The following post is LONG and goes back to events of several months ago only because definitive information verifying the "rumors" has been unavailable until recently. I believed that it was important enough to wait until the proper documents were available and reviewed before putting information into the public domain. Sadly, what was "rumored" was fully supported by actual documents recently received.
The BOTTOM LINE:
Former Superintendent Klaus and Former BOE President Olson collaborated and created a document in the summer of 2007 that was intended to allow Dr. Klaus to collect his early retirement stipend while he was still working as a Principal. This document was backdated to Feb. 5, 2007 to agree with the dates on his legitimate contract. The document was inserted into Dr. Klaus' personnel file and then was used by him to try to increase his compensation. During the Fall of 2007 the current BOE members became aware of this attempt to falsify Board action and manipulate Dr. Klaus' compensation. It appears that NO DISCIPLINARY action was taken as Dr. Klaus is clearly still employed by the ECASD in a position of trust and high remuneration as a Principal. No legal action appears to have been taken against former BOE President Olson who created, backdated and signed a document that falsified action of elected officials.
Accountability has flown the coop. Transparency is a pipe dream. Honesty is not part of the Core Values of the ECASD.
Just when we thought that Former Superintendent Bill Klaus and Former BOE President Carol Olson had done enough damage to our district and that they had "moved on", I heard rumors from community members in November 2007 (yup, 5 months ago) that they were doing some really naughty things! When I first heard this story I was absolutely flabbergasted as it sounded truly beyond belief. Again, even though my harshest criticism of our former leadership would include words like "incompetent" and "arrogant" I have NEVER believed that Klaus or Olson were downright greedy, unethical and, guilty of illegal acts. I was wrong.
Anyway, the short version of the story I heard in November was the following:
1. That former Supt. Klaus was expecting some form of "stipend" ($2,000/month) that he had in his position as Supt. to be continued in his position as a Principal which he started in July 2007.
2. That in July he spoke with former BOE Pres., Carol Olson, who apparently agreed that he was entitled to this compensation.
3. That in July 2007, after her tenure with the BOE was fully completed she signed and backdated some documents that would allow this stipend payment to continue.
Since this "news" seemed to be well circulated in the public I contacted Dr. Leary, Mr. VandeWater and Mr. Kling who would know about any such agreements or payments. I asked them to please "clarify this and put to rest this rumor as being NOT TRUE so we can get staff and citizens back to the business of focusing on the business of our district and with students." The silence was deafening. No response at all.
A few days later I received a phone call at my home with an ECASD "caller ID". I no longer have school age children at home so this was a little unusual. I answered the phone and the caller said: " Maria, this is Bill Klaus. I just got a phone call from a local attorney offering to defend me in a lawsuit against you." I asked him why he would sue me and he said that the attorney had just read him an e-mail from me. Hmmm....
The BOE was informed of this event on the day it happened (Dec. 3, 2007). On Dec. 6th I wrote another e-mail to follow-up with Dr. Leary, Mr. VandeWater and Mr. Kling that contained the following:
How does an e-mail from a citizen asking about serious legal and ethical questions regarding a current ECASD employee and the former Pres. of the BOE result in a not-so-thinly-veiled threat of legal action against the person asking the question?
In our telephone conversation Dr. Klaus did confirm that a document regarding his compensation was prepared in July/Aug. 2007 and signed by Former BOE Pres. Carol Olson (a timeframe when she had absolutely no legal authority for such action). He further stated that the date she signed on the document was Feb. 2007 which was a time that she was Pres. of the ECASD BOE.
Clearly, the actions of Dr. Klaus and Ms. Olson will be viewed by the public as an abuse of their former leadership positions in the ECASD. Any further erosion of public trust in the ECASD would be terribly destructive. However the response by the current leadership of the ECASD and the BOE has the potential to demonstrate to our community an absolute commitment to the expectation of honesty, fairness and transparency. (I ask you to consider the theoretical response of the leadership of the ECASD Administration and BOE to discovering that a teacher attempted to manipulate/increase their compensation in actions similar to those of Dr. Klaus and Ms. Olson.)
I think that it is clear that the seriousness of this has elevated and deserves a response. I respectfully ask the following:
1. Who else received a copy of the e-mail I sent to you?
2. Were any other ECASD employees involved in this incident?
3. Since these actions are now the subject of growing public discussion and dismay, what is the response to our community by the ECASD leadership and BOE?
I can assure you that I am completely committed to looking to the future of our district. Because of that, I think that it is crucial that leadership errors from the past be dealt with in a timely, fair and transparent manner.
Both Dr. Leary and Mr. VandeWater lateralled the ball to Mr. Kling who never responded at all.
Shortly after this my father died and I was out of town and busy with family and the Holidays and I did not do any additional follow up until January 2008. At this point I was aware that the LT and others were asking for copies of documents related to Dr. Klaus' compensation but they were all being stonewalled by the ECASD Administration and BOE leadership (Pres. O'Brien to be precise). Multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were filed with the district with no response or additional delays. Attorneys here in Eau Claire as well as Madison were consulted and the taxpayers of EC will be paying for all this needless legal wrangling and avoidance of just telling the truth.
Here is another instance of where Conflict of Interest is harmful to good decision-making: Pres. O'Brien's employer, the Weld Riley law firm, is also the legal counsel for the ECASD. When a legal sticky wicket like this shows up the complications of obtaining an INDEPENDENT legal opinion about possible unethical/illegal activity involving persons who have worked for years together (Klaus, Olson and the Weld, Riley attorneys) is completely compromised.
FINALLY on the Friday afternoon before Spring Break word was that the documents were available to review at the ECASD Main Office. I have no doubt that all of this delay was due to Mr. O'Brien's desire to avoid having to actually make a few tough decisions during his tenure as President of the BOE that might involve some legal unpleasantness with Mr. Klaus and Ms. Olson, his former BOE buddy. I have repeatedly indicated that one of the past leadership failings of the BOE has been the inappropriate chumminess with ECASD Administration that has left them without the proper independence in decision-making.
Anyway, we have the documents. I am too much a technological lame brain to be able to post them on the blog. I am consulting some technological whiz kids who might be able to get them posted here so the rest of you can see the sad truth. For now we just need to keep hoping that we will keep making progress in other ways and the lousy leadership of the past will not insert themselves into the present anymore!
Showing posts with label Conflict of Interest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conflict of Interest. Show all posts
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Conflict of Interest here in Eau Claire
Folks,
Here is an editorial by Tom Giffey about the recent news that WEAU and Sacred Heart Hospital were collaborating about "exclusive" coverage of healthcare issues. This stuff is NOT HEALTHY for our community and we have our own version of it on the ECASD BOE. As the second to the last paragraph indicates, this was furthered by the fact that the WEAU general manager is married to the director of communications at Sacred Heart.
Maria
Business deals shouldn't shape news coverage
The issue: WEAU-TV's news director Glen Mabie resigns over a station plan to give special consideration to Sacred Heart Hospital in its news coverage.
Our view: Mabie did the right thing. Interference by commercial interests in news decisions compromises journalists' integrity.
Like the United States itself, the American media have long recognized the separation of church and state.
In the media's case the phrase is figurative: The "church" is the newsroom, with its mission of objectively reporting the truth free from outside interference; the "state" is the business side of the media, selling ads to bring in the money that keeps the outlet operating.
Traditionally, putting a wall of separation between news and advertising has served the media well. The "church" doesn't tell the "state" who to sell ads to, and the "state" doesn't tell the "church" which stories to cover. Newsrooms maintain their objectivity - and their credibility with the public - by avoiding the appearance they are beholden to advertisers. In turn, media outlets benefit financially because advertising representatives can offer space in reputable publications or broadcasts.
In the political arena, some view church-state separation as misguided, pointing out the phrase doesn't appear in the U.S. Constitution. Likewise, business interests sometimes try to break down the newsroom wall for financial gain. Those who own and manage media outlets may seek the favor - and advertising dollars - of businesses by giving them fawning, unbalanced news coverage. When disclosed, such ethical breaches receive the well-deserved condemnation of journalists.
Sadly, it appears just such a breach was contemplated - if not perpetrated - in Eau Claire. Executives at WEAU-TV (Channel 13) apparently negotiated a deal with Sacred Heart Hospital in which the station "would run medical stories featuring personnel from that hospital and its affiliates but not employees of other Chippewa Valley hospitals or clinics," reporter Julian Emerson wrote in Tuesday's Leader-Telegram.
Such an arrangement would knock a sizable hole in the "church-state" wall and taint the newsroom's objectivity. The situation troubled news director Glen Mabie so much that he quit his job at the NBC affiliate.
"My problem with this is it was going to dictate newsroom content," Mabie said. "I told myself that I could not with a clear conscience go into that newsroom and tell the staff that this was a good thing."
David Gordon, a professor emeritus of journalism at UW-Eau Claire, said he hadn't previously heard of such blatant commercial interference in TV news.
The appearance of undue influence on news judgment "just destroys the credibility of the newsroom," Gordon said in an interview.
"It's a question of who calls the shots, and if you have an agreement that you can't report on other hospitals in the area ... (then health coverage is) not news; that's advertising being passed off as news," he said.
Terry McHugh, the station's vice president and general manager, wouldn't comment on the proposed agreement, while a Sacred Heart Hospital representative said she knew nothing of a deal with WEAU. Their silence leaves many questions unanswered: Would the station be compensated for its exclusive coverage of the hospital? Did the fact that McHugh's wife, Jennifer Block, is Sacred Heart Hospital's communications manager have any bearing on the proposed quid pro quo?
Unless station or hospital officials reveal information that vindicates them, it appears they've been plotting to compromise WEAU's journalistic integrity in a deal that ultimately would have tainted both institutions' public images. Mabie did the honorable thing in resigning to protest this commercial interference. We hope his sacrifice - and the publicity surrounding it - will encourage WEAU and other media outlets locally and nationwide to maintain respect for the wall between the newsroom and the business office.
- Tom Giffey, editorial page editor
Here is an editorial by Tom Giffey about the recent news that WEAU and Sacred Heart Hospital were collaborating about "exclusive" coverage of healthcare issues. This stuff is NOT HEALTHY for our community and we have our own version of it on the ECASD BOE. As the second to the last paragraph indicates, this was furthered by the fact that the WEAU general manager is married to the director of communications at Sacred Heart.
Maria
Business deals shouldn't shape news coverage
The issue: WEAU-TV's news director Glen Mabie resigns over a station plan to give special consideration to Sacred Heart Hospital in its news coverage.
Our view: Mabie did the right thing. Interference by commercial interests in news decisions compromises journalists' integrity.
Like the United States itself, the American media have long recognized the separation of church and state.
In the media's case the phrase is figurative: The "church" is the newsroom, with its mission of objectively reporting the truth free from outside interference; the "state" is the business side of the media, selling ads to bring in the money that keeps the outlet operating.
Traditionally, putting a wall of separation between news and advertising has served the media well. The "church" doesn't tell the "state" who to sell ads to, and the "state" doesn't tell the "church" which stories to cover. Newsrooms maintain their objectivity - and their credibility with the public - by avoiding the appearance they are beholden to advertisers. In turn, media outlets benefit financially because advertising representatives can offer space in reputable publications or broadcasts.
In the political arena, some view church-state separation as misguided, pointing out the phrase doesn't appear in the U.S. Constitution. Likewise, business interests sometimes try to break down the newsroom wall for financial gain. Those who own and manage media outlets may seek the favor - and advertising dollars - of businesses by giving them fawning, unbalanced news coverage. When disclosed, such ethical breaches receive the well-deserved condemnation of journalists.
Sadly, it appears just such a breach was contemplated - if not perpetrated - in Eau Claire. Executives at WEAU-TV (Channel 13) apparently negotiated a deal with Sacred Heart Hospital in which the station "would run medical stories featuring personnel from that hospital and its affiliates but not employees of other Chippewa Valley hospitals or clinics," reporter Julian Emerson wrote in Tuesday's Leader-Telegram.
Such an arrangement would knock a sizable hole in the "church-state" wall and taint the newsroom's objectivity. The situation troubled news director Glen Mabie so much that he quit his job at the NBC affiliate.
"My problem with this is it was going to dictate newsroom content," Mabie said. "I told myself that I could not with a clear conscience go into that newsroom and tell the staff that this was a good thing."
David Gordon, a professor emeritus of journalism at UW-Eau Claire, said he hadn't previously heard of such blatant commercial interference in TV news.
The appearance of undue influence on news judgment "just destroys the credibility of the newsroom," Gordon said in an interview.
"It's a question of who calls the shots, and if you have an agreement that you can't report on other hospitals in the area ... (then health coverage is) not news; that's advertising being passed off as news," he said.
Terry McHugh, the station's vice president and general manager, wouldn't comment on the proposed agreement, while a Sacred Heart Hospital representative said she knew nothing of a deal with WEAU. Their silence leaves many questions unanswered: Would the station be compensated for its exclusive coverage of the hospital? Did the fact that McHugh's wife, Jennifer Block, is Sacred Heart Hospital's communications manager have any bearing on the proposed quid pro quo?
Unless station or hospital officials reveal information that vindicates them, it appears they've been plotting to compromise WEAU's journalistic integrity in a deal that ultimately would have tainted both institutions' public images. Mabie did the honorable thing in resigning to protest this commercial interference. We hope his sacrifice - and the publicity surrounding it - will encourage WEAU and other media outlets locally and nationwide to maintain respect for the wall between the newsroom and the business office.
- Tom Giffey, editorial page editor
Everybody is hurt by Conflict Of Interest
Here is an excellent analysis of the outrageous news that WEAU and Sacred Heart Hospital were "in cahoots" for a collaboration in news reporting which is a scary local example of Conflict of Interest and the harm it can cause. Apparently the general manager of WEAU is married to the Director of Communications for Sacred Heart Hospital. This is not only bad for the station's credibility, it damages the integrity of Sacred Heart Hospital and the confidence in our community that news will be unbiased. Here in the ECASD many of us have been equally concerned about the same issues and the potential conflict of interest for elected officials who also have monetary interests via spouses and employers.
Maria
Updated: 1/18/2008 5:22:02 PM
Deal bad for station's credibility
By John Ganahl
As the former station manager of WQOW-TV and recently former director of communications and public outreach for Sacred Heart Hospital, I was uniquely curious about the departure of WEAU-TV News Director Glen Mabie over that station's alleged partnership with Sacred Heart Hospital.
I can't shed any light on the specifics of the alleged relationship. Prior to leaving Sacred Heart Nov. 24, I was not included in nor aware of any such discussions. That said, I offer these perspectives and questions based solely on the information supplied in Tuesday's Leader-Telegram.
First. I applaud Mabie's ethical fortitude. I spent 35 years in the broadcast television industry. The one tenet observed above all others was the wall between journalistic content and influences from other sources in the building. Most specifically, sales. To me, this proposed "partnership" with Sacred Heart is troublesome.
But why should anyone care? Let me pose this cascading scenario: Imagine a controversy arises from practices (medical or administrative) at Sacred Heart.
1. How does WEAU cover this?
2. Given the exclusive relationship with this news entity, how do other media in the area treat the story if they are allowed to cover it at all in a timely manner?
3. What kind of response or cooperation does Sacred Heart provide to other media in a timely and open manner?
4. As a patient at Sacred Heart, what critical information am I potentially not getting because one news organization has a relationship with the hospital and others are locked out?
Now, imagine a similar scenario: A controversy arises from practices (medical or administrative) at Luther Midelfort.
1. How does WEAU cover this?
2. Given the exclusive relationship with Sacred Heart, how cooperative with WEAU is Luther Midelfort likely to be?
Do you see how a news organization crossing the journalistic line creates a ripple of potential problems that not only challenges their objectivity, but also chills the willingness of those being covered to cooperate? On the other hand, the potential to "hide" controversial information as a result of such a partnership can potentially hurt patient care and most certainly damage public trust.
One last observation from my television experience. If I enter into an exclusive relationship with one business, how willing is its competitor to do business with me? In other words, does a decision like this say to Luther Midelfort, "We're not as interested in your business?" Maybe not. But if I'm Luther Midelfort, I've got to ask the question.
I have an enormous amount of respect for WEAU General Manager Terry McHugh. He's an excellent businessman and - from my personal experience - a man with high ethics. So my suspicion is there is more to this story than alluded to in the article. The broadcast industry has changed since my day, but this change is not one I could endorse. It has the potential to benefit Sacred Heart but damage WEAU's credibility.
Ganahl lives in Eau Claire.
Maria
Updated: 1/18/2008 5:22:02 PM
Deal bad for station's credibility
By John Ganahl
As the former station manager of WQOW-TV and recently former director of communications and public outreach for Sacred Heart Hospital, I was uniquely curious about the departure of WEAU-TV News Director Glen Mabie over that station's alleged partnership with Sacred Heart Hospital.
I can't shed any light on the specifics of the alleged relationship. Prior to leaving Sacred Heart Nov. 24, I was not included in nor aware of any such discussions. That said, I offer these perspectives and questions based solely on the information supplied in Tuesday's Leader-Telegram.
First. I applaud Mabie's ethical fortitude. I spent 35 years in the broadcast television industry. The one tenet observed above all others was the wall between journalistic content and influences from other sources in the building. Most specifically, sales. To me, this proposed "partnership" with Sacred Heart is troublesome.
But why should anyone care? Let me pose this cascading scenario: Imagine a controversy arises from practices (medical or administrative) at Sacred Heart.
1. How does WEAU cover this?
2. Given the exclusive relationship with this news entity, how do other media in the area treat the story if they are allowed to cover it at all in a timely manner?
3. What kind of response or cooperation does Sacred Heart provide to other media in a timely and open manner?
4. As a patient at Sacred Heart, what critical information am I potentially not getting because one news organization has a relationship with the hospital and others are locked out?
Now, imagine a similar scenario: A controversy arises from practices (medical or administrative) at Luther Midelfort.
1. How does WEAU cover this?
2. Given the exclusive relationship with Sacred Heart, how cooperative with WEAU is Luther Midelfort likely to be?
Do you see how a news organization crossing the journalistic line creates a ripple of potential problems that not only challenges their objectivity, but also chills the willingness of those being covered to cooperate? On the other hand, the potential to "hide" controversial information as a result of such a partnership can potentially hurt patient care and most certainly damage public trust.
One last observation from my television experience. If I enter into an exclusive relationship with one business, how willing is its competitor to do business with me? In other words, does a decision like this say to Luther Midelfort, "We're not as interested in your business?" Maybe not. But if I'm Luther Midelfort, I've got to ask the question.
I have an enormous amount of respect for WEAU General Manager Terry McHugh. He's an excellent businessman and - from my personal experience - a man with high ethics. So my suspicion is there is more to this story than alluded to in the article. The broadcast industry has changed since my day, but this change is not one I could endorse. It has the potential to benefit Sacred Heart but damage WEAU's credibility.
Ganahl lives in Eau Claire.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Considerations for developing a Conflict of Interest Policy
This is a very lengthy but important document prepared by Kirk Strang of the Madison law firm of Davis and Kuelhoff that was presented to the BOE at the September 10th meeting. Mr. Strang is the head of their school practice and an expert in the field. Maria
LEGAL AUTHORITY AND PRELIMINARY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPING A BOARD OF EDUCATION POLICY ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND ETHICS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
I. LEGAL AUTHORITY
A. Code of Ethics for Public Officials
19.59. Codes of ethics for local government officials, employees and candidates
(1)(a) No local public official may use his or her public position or office to obtain financial gain or anything of substantial value for the private benefit of himself or herself or his or her immediate family, or for an organization with which he or she is associated. A violation of this paragraph includes the acceptance of free or discounted admissions to a professional baseball or football game by a member of the district board of a local professional baseball park district created under subch. III of ch. 229 or a local professional football stadium district created under subch. IV of ch. 229. This paragraph does not prohibit a local public official from using the title or prestige of his or her office to obtain campaign contributions that are permitted and reported as required by ch. 11.
(b) No person may offer or give to a local public official, directly or indirectly, and no local public official may solicit or accept from any person, directly or indirectly, anything of value if it could reasonably be expected to influence the local public official's vote, official actions or judgment, or could reasonably be considered as a reward for any official action or inaction on the part of the local public official. This paragraph does not prohibit a local public official from engaging in outside employment.
(br) No local public official or candidate for local public office may, directly or by means of an agent, give, or offer or promise to give, or withhold, or offer or promise to withhold, his or her vote or influence, or promise to take or refrain from taking official action with respect to any proposed or pending matter in consideration of, or upon condition that, any other person make or refrain from making a political contribution, or provide or refrain from providing any service or other thing of value, to or for the benefit of a candidate, a political party, any person who is subject to a registration requirement under s. 11.05, or any person making a communication that contains a reference to a clearly identified local public official holding an elective office or to a candidate for local public office.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in par. (d), no local public official may:
1. Take any official action substantially affecting a matter in which the official, a member of his or her immediate family, or an organization with which the official is associated has a substantial financial interest.
2. Use his or her office or position in a way that produces or assists in the production of a substantial benefit, direct or indirect, for the official, one or more members of the official's immediate family either separately or together, or an organization with which the official is associated.
(d) Paragraph (c) does not prohibit a local public official from taking any action concerning the lawful payment of salaries or employee benefits or reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses, or prohibit a local public official from taking official action with respect to any proposal to modify a county or municipal ordinance. (Emphasis added).
B. Code of Ethics for Public Officials: Opinion of Legal Counsel
19.59. Codes of ethics for local government officials, employees and candidates
(5)(a) Any individual, either personally or on behalf of an organization or governmental body, may request of a(n) county or municipal ethics board, or, in the absence of a county or municipal ethics board, a county corporation counsel or attorney for a local governmental unit, an advisory opinion regarding the propriety of any matter to which the person is or may become a party. Any appointing officer, with the consent of a prospective appointee, may request of a county or municipal ethics board, or, in the absence of a county or municipal ethics board, a county corporation counsel or attorney for a local governmental unit an advisory opinion regarding the propriety of any matter to which the prospective appointee is or may become a party. The county or municipal ethics board or the county corporation counsel or attorney shall review a request for an advisory opinion and may advise the person making the request. Advisory opinions and requests therefor shall be in writing. It is prima facie evidence of intent to comply with this section or any ordinance enacted under this section when a person refers a matter to a(n) county or municipal ethics board or a county corporation counsel or attorney for a local governmental unit and abides by the advisory opinion, if the material facts are as stated in the opinion request. A county or municipal ethics board may authorize a county corporation counsel or attorney to act in its stead in instances where delay is of substantial inconvenience or detriment to the requesting party. Except as provided in par. (b), neither a county corporation counsel or attorney for a local governmental unit nor a member or agent of a county or municipal ethics board may make public the identity of an individual requesting an advisory opinion or of individuals or organizations mentioned in the opinion.
(b) A county or municipal ethics board, county corporation counsel or attorney for a local governmental unit replying to a request for an advisory opinion may make the opinion public with the consent of the individual requesting the advisory opinion or the organization or governmental body on whose behalf it is requested and may make public a summary of an advisory opinion issued under this subsection after making sufficient alterations in the summary to prevent disclosing the identities of individuals involved in the opinion. A person who makes or purports to make public the substance of or any portion of an advisory opinion requested by or on behalf of the person waives the confidentiality of the request for an advisory opinion and of any records obtained or prepared by the county or municipal ethics board, the county corporation counsel or the attorney for the local governmental unit in connection with the request for an advisory opinion. (Emphasis added).
C. Open Meetings of Governmental Bodies
19.82. Definitions
As used in this subchapter:
(1) "Governmental body" means a state or local agency, board, commission, committee, council, department or public body corporate and politic created by constitution, statute, ordinance, rule or order; a governmental or quasi-governmental corporation except for the Bradley center sports and entertainment corporation; a local exposition district under subch. II of ch. 229; a family care district under s. 46.2895; a nonprofit corporation operating the Olympic ice training center under s. 42.11(3); or a formally constituted subunit of any of the foregoing, but excludes any such body or committee or subunit of such body which is formed for or meeting for the purpose of collective bargaining under subch. I, IV or V of ch. 111.
(2) “Meeting" means the convening of members of a governmental body for the purpose of exercising the responsibilities, authority, power or duties delegated to or vested in the body. If one-half or more of the members of a governmental body are present, the meeting is rebuttably presumed to be for the purpose of exercising the responsibilities, authority, power or duties delegated to or vested in the body. The term does not include any social or chance gathering or conference which is not intended to avoid this subchapter, any gathering of the members of a town board for the purpose specified in s. 60.50(6), any gathering of the commissioners of a town sanitary district for the purpose specified in s. 60.77(5)(k) or any gathering of the members of a drainage board created under s. 88.16, 1991 stats., or under s. 88.17, for a purpose specified in s. 88.065(5)(a).
(3) "Open session" means a meeting which is held in a place reasonably accessible to members of the public and open to all citizens at all times. In the case of a state governmental body, it means a meeting which is held in a building and room thereof which enables access by persons with functional limitations, as defined in s. 101.13(1). (Emphasis added).
D. Board of Education Meetings
19.89. Exclusion of members
No duly elected or appointed member of a governmental body may be excluded from any meeting of such body. Unless the rules of a governmental body provide to the contrary, no member of the body may be excluded from any meeting of a subunit of that governmental body. (Emphasis added).
E. Conflict of Interest for Public Officials
946.13. Private interest in public contract prohibited
(1) Any public officer or public employee who does any of the following is guilty of a Class I felony:
(a) In the officer's or employee's private capacity, negotiates or bids for or enters into a contract in which the officer or employee has a private pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, if at the same time the officer or employee is authorized or required by law to participate in the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee in the making of that contract or to perform in regard to that contract some official function requiring the exercise of discretion on the officer's or employee's part; or
(b) In the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee, participates in the making of a contract in which the officer or employee has a private pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, or performs in regard to that contract some function requiring the exercise of discretion on the officer's or employee's part.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) Contracts in which any single public officer or employee is privately interested that do not involve receipts and disbursements by the state or its political subdivision aggregating more than $15,000 in any year.
(b) Contracts involving the deposit of public funds in public depositories.
(c) Contracts involving loans made pursuant to s. 67.12.
(d) Contracts for the publication of legal notices required to be published, provided such notices are published at a rate not higher than that prescribed by law.
(e) Contracts for the issuance to a public officer or employee of tax titles, tax certificates, or instruments representing an interest in, or secured by, any fund consisting in whole or in part of taxes in the process of collection, provided such titles, certificates, or instruments are issued in payment of salary or other obligations due such officer or employee.
(f) Contracts for the sale of bonds or securities issued by a political subdivision of the state; provided such bonds or securities are sold at a bona fide public sale to the highest bidder and the public officer or employee acquiring the private interest has no duty to vote upon the issuance of the bonds or securities.
(g) Contracts with, or tax credits or payments received by, public officers or employees for wildlife damage claims or abatement under s. 29.889, for farmland preservation under subch. IX of ch. 71 and s. 91.13, soil and water resource management under s. 92.14, soil erosion control under s. 92.10, 1985 stats., animal waste management under s. 92.15, 1985 stats., and nonpoint source water pollution abatement under s. 281.65.
(3) A contract entered into in violation of this section is void and the state or the political subdivision in whose behalf the contract was made incurs no liability thereon. (Emphasis added).
II. CONSIDERATIONS FOR POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST/ETHICS POLICY
A Board of Education policy that is meant to reflect these statutes and principles will acquire Board of Education policy decisions in the following areas:
A. Does the Board wish to state that it recognizes state statutes and applicable legal authority in this area, and that it has instituted this policy to provide guidance to its members?
Recommendation: The Board of Education should specifically recognize state statutes and applicable legal authority concerning conflicts of interest and codes of ethics for local government officials to make certain that uniform rules and objective interpretations of those rules are incorporated into the policy
B. Does the Board wish to explicitly identify its purposes in formulating this policy?
Recommendation: The Board of Education may wish to identify at least the following purposes in formulating this policy:
1. Securing compliance with state law.
2. Providing notice to School Board members regarding applicable legal requirements.
3. Providing guidance to School Board members regarding applicable legal requirements.
4. Ensuring the validity of Board of Education decisions.
C. Does the Board of Education wish to have the policy apply to specified groups of School District personnel, in addition to School Board members?
Recommendation: The Board of Education should adopt a policy that applies to all personnel that are subject to applicable state statutes. However, the Board of Education and authorized Administration officials should retain discretion to determine when formal opinions under the policy (if any) are sought.
D. What means should the Board of Education employ to implement the policy? For example:
1. Should the policy specifically provide that the Board of Education may request opinions from legal counsel regarding ethical or conflict of interest issues?
2. Should the Board of Education or authorized administrators’ approval be required to seek such an opinion?
Recommendation: The policy should provide that the Board of Education and selected administrators may request opinions from legal counsel regarding ethical or conflict of interest issues. However, the policy should also provide that requests for a formal legal opinion under the policy must be approved by the Board of Education or authorized administrators.
E. How should resolving conflict of interest or ethical issues under the policy impact on matters that are pending before the Board of Education?
Recommendation: The Board of Education should retain discretion to resolve procedural issues on a case-by-case basis, but should identify criteria for tabling certain issues pending conflict of interest or ethical determinations to maximize the voting rights of Board of Education members. In this regard, the Board should consider adopting standards that include: (1) whether the issue is raised at or prior to a Board meeting; (2) whether the Board member that is potentially affected identified the issue on a timely basis; (3) whether the matter could reasonably affect a Board member’s entitlement to participate or vote on matters before the Board of Education; (4) whether the Board of Education and/or the District would be prejudiced by delaying action on a particular matter; and (5) whether the nature of the matter, in the judgment of the Board of Education, indicates that the need for separate evaluation and/or guidance outweighs the need for immediate action on the issue presented to the Board of Education.
F. Should the Board of Education specifically recognize that when an ethics opinion is obtained under this policy from the District’s legal counsel, this constitutes evidence of good faith compliance with the policy (and statute)?
Recommendation: The Board of Education policy should provide that acting in accordance with a formal opinion that has been authorized by the Board of Education under the policy constitutes evidence of good faith compliance.
III. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
LEGAL AUTHORITY AND PRELIMINARY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPING A BOARD OF EDUCATION POLICY ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND ETHICS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
I. LEGAL AUTHORITY
A. Code of Ethics for Public Officials
19.59. Codes of ethics for local government officials, employees and candidates
(1)(a) No local public official may use his or her public position or office to obtain financial gain or anything of substantial value for the private benefit of himself or herself or his or her immediate family, or for an organization with which he or she is associated. A violation of this paragraph includes the acceptance of free or discounted admissions to a professional baseball or football game by a member of the district board of a local professional baseball park district created under subch. III of ch. 229 or a local professional football stadium district created under subch. IV of ch. 229. This paragraph does not prohibit a local public official from using the title or prestige of his or her office to obtain campaign contributions that are permitted and reported as required by ch. 11.
(b) No person may offer or give to a local public official, directly or indirectly, and no local public official may solicit or accept from any person, directly or indirectly, anything of value if it could reasonably be expected to influence the local public official's vote, official actions or judgment, or could reasonably be considered as a reward for any official action or inaction on the part of the local public official. This paragraph does not prohibit a local public official from engaging in outside employment.
(br) No local public official or candidate for local public office may, directly or by means of an agent, give, or offer or promise to give, or withhold, or offer or promise to withhold, his or her vote or influence, or promise to take or refrain from taking official action with respect to any proposed or pending matter in consideration of, or upon condition that, any other person make or refrain from making a political contribution, or provide or refrain from providing any service or other thing of value, to or for the benefit of a candidate, a political party, any person who is subject to a registration requirement under s. 11.05, or any person making a communication that contains a reference to a clearly identified local public official holding an elective office or to a candidate for local public office.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in par. (d), no local public official may:
1. Take any official action substantially affecting a matter in which the official, a member of his or her immediate family, or an organization with which the official is associated has a substantial financial interest.
2. Use his or her office or position in a way that produces or assists in the production of a substantial benefit, direct or indirect, for the official, one or more members of the official's immediate family either separately or together, or an organization with which the official is associated.
(d) Paragraph (c) does not prohibit a local public official from taking any action concerning the lawful payment of salaries or employee benefits or reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses, or prohibit a local public official from taking official action with respect to any proposal to modify a county or municipal ordinance. (Emphasis added).
B. Code of Ethics for Public Officials: Opinion of Legal Counsel
19.59. Codes of ethics for local government officials, employees and candidates
(5)(a) Any individual, either personally or on behalf of an organization or governmental body, may request of a(n) county or municipal ethics board, or, in the absence of a county or municipal ethics board, a county corporation counsel or attorney for a local governmental unit, an advisory opinion regarding the propriety of any matter to which the person is or may become a party. Any appointing officer, with the consent of a prospective appointee, may request of a county or municipal ethics board, or, in the absence of a county or municipal ethics board, a county corporation counsel or attorney for a local governmental unit an advisory opinion regarding the propriety of any matter to which the prospective appointee is or may become a party. The county or municipal ethics board or the county corporation counsel or attorney shall review a request for an advisory opinion and may advise the person making the request. Advisory opinions and requests therefor shall be in writing. It is prima facie evidence of intent to comply with this section or any ordinance enacted under this section when a person refers a matter to a(n) county or municipal ethics board or a county corporation counsel or attorney for a local governmental unit and abides by the advisory opinion, if the material facts are as stated in the opinion request. A county or municipal ethics board may authorize a county corporation counsel or attorney to act in its stead in instances where delay is of substantial inconvenience or detriment to the requesting party. Except as provided in par. (b), neither a county corporation counsel or attorney for a local governmental unit nor a member or agent of a county or municipal ethics board may make public the identity of an individual requesting an advisory opinion or of individuals or organizations mentioned in the opinion.
(b) A county or municipal ethics board, county corporation counsel or attorney for a local governmental unit replying to a request for an advisory opinion may make the opinion public with the consent of the individual requesting the advisory opinion or the organization or governmental body on whose behalf it is requested and may make public a summary of an advisory opinion issued under this subsection after making sufficient alterations in the summary to prevent disclosing the identities of individuals involved in the opinion. A person who makes or purports to make public the substance of or any portion of an advisory opinion requested by or on behalf of the person waives the confidentiality of the request for an advisory opinion and of any records obtained or prepared by the county or municipal ethics board, the county corporation counsel or the attorney for the local governmental unit in connection with the request for an advisory opinion. (Emphasis added).
C. Open Meetings of Governmental Bodies
19.82. Definitions
As used in this subchapter:
(1) "Governmental body" means a state or local agency, board, commission, committee, council, department or public body corporate and politic created by constitution, statute, ordinance, rule or order; a governmental or quasi-governmental corporation except for the Bradley center sports and entertainment corporation; a local exposition district under subch. II of ch. 229; a family care district under s. 46.2895; a nonprofit corporation operating the Olympic ice training center under s. 42.11(3); or a formally constituted subunit of any of the foregoing, but excludes any such body or committee or subunit of such body which is formed for or meeting for the purpose of collective bargaining under subch. I, IV or V of ch. 111.
(2) “Meeting" means the convening of members of a governmental body for the purpose of exercising the responsibilities, authority, power or duties delegated to or vested in the body. If one-half or more of the members of a governmental body are present, the meeting is rebuttably presumed to be for the purpose of exercising the responsibilities, authority, power or duties delegated to or vested in the body. The term does not include any social or chance gathering or conference which is not intended to avoid this subchapter, any gathering of the members of a town board for the purpose specified in s. 60.50(6), any gathering of the commissioners of a town sanitary district for the purpose specified in s. 60.77(5)(k) or any gathering of the members of a drainage board created under s. 88.16, 1991 stats., or under s. 88.17, for a purpose specified in s. 88.065(5)(a).
(3) "Open session" means a meeting which is held in a place reasonably accessible to members of the public and open to all citizens at all times. In the case of a state governmental body, it means a meeting which is held in a building and room thereof which enables access by persons with functional limitations, as defined in s. 101.13(1). (Emphasis added).
D. Board of Education Meetings
19.89. Exclusion of members
No duly elected or appointed member of a governmental body may be excluded from any meeting of such body. Unless the rules of a governmental body provide to the contrary, no member of the body may be excluded from any meeting of a subunit of that governmental body. (Emphasis added).
E. Conflict of Interest for Public Officials
946.13. Private interest in public contract prohibited
(1) Any public officer or public employee who does any of the following is guilty of a Class I felony:
(a) In the officer's or employee's private capacity, negotiates or bids for or enters into a contract in which the officer or employee has a private pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, if at the same time the officer or employee is authorized or required by law to participate in the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee in the making of that contract or to perform in regard to that contract some official function requiring the exercise of discretion on the officer's or employee's part; or
(b) In the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee, participates in the making of a contract in which the officer or employee has a private pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, or performs in regard to that contract some function requiring the exercise of discretion on the officer's or employee's part.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) Contracts in which any single public officer or employee is privately interested that do not involve receipts and disbursements by the state or its political subdivision aggregating more than $15,000 in any year.
(b) Contracts involving the deposit of public funds in public depositories.
(c) Contracts involving loans made pursuant to s. 67.12.
(d) Contracts for the publication of legal notices required to be published, provided such notices are published at a rate not higher than that prescribed by law.
(e) Contracts for the issuance to a public officer or employee of tax titles, tax certificates, or instruments representing an interest in, or secured by, any fund consisting in whole or in part of taxes in the process of collection, provided such titles, certificates, or instruments are issued in payment of salary or other obligations due such officer or employee.
(f) Contracts for the sale of bonds or securities issued by a political subdivision of the state; provided such bonds or securities are sold at a bona fide public sale to the highest bidder and the public officer or employee acquiring the private interest has no duty to vote upon the issuance of the bonds or securities.
(g) Contracts with, or tax credits or payments received by, public officers or employees for wildlife damage claims or abatement under s. 29.889, for farmland preservation under subch. IX of ch. 71 and s. 91.13, soil and water resource management under s. 92.14, soil erosion control under s. 92.10, 1985 stats., animal waste management under s. 92.15, 1985 stats., and nonpoint source water pollution abatement under s. 281.65.
(3) A contract entered into in violation of this section is void and the state or the political subdivision in whose behalf the contract was made incurs no liability thereon. (Emphasis added).
II. CONSIDERATIONS FOR POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST/ETHICS POLICY
A Board of Education policy that is meant to reflect these statutes and principles will acquire Board of Education policy decisions in the following areas:
A. Does the Board wish to state that it recognizes state statutes and applicable legal authority in this area, and that it has instituted this policy to provide guidance to its members?
Recommendation: The Board of Education should specifically recognize state statutes and applicable legal authority concerning conflicts of interest and codes of ethics for local government officials to make certain that uniform rules and objective interpretations of those rules are incorporated into the policy
B. Does the Board wish to explicitly identify its purposes in formulating this policy?
Recommendation: The Board of Education may wish to identify at least the following purposes in formulating this policy:
1. Securing compliance with state law.
2. Providing notice to School Board members regarding applicable legal requirements.
3. Providing guidance to School Board members regarding applicable legal requirements.
4. Ensuring the validity of Board of Education decisions.
C. Does the Board of Education wish to have the policy apply to specified groups of School District personnel, in addition to School Board members?
Recommendation: The Board of Education should adopt a policy that applies to all personnel that are subject to applicable state statutes. However, the Board of Education and authorized Administration officials should retain discretion to determine when formal opinions under the policy (if any) are sought.
D. What means should the Board of Education employ to implement the policy? For example:
1. Should the policy specifically provide that the Board of Education may request opinions from legal counsel regarding ethical or conflict of interest issues?
2. Should the Board of Education or authorized administrators’ approval be required to seek such an opinion?
Recommendation: The policy should provide that the Board of Education and selected administrators may request opinions from legal counsel regarding ethical or conflict of interest issues. However, the policy should also provide that requests for a formal legal opinion under the policy must be approved by the Board of Education or authorized administrators.
E. How should resolving conflict of interest or ethical issues under the policy impact on matters that are pending before the Board of Education?
Recommendation: The Board of Education should retain discretion to resolve procedural issues on a case-by-case basis, but should identify criteria for tabling certain issues pending conflict of interest or ethical determinations to maximize the voting rights of Board of Education members. In this regard, the Board should consider adopting standards that include: (1) whether the issue is raised at or prior to a Board meeting; (2) whether the Board member that is potentially affected identified the issue on a timely basis; (3) whether the matter could reasonably affect a Board member’s entitlement to participate or vote on matters before the Board of Education; (4) whether the Board of Education and/or the District would be prejudiced by delaying action on a particular matter; and (5) whether the nature of the matter, in the judgment of the Board of Education, indicates that the need for separate evaluation and/or guidance outweighs the need for immediate action on the issue presented to the Board of Education.
F. Should the Board of Education specifically recognize that when an ethics opinion is obtained under this policy from the District’s legal counsel, this constitutes evidence of good faith compliance with the policy (and statute)?
Recommendation: The Board of Education policy should provide that acting in accordance with a formal opinion that has been authorized by the Board of Education under the policy constitutes evidence of good faith compliance.
III. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
Monday, July 16, 2007
Discomfort Continues with Conflict of Interest
At the July 9th Work Session the BOE members discussed establishing a specific Conflict of Interest Policy for the ECASD. Dr. Klaus had put together a 2 page draft of a policy but, of course, nobody in the audience was allowed to view even a draft of it of they would have to kill us. Klaus stated that it was taken from the statutes. The new Interim Superintendent, Jim Leary, innocently queried why the ECASD isn't simply using the state statutes rather than writing a new policy. Comm. Cummins, as the BOE member who asked for this item to be addressed by the board, indicated that having a specific policy was recommended by the Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB) as the statutes left much to interpretation. For example, the Madison policy prohibits employees and spouses of employees to serve on the School Board as well as prohibits campaigning for candidates by seated board members in school district elections. Dr. Leary said that he is extremely careful of any perception of nepotism and would avoid a situation involving a "relative of any sort." He cited a problematic example of a Pres. of a School Board who was also the Pres. of the bank where school board funds were deposited.
Several Board members were clearly uncomfortable and silent . Lots of tiptoeing around the edges of the topic.
There was a digression of whether this policy would include other employees but Mr. Kling pointed out that current ECASD employment policies adequately cover problem areas. At this point Comm. Kneer launched into an emotional commentary that she felt this was a personal campaign against her and Mr. O'Brien. She insisted that she did not benefit financially from her work on the playground which was confusing until it was clarified that she indeed is a paid employee and not a volunteer for the district. Ms. Kneer insisted that a policy was not needed and that "we will know" if there is a Conflict of Interest problem. (How will you know? When community members start complaining? OK. You have a problem now.) Comm. Cummins assured her that current BOE members would be "grandfathered in."
Klaus finally did put up something on the overhead for the audience to see but the draft was so broad that Comm. Craig indicated that it needed more specificity. Comm. Wogahn shared another completely irrelevant anecdote from his medical training when a resident was dating a junior resident and he told the guy to just wait until she rotated off the service for that kind of thing. Does this guy even know what Conflict of Interest is? His lack of knowledge or lack of judgment or both is of real concern here!
Dr. Leary offered to put together another draft of a policy that would include examples from other districts and it would be ready for the August board meeting. Mike O'Brien chose the final minutes of the meeting to indicate that he felt such a policy would be a "slippery slope" and have a "chilling effect" on community members willing to serve on the BOE. He felt that spouses of teachers have a legitimate role in serving the district.
My opinion: Of course they do! But not in the leadership role as Board members which creates a conflict of interest financially for them. Of course in this district there is no other role for an interested community member to perform on behalf of the district. You are either on the School Board or the other way you can be an engaged community member is selling hot dogs at the concession stand at football games. Take your pick.
Several Board members were clearly uncomfortable and silent . Lots of tiptoeing around the edges of the topic.
There was a digression of whether this policy would include other employees but Mr. Kling pointed out that current ECASD employment policies adequately cover problem areas. At this point Comm. Kneer launched into an emotional commentary that she felt this was a personal campaign against her and Mr. O'Brien. She insisted that she did not benefit financially from her work on the playground which was confusing until it was clarified that she indeed is a paid employee and not a volunteer for the district. Ms. Kneer insisted that a policy was not needed and that "we will know" if there is a Conflict of Interest problem. (How will you know? When community members start complaining? OK. You have a problem now.) Comm. Cummins assured her that current BOE members would be "grandfathered in."
Klaus finally did put up something on the overhead for the audience to see but the draft was so broad that Comm. Craig indicated that it needed more specificity. Comm. Wogahn shared another completely irrelevant anecdote from his medical training when a resident was dating a junior resident and he told the guy to just wait until she rotated off the service for that kind of thing. Does this guy even know what Conflict of Interest is? His lack of knowledge or lack of judgment or both is of real concern here!
Dr. Leary offered to put together another draft of a policy that would include examples from other districts and it would be ready for the August board meeting. Mike O'Brien chose the final minutes of the meeting to indicate that he felt such a policy would be a "slippery slope" and have a "chilling effect" on community members willing to serve on the BOE. He felt that spouses of teachers have a legitimate role in serving the district.
My opinion: Of course they do! But not in the leadership role as Board members which creates a conflict of interest financially for them. Of course in this district there is no other role for an interested community member to perform on behalf of the district. You are either on the School Board or the other way you can be an engaged community member is selling hot dogs at the concession stand at football games. Take your pick.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Redux: Conflict of Interest
Here is a Letter to the Editor from June 4th that was published in the Leader Telegram. The letter is a rebuttal to an editorial comment written by Don Huebscher that said that basically all the BOE members have "baggage" which complicates their decision-making on the BOE. I failed to copy the online column when it was originally published and now the archived version has disappeared from the LT site. If anyone has it, please e-mail it to me and I will publish it in this blog.
My memory of it was that he basically said everyone on the board is conflicted: (Mary Kneer is an ECASD employee, Mike Bollinger is a former ECASD Administrator, Carol Craig is a member of a union that reports to the same national union as the ECASD teachers, Trish Cummins' children do not attend ECASD schools, Ken Faanes' wife is a substitute teacher, and Mike O'Brien has a double conflict with his wife's employment at ECASD and his law firm serves as the ECASD legal counsel.) Please correct me if I am misstating. Ironically, Wogahn escaped being fingered by the crack investigative journalism skills of Huebscher and yet Commissioner Wogahn rightly recuses himself every single time there is a vote on health care benefits as he is a local health care provider.
I do not have the lengthy EC residence history to know first hand, but others have informed me that John Flynn, former ECASD BOE President, sent his children to the local parochial schools rather than the ECASD schools. If that is the case, what is the big deal for people with Commissioner Cummins and her decision to home school her children?
Again, if someone has an e-copy of Huebscher's editorial I will gladly publish it here.
Opinions
Updated 6/4/2007 11:38:39 AM
Letter: Only one conflict on board
In his column of Sunday, May 24, Don Huebscher effectively demonstrates that most members of the Eau Claire school board have “baggage” (his term). However, he fails miserably to demonstrate his related contention the board members’ “baggage” somehow explains and justifies the clear conflict of interest posed by hiring the law firm that employs the board’s president to also represent the school district.
The column goes astray when it forgets the meaning of conflict of interest: a situation in which financial considerations may compromise — or appear to compromise — an individual’s professional judgment. One might question why a board member home schools her children rather than sends them to public school, but this is not a “conflict of interest,” even using a “not-so-loose definition” of the term.
Huebscher does a fair job of muddying the waters through his fuzzy thinking and imprecise use of language, but he does not demonstrate that any board member besides the president faces a clear and unequivocal conflict of interest.
SCOTT LOWE
Eau Claire
My memory of it was that he basically said everyone on the board is conflicted: (Mary Kneer is an ECASD employee, Mike Bollinger is a former ECASD Administrator, Carol Craig is a member of a union that reports to the same national union as the ECASD teachers, Trish Cummins' children do not attend ECASD schools, Ken Faanes' wife is a substitute teacher, and Mike O'Brien has a double conflict with his wife's employment at ECASD and his law firm serves as the ECASD legal counsel.) Please correct me if I am misstating. Ironically, Wogahn escaped being fingered by the crack investigative journalism skills of Huebscher and yet Commissioner Wogahn rightly recuses himself every single time there is a vote on health care benefits as he is a local health care provider.
I do not have the lengthy EC residence history to know first hand, but others have informed me that John Flynn, former ECASD BOE President, sent his children to the local parochial schools rather than the ECASD schools. If that is the case, what is the big deal for people with Commissioner Cummins and her decision to home school her children?
Again, if someone has an e-copy of Huebscher's editorial I will gladly publish it here.
Opinions
Updated 6/4/2007 11:38:39 AM
Letter: Only one conflict on board
In his column of Sunday, May 24, Don Huebscher effectively demonstrates that most members of the Eau Claire school board have “baggage” (his term). However, he fails miserably to demonstrate his related contention the board members’ “baggage” somehow explains and justifies the clear conflict of interest posed by hiring the law firm that employs the board’s president to also represent the school district.
The column goes astray when it forgets the meaning of conflict of interest: a situation in which financial considerations may compromise — or appear to compromise — an individual’s professional judgment. One might question why a board member home schools her children rather than sends them to public school, but this is not a “conflict of interest,” even using a “not-so-loose definition” of the term.
Huebscher does a fair job of muddying the waters through his fuzzy thinking and imprecise use of language, but he does not demonstrate that any board member besides the president faces a clear and unequivocal conflict of interest.
SCOTT LOWE
Eau Claire
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Conflict of Interest
Here is some information I wrote about Conflict of Interest earlier in May:
At the ECASD Board of Education (BOE) meeting on May 7th officers of the Board will be elected by a majority vote of all BOE members. The person elected President of the BOE will have great authority to conduct meetings and control the agenda for the next year. There is no doubt that the previous President of the Board, Carol Olson, used this authority and extremely broad power to manage everything from what items would be discussed and acted upon by the board, when public input would be allowed and, in the opinion of many people, fostering an inappropriate and non-independent relationship with members of the Executive Administrators of the ECASD.
Commissioner Mike O’Brien is currently seeking to be elected the next President of the ECASD BOE. Commissioner O’Brien is currently an attorney and partner in the Eau Claire law firm Weld, Riley, Ricci and Prenn. This is the same law firm that serves as legal counsel to the ECASD. In addition, Mr. O’Brien’s wife is an employee of the ECASD as the Parent Partnership Coordinator at North High School. Either one of these situations would require special consideration but both of them together are extremely troubling.
This issue has been raised many times over the years but has consistently been minimized and ignored by previous BOE leadership and the current ECASD Administration. Our community deserves to be served by board members who are absolutely independent thinkers and who are unequivocally serving the public interest. The future credibility of the ECASD BOE with the citizens of Eau Claire is the most important consideration and should not be jeopardized in any way by completely avoidable situations.
I am attaching 2 files that address the legal concerns of Conflict of Interest for Spouses and when a board member holds 2 positions that are incompatible. PLEASE take time to read them and understand the potential for problems in that “the conflict of interest doctrine requires public officers to be absolutely free from any influence other than that which grows out of obligations that he owes to the public at large.” Ironically, both of the attached documents indicate that if there is any question about whether or not a conflict of interest could exist for a school board member, “it is advisable to consult with legal counsel.” Unfortunately, there is no advice for when the potential conflict of interest is with a lawyer on a school board who is also employed by the legal counsel of the same district!
Please see below several specific examples of how Mr. O’Brien’s employment relationship with Weld, Riley conflicts with his duties as a School Board member who is supposed to “unequivocally serve the public interest” not the ECASD.
1. Contract negotiations: The board president usually sits on the bargaining team and always appoints the board members to the various teams. Steve Weld is the negotiator for ECASD.
2. Teacher grievances: Weld, Riley handles these cases.
3. Student Expulsions: Weld, Riley represents ECASD in these cases.
4. Real Estate Sales/Acquisitions: Weld, Riley represents the ECASD in these cases.
5. Charter Schools- legalities concerning equity, admissions, contracts, etc.: Weld, Riley handles these cases.
6. General Personnel Matters (property, violations of computer policy, etc…): Weld, Riley handles these cases.
7. Concerns over equity issues in the district (user fees, special education, boundaries, busing, diversity, etc.): Weld, Riley handles these concerns.
8. Legislative Issues- Attempts to advocate for our district on issues like school funding reform, revenue caps, comprehensive health care, etc. If issues arose that required changes in ECASD policies Weld, Riley would be representing the district.
In the above examples, please ask yourself how a board member representing the public interest could reasonably vote against a legal opinion of his employer who represents the interests of the school district? This is the heart of the matter of conflict of interest; Mr. O’Brien’s employment position represents the school district and his board member position represents the public.
The conflict of interest Mr. O’Brien has with his job could be solved in one of two ways: 1.) He could resign his position as a school board member and continue working for the law firm that represents the ECASD, or 2.) The ECASD could hire a different law firm to represent the district.
You can help start the new board leadership to focus on transparency, accountability and independence by spending 5 minutes calling BOE members and asking 1.) that Commissioner O’Brien NOT BE CONSIDERED for the position of President and, 2.) that the district obtain a legal opinion from an independent and non-local legal firm assessing this potential conflict of interest, and 3.) that this issue is on a future BOE agenda with public input from the community.
Here is the information that you will need to contact the BOE members:
Ken Faanes, 836-9199 or kfaanes@ecasd.k12.wi.us
Mike Bollinger, 830-1855 or mbollinger@ecasd.k12.wi.us
Brent Wogahn, 831-9692 or bwogahn@ecasd.k12.wi.us
Trish Cummins, 835-8135 or tcummins@ecasd.k12.wi.us
Carol Craig, 832-1306 or ccraig@ecasd.k12.wi.us
Mary Kneer, 835-1692 or mkneer@ecasd.k12.wi.us
Mike O’Brien, 834-8969 or mobrien@wrpr.com
THANK YOU for helping make our school district leadership the BEST IT CAN BE!!
Maria Henly
At the ECASD Board of Education (BOE) meeting on May 7th officers of the Board will be elected by a majority vote of all BOE members. The person elected President of the BOE will have great authority to conduct meetings and control the agenda for the next year. There is no doubt that the previous President of the Board, Carol Olson, used this authority and extremely broad power to manage everything from what items would be discussed and acted upon by the board, when public input would be allowed and, in the opinion of many people, fostering an inappropriate and non-independent relationship with members of the Executive Administrators of the ECASD.
Commissioner Mike O’Brien is currently seeking to be elected the next President of the ECASD BOE. Commissioner O’Brien is currently an attorney and partner in the Eau Claire law firm Weld, Riley, Ricci and Prenn. This is the same law firm that serves as legal counsel to the ECASD. In addition, Mr. O’Brien’s wife is an employee of the ECASD as the Parent Partnership Coordinator at North High School. Either one of these situations would require special consideration but both of them together are extremely troubling.
This issue has been raised many times over the years but has consistently been minimized and ignored by previous BOE leadership and the current ECASD Administration. Our community deserves to be served by board members who are absolutely independent thinkers and who are unequivocally serving the public interest. The future credibility of the ECASD BOE with the citizens of Eau Claire is the most important consideration and should not be jeopardized in any way by completely avoidable situations.
I am attaching 2 files that address the legal concerns of Conflict of Interest for Spouses and when a board member holds 2 positions that are incompatible. PLEASE take time to read them and understand the potential for problems in that “the conflict of interest doctrine requires public officers to be absolutely free from any influence other than that which grows out of obligations that he owes to the public at large.” Ironically, both of the attached documents indicate that if there is any question about whether or not a conflict of interest could exist for a school board member, “it is advisable to consult with legal counsel.” Unfortunately, there is no advice for when the potential conflict of interest is with a lawyer on a school board who is also employed by the legal counsel of the same district!
Please see below several specific examples of how Mr. O’Brien’s employment relationship with Weld, Riley conflicts with his duties as a School Board member who is supposed to “unequivocally serve the public interest” not the ECASD.
1. Contract negotiations: The board president usually sits on the bargaining team and always appoints the board members to the various teams. Steve Weld is the negotiator for ECASD.
2. Teacher grievances: Weld, Riley handles these cases.
3. Student Expulsions: Weld, Riley represents ECASD in these cases.
4. Real Estate Sales/Acquisitions: Weld, Riley represents the ECASD in these cases.
5. Charter Schools- legalities concerning equity, admissions, contracts, etc.: Weld, Riley handles these cases.
6. General Personnel Matters (property, violations of computer policy, etc…): Weld, Riley handles these cases.
7. Concerns over equity issues in the district (user fees, special education, boundaries, busing, diversity, etc.): Weld, Riley handles these concerns.
8. Legislative Issues- Attempts to advocate for our district on issues like school funding reform, revenue caps, comprehensive health care, etc. If issues arose that required changes in ECASD policies Weld, Riley would be representing the district.
In the above examples, please ask yourself how a board member representing the public interest could reasonably vote against a legal opinion of his employer who represents the interests of the school district? This is the heart of the matter of conflict of interest; Mr. O’Brien’s employment position represents the school district and his board member position represents the public.
The conflict of interest Mr. O’Brien has with his job could be solved in one of two ways: 1.) He could resign his position as a school board member and continue working for the law firm that represents the ECASD, or 2.) The ECASD could hire a different law firm to represent the district.
You can help start the new board leadership to focus on transparency, accountability and independence by spending 5 minutes calling BOE members and asking 1.) that Commissioner O’Brien NOT BE CONSIDERED for the position of President and, 2.) that the district obtain a legal opinion from an independent and non-local legal firm assessing this potential conflict of interest, and 3.) that this issue is on a future BOE agenda with public input from the community.
Here is the information that you will need to contact the BOE members:
Ken Faanes, 836-9199 or kfaanes@ecasd.k12.wi.us
Mike Bollinger, 830-1855 or mbollinger@ecasd.k12.wi.us
Brent Wogahn, 831-9692 or bwogahn@ecasd.k12.wi.us
Trish Cummins, 835-8135 or tcummins@ecasd.k12.wi.us
Carol Craig, 832-1306 or ccraig@ecasd.k12.wi.us
Mary Kneer, 835-1692 or mkneer@ecasd.k12.wi.us
Mike O’Brien, 834-8969 or mobrien@wrpr.com
THANK YOU for helping make our school district leadership the BEST IT CAN BE!!
Maria Henly
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)