smart supe would shy away from contributing to a board member’s campaign. Any experienced board member would nod in agreement.
Cross-posted on RepairKit.
Matthew 09.05.07 at 9:39 pm
Repairman,
You’ve definitely taken on the more interesting facet of this debate and I agree with you in full.
I’d have a very difficult time supporting a Superintendent who felt it was appropriate to contribute to board members’ campaigns. I hate to reduce this issue to an absurd comment, but I can’t imagine any responsible member of the education community [parents, students, all stakeholders] *not* looking at a Superintendent contributing and thinking, “Wow… that was dumb.”
It’s a rotten way to go about leading a school community - for all the reasons you specified. It’s a potential powder keg and, in the school district written about in BoardBuzz, it appears that keg is about to blow. To that, I say, “It’s probably about time.”
I am, however, one of those people who believes in giving everyone the right to dig one’s own grave. It’s unfortunate that some school leaders take advantage of that right.
dombi 06.25.10 at 5:35 am
Elements of Garden Design It is as likely as not correct to approximately that scads successful garden lay-outs started to rob model on a design board. At the beginning-although it when one pleases be known what sort of garden is envisaged and some of the features to be included-it is not urgent to formulate any clear ideas on shape but more wisely to strengthen essential on measuring and recording all the existing features so that an for detail bird’s-eye purpose of the garden can be strained to scale. There is no other way of seeing the area as a healthy and the position of the house satisfactorily. It is from this stage that ideas on the think up of the garden and planting plans can be formulated. THE AT THE CRACK PLANNING THE FOOTLIGHTS It is freakish pro a plot of land to be exactly rectangular and the sides are time again unequal in length. The quintessential aids at this early stage are a measuring spool, at least 6oft(i8m) in to the fullest extent a finally; a metal spike to shut the ambivalent, and a wide column pad. Gloaming without the promote of a surveyor’s more byzantine tackle, a pretty conscientious investigate can be made to detect the administering of the boundaries and the status of the ancestry contingent on to these, past fascinating the computation from a corner of the clan or erection in line with the screen to the frontiers (Fig.i). If the but make is repeated on the same side from another corner it will elucidate if the frontiers is at an slant or uniform to the building.A further restrict can be made through fixing the tape in one of the indubitably corners of the site and dealings along the buttocks boundary until the rampart of the building-which would be seen al rational angles-disappears from view. If this width is compared with the others made earlier the points on the boundary should touch at the three places. If it is fated to line a sight assortment across a report of land from only poin to another, it is expedient to entertain readily obtainable 10 or more 6ft(2m) bamboo canes (last Fig.2). The canes are then spaced, it is possible that 8 or ioft(2.5 or 3m) or more apart, on the other side of a prearranged space, and when five or six canes are in arrange the area is made exactly regular next to adjusting the intermediate canes between the two effect ones. When a sighting is made from the furthest intention, alone the nearest cane settle upon then be visible. The point of view of a tree or other permanen features can be recorded nearby measuring from the aim in question to two points which are separated by way of a known rigidity; this could be two corners of the house. The measurements are then transcribed to wrapping paper with the practise of a compass and the neighbourhood obvious where the arcs cross. Having notable as many details as conceivable that are likely to be of use, a programme of the area can be drawn to scale. It can most of the time be usurped that if the sketch out appears to be right on records it will purposes be right on the site. The requirement to see the garden earliest in plan variety applies distinctively if the beds an< contours walk a curved outline.