|
|
Post by sashimi on Apr 1, 2009 8:30:17 GMT -6
I do not agree with George's conclusions, but I have to say I respect the way he has communicated his opinion. No intentional lies or attempt to pit areas of the district against each other.
I actually think that the endoresements from the slate of four came about out of the complete disgust and lack of transparency that the current administration has demonstrated towards the teachers, and that they wanted new blood on the board to bring about change. I do not buy the arguments that for $40,000 they will own these four candidates, or that they have secret agendas to give teachers ridiculous pay raises.
The only one comment I will make is that I thought PTA stood for Parent Teachers Association. I am surprised that PTA leader after PTA leader is so vocal against the teachers in 204.
|
|
|
|
Post by vote040709 on Apr 1, 2009 8:43:11 GMT -6
By that logic, any candidate who takes even one cent owes someone something... I don't buy it either, that's why they are called 'donations'. Some of our now ocal PTSA officers lay down heavy contributions for one person for certain other people in public office around here ( all public record)- should we be looking at what they're getting in return also ? By your account- absolutely - where do you want to start ? But those PTSA officers are not using PTA money to contribute. If they are making individual donations to a candidates of their choice, there is no violation. Those same PTSA officers can also put signs in their yards, help distribute materials, etc. because they are individual citizens and voters, first and foremost. No matter how you want to spin it, Vickers and any other PTA president/officer has the right to voice his opinion or, in this case, distribute factual information, as a private citizen. One does not lose that right simply because they are a PTA president/officer. Non partisan policy as it relates to School Boards "Any group activity in support of a specific candidate, or group of candidates, on the part of the local unit, council, district, or state branch is a violoation of the nonpartisan policy of the National PTA. There is no correlation between the nonpartisan policy of the National PTA and privileges and responsibiilties of its members s as citizents in a democracy. The Illinois PTA encourages each member as an individual to accept his/her privileges as a citizen and to discharge the accompanying responsibilities. Citizenship offers individual choice." - from IL PTA Statements of Policy By this account, GV is 1) not supporting any candidate or group of candidates and 2) not doing so on behalf of his local unit, council, district, or state branch. However, the last sentence of this statement is the key here. No one loses their rights as a citizen simply because they are a PTA member or even officer. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 1, 2009 9:58:45 GMT -6
But those PTSA officers are not using PTA money to contribute. If they are making individual donations to a candidates of their choice, there is no violation. Those same PTSA officers can also put signs in their yards, help distribute materials, etc. because they are individual citizens and voters, first and foremost. No matter how you want to spin it, Vickers and any other PTA president/officer has the right to voice his opinion or, in this case, distribute factual information, as a private citizen. One does not lose that right simply because they are a PTA president/officer. Non partisan policy as it relates to School Boards "Any group activity in support of a specific candidate, or group of candidates, on the part of the local unit, council, district, or state branch is a violoation of the nonpartisan policy of the National PTA. There is no correlation between the nonpartisan policy of the National PTA and privileges and responsibiilties of its members s as citizents in a democracy. The Illinois PTA encourages each member as an individual to accept his/her privileges as a citizen and to discharge the accompanying responsibilities. Citizenship offers individual choice." - from IL PTA Statements of Policy By this account, GV is 1) not supporting any candidate or group of candidates and 2) not doing so on behalf of his local unit, council, district, or state branch. However, the last sentence of this statement is the key here. No one loses their rights as a citizen simply because they are a PTA member or even officer. As many know, I'm a big proponent of PTA individuals being able to speak as individuals. However, this note does cause several problems. First, there is an assumption that the union - who ARE our teachers - have some underlying purpose that is strictly for their personal monetary gain. I think that assumption is faulty, and dangerous to make. I thik Sashimi is corect in his assumption that the teachers have grown weary of the current admin. Second, I think the anti teachers union tone wll damage the IPPA PTA's relationship with the teachers. I'd be interested to see what the teachers say about this, I can't believe they are happy. |
|
|
|
Post by vote040709 on Apr 1, 2009 10:22:17 GMT -6
I do not agree with George's conclusions, but I have to say I respect the way he has communicated his opinion. No intentional lies or attempt to pit areas of the district against each other. I actually think that the endoresements from the slate of four came about out of the complete disgust and lack of transparency that the current administration has demonstrated towards the teachers, and that they wanted new blood on the board to bring about change. I do not buy the arguments that for $40,000 they will own these four candidates, or that they have secret agendas to give teachers ridiculous pay raises. The only one comment I will make is that I thought PTA stood for Parent Teachers Association. I am surprised that PTA leader after PTA leader is so vocal against the teachers in 204. I had made a comment previously about this, but apparently deleted it in an attempt to modify it.  I'll attempt to restate it. I don't think that PTA leadership has anything the teachers themselves. In fact, most of the PTA leadership have been some of the most supportive of teachers and appreciate what they do on a daily basis. The question lies in what the union leadership is doing. In some of my conversations, there is some disagreement on who the union leadership has endorsed vs. who these teachers plan to support. I think there are two completely different groups here - union leadership and teachers in general. I don't know the inner workings of those relationships, so I won't presume to know how they feel as a group regarding the endorsement. I think what is the way the unions made their donations to this to this group. Of course, they are allowed to donated monies to campaigns, but why do so under this guise of another agency? For a group that is running on a platform of transparency, it is rather ironic that the unions are being somewhat "secret" with their large contribution. IIRC, these 4 candidates also stated that they had received no money from the teacher's union. Technically, they were being truthful, I suppose, but again, is this the transparency we can expect going forward? Also, their endorsement might be questioned simply because, as GV points out, the wife of one of the candidates was an officer of that union. That might be seen as a conflict of interest to some voters. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 1, 2009 10:46:17 GMT -6
Some of our now ocal PTSA officers lay down heavy contributions for one person for certain other people in public office around here ( all public record)- should we be looking at what they're getting in return also ? By your account- absolutely - where do you want to start ? But those PTSA officers are not using PTA money to contribute. If they are making individual donations to a candidates of their choice, there is no violation. Those same PTSA officers can also put signs in their yards, help distribute materials, etc. because they are individual citizens and voters, first and foremost. No matter how you want to spin it, Vickers and any other PTA president/officer has the right to voice his opinion or, in this case, distribute factual information, as a private citizen. One does not lose that right simply because they are a PTA president/officer. Non partisan policy as it relates to School Boards "Any group activity in support of a specific candidate, or group of candidates, on the part of the local unit, council, district, or state branch is a violoation of the nonpartisan policy of the National PTA. There is no correlation between the nonpartisan policy of the National PTA and privileges and responsibiilties of its members s as citizents in a democracy. The Illinois PTA encourages each member as an individual to accept his/her privileges as a citizen and to discharge the accompanying responsibilities. Citizenship offers individual choice." - from IL PTA Statements of Policy By this account, GV is 1) not supporting any candidate or group of candidates and 2) not doing so on behalf of his local unit, council, district, or state branch. However, the last sentence of this statement is the key here. No one loses their rights as a citizen simply because they are a PTA member or even officer. again - as you seem to point out for the slate but not here- technically you are correct - but 'spirit ' of the intent. Am I supposed to believe that every PTSA officer at MVHS can feel strongly about who should be in and why, and rip others ( being supported by parents that will go to MV also ) in such a negative way and will just be able to turn that off at the door if it doesn't go their way, or even if it does, That's quite a leap of faith - and not one that I or many other can make. Just because it is not on letterhead doesn't mean the nasty things said don't apply to the same people when they put their PTSA hats on. Also yes, they have the right to contribute to other peoples campaigns - but the comment made was because the teachers union contributed they MUST be getting something in return - well as a private citizen if one contributes - and lets say owns their own business here - or involved in say - real estate - should they expect rulings favorable to them in return also ? Can't have it both says. Either way I would like to think that person receiving the contribution owes nothing to the contributor. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 1, 2009 10:47:34 GMT -6
But those PTSA officers are not using PTA money to contribute. If they are making individual donations to a candidates of their choice, there is no violation. Those same PTSA officers can also put signs in their yards, help distribute materials, etc. because they are individual citizens and voters, first and foremost. No matter how you want to spin it, Vickers and any other PTA president/officer has the right to voice his opinion or, in this case, distribute factual information, as a private citizen. One does not lose that right simply because they are a PTA president/officer. Non partisan policy as it relates to School Boards "Any group activity in support of a specific candidate, or group of candidates, on the part of the local unit, council, district, or state branch is a violoation of the nonpartisan policy of the National PTA. There is no correlation between the nonpartisan policy of the National PTA and privileges and responsibiilties of its members s as citizents in a democracy. The Illinois PTA encourages each member as an individual to accept his/her privileges as a citizen and to discharge the accompanying responsibilities. Citizenship offers individual choice." - from IL PTA Statements of Policy By this account, GV is 1) not supporting any candidate or group of candidates and 2) not doing so on behalf of his local unit, council, district, or state branch. However, the last sentence of this statement is the key here. No one loses their rights as a citizen simply because they are a PTA member or even officer. As many know, I'm a big proponent of PTA individuals being able to speak as individuals. However, this note does cause several problems. First, there is an assumption that the union - who ARE our teachers - have some underlying purpose that is strictly for their personal monetary gain. I think that assumption is faulty, and dangerous to make. I thik Sashimi is corect in his assumption that the teachers have grown weary of the current admin. Second, I think the anti teachers union tone wll damage the IPPA PTA's relationship with the teachers. I'd be interested to see what the teachers say about this, I can't believe they are happy. maybe they should form a new organization the PAA Parent- Admin Association. |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Apr 1, 2009 12:07:19 GMT -6
..... I actually think that the endoresements from the slate of four came about out of the complete disgust and lack of transparency that the current administration has demonstrated towards the teachers, and that they wanted new blood on the board to bring about change. sashimi, I am not aware of reasons for the teachers being at odds with the current administration. Could somebody please summarize the issues the teachers may have with the administration? My initial thinking on this: the current admin successfully landed the teachers more jobs, more work with the all-day K initiative. |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Apr 1, 2009 12:18:50 GMT -6
...... As many know, I'm a big proponent of PTA individuals being able to speak as individuals. However, this note does cause several problems. ...... Second, I think the anti teachers union tone wll damage the IPPA PTA's relationship with the teachers. I'd be interested to see what the teachers say about this, I can't believe they are happy. As I read and re-read the email, I honestly do not catch a anti-teacher-union tone. I, too, was looking for some perhaps "cartoonish union bashing" in this letter, but i really dont see that. GV is presenting factual information. He even directly states that while he personally sees conflict of interest, others involved do not. Tone is a matter of opinion, and this is my opinion on this. FWIW, I did not immediately connect this email with any PTA involvement. There is no way a reader could contrue "PTA involvement" with this email, IMHO. GV correctly does not use PTA as a title or anything at all. |
|
|
|
Post by vote040709 on Apr 1, 2009 12:23:14 GMT -6
But those PTSA officers are not using PTA money to contribute. If they are making individual donations to a candidates of their choice, there is no violation. Those same PTSA officers can also put signs in their yards, help distribute materials, etc. because they are individual citizens and voters, first and foremost. No matter how you want to spin it, Vickers and any other PTA president/officer has the right to voice his opinion or, in this case, distribute factual information, as a private citizen. One does not lose that right simply because they are a PTA president/officer. Non partisan policy as it relates to School Boards "Any group activity in support of a specific candidate, or group of candidates, on the part of the local unit, council, district, or state branch is a violoation of the nonpartisan policy of the National PTA. There is no correlation between the nonpartisan policy of the National PTA and privileges and responsibiilties of its members s as citizents in a democracy. The Illinois PTA encourages each member as an individual to accept his/her privileges as a citizen and to discharge the accompanying responsibilities. Citizenship offers individual choice." - from IL PTA Statements of Policy By this account, GV is 1) not supporting any candidate or group of candidates and 2) not doing so on behalf of his local unit, council, district, or state branch. However, the last sentence of this statement is the key here. No one loses their rights as a citizen simply because they are a PTA member or even officer. again - as you seem to point out for the slate but not here- technically you are correct - but 'spirit ' of the intent. Am I supposed to believe that every PTSA officer at MVHS can feel strongly about who should be in and why, and rip others ( being supported by parents that will go to MV also ) in such a negative way and will just be able to turn that off at the door if it doesn't go their way, or even if it does, That's quite a leap of faith - and not one that I or many other can make. Just because it is not on letterhead doesn't mean the nasty things said don't apply to the same people when they put their PTSA hats on. Also yes, they have the right to contribute to other peoples campaigns - but the comment made was because the teachers union contributed they MUST be getting something in return - well as a private citizen if one contributes - and lets say owns their own business here - or involved in say - real estate - should they expect rulings favorable to them in return also ? Can't have it both says. Either way I would like to think that person receiving the contribution owes nothing to the contributor. I agree it is difficult to check one's own emotions at the door when they walk into a PTA meeting as an officer and put on the PTA hat instead of private citizen hat. There are some that probably even violate some of those rules because they are new to the office/PTSA or simply haven't taken the time to know if there is a distinction. This is why any topics related to the election (any election for that matter) should not become a topic for discussion during or at a PTA meeting. If they are in violation of those rules, it will often be pointed out by some of the more seasoned veterans within PTA. In the MVHS example, you have some very seasoned veterans who have been involved with PTA for years and know the distinction. I also agree that just because someone contributes to a campaign, either monetarily or volunteers time, that does not make that person indebted to the contributor. Both parties should know that going in. If one party expects something from their contribution, that is nothing short of a bribe, IMO. So, again, this comes back to the transparency, or lack thereof, of this donation. If they do not expect anything in return, but are simply supporting these candidates because they align themselves with their beliefs and platform, especially one of transparency, then why not make the donation from the unions themselves instead of some front organization like CCAN? That's what I find puzzling. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Apr 1, 2009 12:41:40 GMT -6
This was posted by WVHSParent on Green: This is an email that came directly from George Vickers.
I am posting it as an FYI only.
Dear Friends and Neighbors in the Indian Prairie School District,
The following mesage contains information about a new political action committee that has taken an active interest in the upcoming Indian Prairie School District #204 Board of Education campaign and election. That committee is called the Civic Coalition of Aurora and Naperville.
For those that prefer the short and sweet version, the Civic Coalition of Aurora and Naperville is funded by the 204 teachers' and staff unions with nearly $40,000.00. The Civic Coalition is using the union funds to launch an active campaign for candidates Eric Hepburn, Don Moscato, Doug DiFusco and Jerry Huang who are running as a slate called the 204 Taxpayers for Excellence. If elected to the school board, these individuals will be in the position to vote to approve the contracts with both of these unions during their term in office. The 204 teachers' and staff unions have also publicly endorsed these candidates for school board, and Doug DiFusco's wife is the former vice president of the teachers' union, who stepped down from that position when Doug began his campaign; although, she is still a teacher in the school district.
In my opinion, the relationships between the unions and candidates represent a conflict of interest if Eric Hepburn, Don Moscato, Doug DiFusco or Jerry Huang are elected. I believe the unions are using the Civic Coalition of Aurora and Naperville to hide their actions and collaboration with the 204 Taxpayers for Excellence. I personally question the ethics of such behavior. Ironically, these four candidates are campaigning on a platform that includes transparency as one of its key messages.
Based on the facts, I strongly discourage you from voting for Eric Hepburn, Don Moscato, Doug DiFusco or Jerry Huang for the Indian Prairie School District #204 Board of Education.
Regardless if you follow my advice, I strongly encourage you to vote on April 7th, 2009!
If you are so inclined, please forward this message to your friends and neighbors!
For those that prefer to review more of the details, and investigate this matter themselves prior to making their own conclusion, I have outlined more of the specifics below, attached several documents, and provided links to the various websites that contain further information.
- The Civic Coalition of Aurora and Naperville filed a statement of organization with the Illinois State Board of Elections on 3/2/09 (see attachement CCAN D-1 20090302.PDF) which was amended on 3/19/09 (see attachment CCAN D-1 20090319.PDF).
- The Civic Coalition reported a donation of $32,450.00 from the Indian Prairie Education Association (204 teacher's union) on 3/19/09 (see attachment CCAN A-1 20090319.PDF).
- The Civic Coalition reported a donation of $5,000.00 from the Indian Prairie Classified Association (204 staff's union) on 3/24/09 (see attachment CCAN A-1 20090324.PDF).
- These attached documents can be accessed from the Illinois State Board of Elections website (see www.elections.state.il.us/CampaignDisclosure/CommitteeSearch.aspx) by searching on "Civic Coalition".
- The Civic Coalition endorses candidates Eric Hepburn, Don Moscato, Doug DiFusco and Jerry Huang from the 204 Taxpayers for Excellence for school board (see www.civiccoalition.org/ and www.204taxpayers.org/index.php/endorsements).
- Both the Indian Prairie Education Association and the Indian Prairie Classified Association have endorsed Eric Hepburn, Don Moscato, Doug DiFusco and Jerry Huang. from the 204 Taxpayers for Excellence for school board (see www.ieanea.org/local/ipca/ and www.204taxpayers.org/index.php/endorsements).
- Doug DiFusco's wife, Kerry, was the vice president of the Indian Prairie Education Association who resigned from that position just prior to Doug announcing his candidacy for school board; however, she remains a teacher in the district. This is not a violation of the school board's conflict of interest policy (see board.ipsd.org/Uploads/Policies/240.pdf) as she was a teacher in the district before he would become a member of the school board. However, she could not become a teacher in the district if he were already a member of the school board.
- The Civic Coalition is using the union donations to send multiple mailings throughout the school district in an effort to campaign for Eric Hepburn, Don Moscato, Doug DiFusco and Jerry Huang (see attachments CCAN Mail Front1.JPG, CCAN Mail Back1.JPG, CCAN Mail Front2.JPG and CCAN Mail Back2.JPG).
- I sent an email to Valerie Dranias, president of the Indian Prairie Education Association, to enquire about this situation and she replied for me to call her at her office. When we spoke the next day, she asked me what I was going to do with this information, and I responded that I did not know until after I spoke with her. When I asked her about the union's donation to the Civic Coalition, she acknowledged it. When I asked her about the Civic Coalition campaigning for Eric Hepburn, Don Moscato, Doug DiFusco and Jerry Huang, she admitted that this was part of their objective. I asked her if she felt this created a conflict of interest or an improper ethical situation for the candidates or the union, and she said no. I told her that I felt it created both issues. We ended the conversation by agreeing to disagree on this matter.
- I also sent an email to Beth Sullivan, treasurer of the Civic Coalition, for a comment about their current and future objectives, but I have not received a reply.
Once again, I strongly discourage you from voting for Eric Hepburn, Don Moscato, Doug DiFusco or Jerry Huang for the Indian Prairie School District #204 Board of Education.
However, I strongly encourage you to vote on April 7th, 2009!
Please forward this message to your friends and neighbors, and do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.
Best Regards,
George VickersOk. So where does that leave us? Seriously. If you truly want change in this district who should you vote for? Regardless of what GV tried to imply, I am absolutely voting for Eric Hepburn and Jerry Huang. IMO they are intelligent and logical free-thinkers who will bring a lot to the SB. So right away GV denouncing 2 of the best candidates in the election lost his point on me. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 1, 2009 12:53:45 GMT -6
I also agree that just because someone contributes to a campaign, either monetarily or volunteers time, that does not make that person indebted to the contributor. Both parties should know that going in. If one party expects something from their contribution, that is nothing short of a bribe, IMO. So, again, this comes back to the transparency, or lack thereof, of this donation. If they do not expect anything in return, but are simply supporting these candidates because they align themselves with their beliefs and platform, especially one of transparency, then why not make the donation from the unions themselves instead of some front organization like CCAN? That's what I find puzzling. Sounds like a question of the motives of the donators, not the recipients. What did they tell you was their reason? |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 1, 2009 12:56:07 GMT -6
...... As many know, I'm a big proponent of PTA individuals being able to speak as individuals. However, this note does cause several problems. ...... Second, I think the anti teachers union tone wll damage the IPPA PTA's relationship with the teachers. I'd be interested to see what the teachers say about this, I can't believe they are happy. As I read and re-read the email, I honestly do not catch a anti-teacher-union tone. I, too, was looking for some perhaps "cartoonish union bashing" in this letter, but i really dont see that. GV is presenting factual information. He even directly states that while he personally sees conflict of interest, others involved do not. Tone is a matter of opinion, and this is my opinion on this. FWIW, I did not immediately connect this email with any PTA involvement. There is no way a reader could contrue "PTA involvement" with this email, IMHO. GV correctly does not use PTA as a title or anything at all. GD, it's not important if you connect this email with PTA involvement. It is important if the T part of P TA does. And they have. My question is, what has this done to the relationship between the teachers and the IPPA PTA. It hasn't helped. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 1, 2009 13:36:30 GMT -6
Ok. So where does that leave us? Seriously. If you truly want change in this district who should you vote for? Regardless of what GV tried to imply, I am absolutely voting for Eric Hepburn and Jerry Huang. IMO they are intelligent and logical free-thinkers who will bring a lot to the SB. So right away GV denouncing 2 of the best candidates in the election lost his point on me. What I'm finding ironic - and a bit wierd - is that the CFO / Vote No crowd from 2006 would lead us down the path which could lead to the election of a board highly supportive of / controllable by Mark Metzger, a person they clearly disdained in 2006. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Apr 1, 2009 17:21:20 GMT -6
Ok. So where does that leave us? Seriously. If you truly want change in this district who should you vote for? Regardless of what GV tried to imply, I am absolutely voting for Eric Hepburn and Jerry Huang. IMO they are intelligent and logical free-thinkers who will bring a lot to the SB. So right away GV denouncing 2 of the best candidates in the election lost his point on me. What I'm finding ironic - and a bit wierd - is that the CFO / Vote No crowd from 2006 would lead us down the path which could lead to the election of a board highly supportive of / controllable by Mark Metzger, a person they clearly disdained in 2006. I was thinking the EXACT same thing. How odd. Maybe he wouldn't have as much to complain about otherwise. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Apr 1, 2009 18:37:14 GMT -6
I do not agree with George's conclusions, but I have to say I respect the way he has communicated his opinion. No intentional lies or attempt to pit areas of the district against each other. I actually think that the endoresements from the slate of four came about out of the complete disgust and lack of transparency that the current administration has demonstrated towards the teachers, and that they wanted new blood on the board to bring about change. I do not buy the arguments that for $40,000 they will own these four candidates, or that they have secret agendas to give teachers ridiculous pay raises. The only one comment I will make is that I thought PTA stood for Parent Teachers Association. I am surprised that PTA leader after PTA leader is so vocal against the teachers in 204. I completely agree with you but unfortunately D204 administration condones this behavior and seems to thrive upon it when convenient. |
|
I'll attempt to restate it.