Elaine Johnson: Let Voters Decide Whether Conflict of Interest Exists

I’ve been writing about Downers Grove government and politics since 2003 and every once in a while, that longer view lends perspective to current developments.

Last week, I recounted , which appears to some observers to have been crafted, since 2007, with the intention of marginalizing board member Debbie Boyle, whose brother is a district teacher. She currently serves as the board vice president and is a candidate for the 81st House district.

I didn’t intend to revisit the issue, but Wednesday’s TribLocal story convinced me to reconsider. The story reveals that members of the 2007 Leadership for All 99 slate accepted campaign donations from the Downers Grove Education Association ($1,500) and the husband of a now-retired assistant superintendent ($200).

 Although the donations were legal under state campaign finance laws, the TribLocal story quotes member and former board president Julia Kennedy Beckman as calling for consideration of a new policy that would determine when recipients could deliberate and vote on matters that would benefit their donor(s).

“I definitely would consider it now,” Beckman told TribLocal. “We have to bend over backwards to show we don’t want any kinds of conflict of interest.”

Again, some historical perspective may be appropriate. I wrote about the DGEA contribution to the Leadership for All 99 slate of Megan Schroeder, Paul McCarthy and Bob Lemke back in March 2009­—a post that received more than 100 comments from readers.

Later that month, in a forum at North High School, District 99 school board candidates were asked if they had accepted money from the DGEA and, if not, whether they would accept such a donation if offered.

Beckman was a candidate in that election, running against Boyle, so she clearly was aware of the issue at that time. However, never in her final two years as board president did she publicly raise concerns about candidates accepting contributions from the teachers’ union and administrators’ family members or suggest adding a policy to address such contributions.

In other matters, however, the board majority of Beckman, Schroeder, McCarthy and Terry Pavesich were quick to call dissenting members on their perceived conflicts.

We’ve already seen how in an effort to prohibit Boyle from voting on teachers’ collective bargaining contracts and benefits. But the previous board majority routinely raised conflict of interest concerns in an attempt to exercise control over other members.

In one notable instance, Lemke came under fire for his role as president of the Roadrunners soccer organization during the board’s renegotiation of its facility agreements with the Park Board. Lemke later resigned his position on the board, citing a “growing frustration over the school board’s processes.”

Never, however, did accepting donations from teachers or administrators enter into the board’s repeated discussions of conflicts of interest, despite its role in approving collective bargaining agreements and negotiating the contracts of individual administrators.

So why is it an issue now after half the board majority, Schroeder and McCarthy, declined to run for reelection last spring?

Only because it puts a fine point on the many potential conflicts of interest facing board members—not just those with a relative working in the district. Taken to an extreme, any board member with a child in the district has a potential conflict of interest every time they vote on an educational or extracurricular matter.

Bill White and Nancy Kupka, who comprise the board’s policy committee, have attempted to separate the employment issues that traditionally fall under a nepotism policy from the myriad of potential conflicts. A new conflict of interest policy has been proposed to address those.

In any case, nepotism and conflict of interest policies shouldn’t be used as a cudgel to subdue dissenting opinions or sideline unpopular members. Rather, the best policy may simply be for members to state any and all potential conflicts—even those that lie largely in the eye of the beholder.

And let the voters ultimately decide whether their interests—or those of a small subset—are being served.