A Miscellany
<b>A Complex School Board Conflict Situation</b><br>
Should someone closely associated with an organization that has been awarded a sizeable preschool contract be prevented from sitting on a school board when the
contract was not with the school board? That is
one of the questions raised by <a href="http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Bridgeport-ed-board-member-denies-c…; target="”_blank”">an
article this week in the Connecticut <i>Post</i></a>. The Bridgeport, CT school
board member, a minister, was originally appointed by the state,
but is running to retain his seat on a new, elected board. His
opponents are questioning the propriety of his sitting on the
board.<br>
<br>
A church program run by the minister's mother and sister is
getting 60 of the 130 new preschool slots awarded by the state to the district,
which means about $500,000 in revenue. The school district is
itself getting 40 slots. The slots are awarded based on strict
state criteria. Availability is the most important criterion, and
the church organization appears to have had the most available
places and sufficient staff.<br>
<br>
On the basis of its places and staff, the school district only
requested 40 slots. The problem is that, despite strict criteria,
the school board member could be perceived as limiting the school
district's request in order to allow his organization to get more
slots. The question is whether withdrawal from anything to do with
the school district's preschool program would be sufficient to
correct this possible perception. I think it would.<br>
<br>
But it should be kept in mind that, just because a contract does not
come from a school district or government, when the school district
or government is involved in the matter (as here, where it is
competing with the contractor), there is a conflict situation that
must be dealt with openly and responsibly.<br>
<br>
<b>Shadow Campaigns and Independent Expenditure Disclosure</b><br>
How serious is a shadow campaign like the one that has been
unearthed in the District of Columbia? According to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/eugenia-clarke-harris-guilty_n…; target="”_blank”">a Huffington Post</a>, the owner of the company with
the largest D.C. contract "funneled $653,000 in illicit funds
through a public relations firm that was spent on campaign
materials, consultants, supplies and other expenses."<br>
<br>
The
U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case said, "On the outside, the shadow
campaign looked like any other. What made this shadow campaign
sinister was how it was paid for. D.C. voters had no idea who was
influencing them at the ballot box."<br>
<br>
In other words, the contractor could have set up an independent
expenditure committee to influence the election, but it wouldn't
have looked good for a contractor to do such a thing. Doing this openly might
have even hurt the mayor's campaign.<br>
<br>
The campaign finance
laws involved are really about disclosure of independent contributions, the very
problem that is being hotly debated in Congress. That is,
Republicans want to make such shadow campaigns perfectly legal, as
long as they involve the secret funneling of money through a nonprofit rather than a
public relations firm. And all in the name of free speech (as
opposed to informed voting).<br>
<br>
Informed voting may not be expressly stated in the Constitution, but it is clear from what the Founding Fathers wrote that an informed electorate was extremely important to them. Considering how important transparency is to citizen participation in government, I think that informed voting should be given at least equal weight. The key is to focus on regime values, that is, the values on which our democracy was founded and on which it operates.<br>
<br>
<b>Nonprofits with Conflicts: The Good and the Bad</b><br>
According to <a href="http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2012/jul/25/gainesville-supervisor-pres…; target="”_blank”">an
article this week on the insidenova.com website</a>, this spring
the Prince William County (VA) Board of Supervisors eliminated discretionary spending by county supervisors on nonprofits. The
impetus for this ethics reform came from a supervisor's "initial
desire" to spend $100,000 of his discretionary funds on his
wife’s nonprofit. Instead, he chose not to do this, and proposed
that no supervisor be allowed to do this. This is a remarkable
thing: not only to recognize that one's personal preference was wrong, but
to raise the issue with one's board and convince its members to
go through the same thinking process. And it worked.<br>
<br>
Well, not completely. The article also notes that the annual carryover budget, where the board reallocates funding
left over from the previous fiscal year, includes a funding
request from a nonprofit on whose board a supervisor's wife
sits. According to the comments to the article, when this
came out, despite the fact that it would not be illegal (only
the use of discretionary funds is), the nonprofit suddenly
removed the list of its directors from its website.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---