School Board Election: Who I’m FOR (and Against) & WHY
While this hotly contested school board election has gone on for what seems like forever, the positive thing about it is that we have eight people who are interested in serving our school district. In the 20 years our family’s lived in this community, I don’t remember any school board election with so many people willing to volunteer for what most times is a thankless job and what all times carries with it a huge commitment of time and energy.
Though I disagree with the way our current board operates the business of our district, I do thank all of them and recognize that, in exchange for the title, they sacrifice a lot. I’ll also be the first to admit how easy it is to criticize someone without the benefit of walking in their shoes. That’s why it’s important to look at things from different perspectives and be open-minded when listening to the candidates, really HEAR what they’re saying.
I’d encourage those who haven’t voted yet to look at the candidates from an objective perspective, as if interviewing applicants for a job. Each member of our school board is hired to oversee the business of our school district. We (the voters) are the employer, and all candidates are the applicants.
If you’re the boss interviewing applicants for an important leadership position, what factors enter into the hiring decision? It’s probably things like educational background, training & experience, communication skills, references, and personal character traits.
It is the combination of all of the above that these four candidates won my support and vote: Colleen Schultz & Meghan Hennesy (the two “in township” positions) and Ken Keefe & Julie Cebulski (the two “out of township” positions).
I appreciate the time Lance Raver, Jenny Park, and Jeremy Henrichs have given to this community. They are all intelligent, likable, and sincere about wanting the best for their kids and the school district in general. I am not voting against them as people; but, rather, I am voting for the other candidates because I think that they will be the best candidates for the job.
Similarly, I’m certainly not against Jason Tompkins, as he’s a fine individual. As the daughter of a teacher and school superintendent, education is important to me. My husband and I have always been involved in supporting our children and their schools; like Jason and his wife, we, too, have volunteered extensively throughout the years. These positive character traits, however, do not equate to being the best candidate to serve on the school board.
Education / Experience / Background: Every candidate shines in this area and represents a wide variety of professions, and an argument could be made for each as to why his/her education and background would be a good fit for the district.
The education and background experiences of the candidates I’m FOR include two professional educators (SCHULTZ and CEBULSKI), one who is an economist and one who is a trained teacher but currently works as a liaison between kids and schools, teaching parents about their rights and how to advocate for their special needs children. SCHULTZ’s specialty is more than simple math and balancing a financial statement; rather, her training will assist the board by providing perspective, pushing the leadership to delve deeper and truly analyze how to best utilize the district’s unlimited “wants” in relation to its limited resources. CEBULSKI’s thorough knowledge of the law regarding every child’s right to an education will assist the board in assuring our district is responsibly providing that which is legally required. Moreover, at those times when decisions of administration are questioned and the board is required to formally review those decisions, Julie will assure that a sincere review will occur and an independent board decision will follow, rather than just a rubber-stamp approval of administration’s recommendations.
HENNESY, another candidate I’m FOR, has a master’s degree in business administration with work experience managing a business process consultant department focused on business efficiencies. It’s pretty extraordinary to have a candidate with this unique training because when you look at “Duties of the School Board” (Section 2:20 of the Board Manual on the District website), EVERY duty of the board is about process (adopting policies, employing personnel, approving budgets, providing adequate facilities, approving curriculum – and it goes on; there’s 19 processes listed). Meghan’s experience as the Chairman of the Board for Sangamon Valley Public Water District is also a positive as she’s proven herself in that role.
Last, but certainly not least, I’m FOR Ken KEEFE, whose undergrad degrees are in computer science and mathematics (so he, too, is good with numbers) with a master’s in computer science. He’s the last piece to the puzzle. His ability to know where to find data and then use technology to analyze it and communicate its meaning is priceless. The information he’s supplied during this election showcases his intellect and ability to examine all perspectives and arrive at well-reasoned conclusions. Ken serves on the M-S PTO Board and also the Illinois Statewide Foster Care Advisory Council; so, like Meghan, his exemplary performance in these positions demonstrate his understanding of the requirements and responsibilities that go along with serving on a public board and his ability to serve in an exemplary fashion.
The combined training and experience of these four candidates are what I believe will best serve our school district because even though the day-to-day functions of the district are left up to the professionals employed by the district (teachers, staff members, and administrators), the buck stops with the Board of Education. It’s expected that the board will have confidence that district employees will perform their duties in a professional manner; however, it’s incumbent upon the board to confirm that all day-to-day activities, decisions, and recommendations comport with what’s objectively best for the district as a whole.
Admittedly, arguments can also be made why a physician, real estate attorney, CPA, and manager of a sign company have training and experience that could also make good board members.
Communication: There’s been a lot written about each of the candidates in The Citizen and The Mahomet Daily. You can also find information about the candidates on Facebook. These are avenues to learn about each candidate’s message.
The March 12th Candidate Forum is the closest we have to an interview, and it was the only opportunity to see and hear all eight candidates. If you missed it, a recording is available:
Following the forum, nine categories of questions were provided to the eight candidates: bullying, foreign language, technology education, conflicts of interest, mental health, public comments, written goals, preparing students, and “when was the last time” (you were at a school); the candidates had over a week to answer the questions and return them for publication. This is presented in an easy-to-read fashion in that you can “click” on a topic and see what each candidate said.
This article containing individual answers in each candidate’s own words best illustrates WHY I’m FOR Colleen, Meghan, Ken, and Julie, for they each provided thoughtful, substantive answers compared to their opponents’ short, canned answers. (One of the incumbent’s failed to provide answers by the deadline.) This compilation is the best evidence to show who’s qualified to be school board members, who’s done the homework, and who has fresh ideas.
References: Of course, it’s a no-brainer that all formal references (endorsements) are going to be in favor of the person for whom they are promoting. To me, the only weight that should go into the endorsements are to separate the “fluff” from substantive information that would help to decide for or against a candidate. Are the statements general, “An accountant would be an asset to the board because there’s a lot of financial issues involved with running a school district,” or do the endorsements have examples of how the writer has witnessed the candidate’s positive contributions on other boards, at the schools, advocating for children and parents? When you break down the actual content of reference letters (or videos), that is where you assign value, by the proverbial separation of the wheat from the chaff.
How I suggest you look at the references are by evaluating the non-solicited references and seeing what endorsements the candidates endorse. To be clear, a candidate should not and cannot be accountable for either the veracity or the tone of any supporter’s public comments. That is, unless the candidate shares it. By sharing any type of endorsement or statement of support that the candidate knows is either inaccurate or meant to deceive, that candidate is demonstrating a lack of integrity.
Integrity, of course, is an important character trait all businesses are looking for in deciding who to hire to represent their business.
It was concerning to me when our school board president, a “public figure” used the “Max McComb: Mahomet-Seymour School Board President” page to endorse certain candidates. The giant red flag I see is that the candidates, while rightfully thankful of his support, have not asked him to change the manner in which he conveys his support.
It would have been easy to say, “Max, you can’t do this. It may be your personal page, but with the title and school logo, you’ve branded it in a way that isn’t 100% honest. People may see that and believe that it is an official endorsement by the school. To correct this and support us appropriately, simply remove these endorsements from that ‘president of the school board’ page and post them on your personal ‘Max McComb’ page – and just make those posts ‘public.’” Mission accomplished; support is shared honestly.
A voter should never vote against someone because of a candidate’s supporter sharing inaccurate or deceptive information because that would be unfair to any candidate. And while you may not like what people are saying, or the tone with which they speak, no one’s voice should be silenced. However, one may consider withholding a vote for a candidate who shares information that is inaccurate and/or designed to deceive.
Another example I’ve seen is a citizen posting the polished, professional picture of the slate of four candidates with his endorsement, applauding our school district/school board and stating “we are ranked #11 in the state of Illinois, … have built two new school buildings … without raising taxes.” His endorsement goes on to say, “We now have a group that wants [to]come in a [sic] destroy all of that. While they will not say it, they are desperately wanting to raise your property taxes.”
All of the candidates, including the slate of four supported in said endorsement, know that is not complete, factual information and, indeed, is intended to deceive. Any assertion for or against any school board candidate that has to do with property taxes is just plain wrong. The current school board can’t take credit for something (no tax increase) or assert that another school board may cause something (a tax increase) over which they have no control. While it’s true the four candidates I’m FOR have not stated anything about raising taxes, it’s also true that they haven’t implied it; and they are astute enough to know that if property taxes are to be raised, that would be a decision of VOTERS, not the school board.
The supporter’s statement about being #11 in the state could be an honest mistake because it’s been stated in this campaign that M-S ranks 11th in the state as far as SAT scores. All candidates would know a blanket statement that M-S is ranked 11th with no further information is inaccurate, incomplete information.
Any candidate sharing this endorsement as posted illustrates his/her willingness to be less-than-honest and try to fool voters into voting for him/her.
Not that I’m a political consultant or anything; but if I were voting for these people, I would sure get in touch with them and let them know that they are missing an opportunity to rise up and demonstrate that their integrity is above reproach. Imagine how powerful it would have been, instead of immediately hitting “share” and spreading mistruths, to have instead contacted the author of the erroneous post, educated the person about the truth, and helped to correct that which is wrong about it before it could be shared any further? That would be an action demanding respect.
John McCain exemplified this in the famous town hall meeting where someone made disparaging remarks about Barack Obama. John McCain stopped her in her tracks and kindly, but firmly, corrected her. That speaks volumes about character, and that’s the type of character trait I’m looking for in my elected officials.
Back to our interview, as an employer (voter) running a reputable business (M-S School District), I wouldn’t tolerate current employees’ less-than-honest dealings (again, that’s for the next election), nor would I hire someone whose honesty was questionable. The candidates’ adoption and sharing of deceptive/inaccurate endorsements weighs heavily in the decision against “hiring” these “applicants.”
Experience: At first blush, since three of the slate candidates are current board members, or incumbents, you might think that’s in their favor. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Therein lies the problem: It’s broke.
One word has popped up repeatedly in this election: transparency.
The Open Meetings Act, is a law enacted requiring public bodies (such as a school board) to provide notice of meetings, open discussion at meetings, and a verbatim record of these discussions so that anyone unable to attend will have access to the public discussion. One of the purposes of the Act is transparency; it’s a form of accountability/checks and balances, designed to protect the people represented by said public body by enabling them to witness and engage in discussion.
While there are topics that can be discussed in closed session, such as personnel issues and real estate purchases, what has been interesting to see is that even mundane topics garner little to no discussion among board members.
In the last few months as the election has approached, there appears to be effort to add some discussion. Indeed, less than a month ago came the announcement of a new initiative to seek community engagement.
Now THAT is transparent.
What’s equally interesting yet hard to understand is that despite the lengthy precedent of little to no public discussion at board meetings, all board votes have been unanimous.
Another area in which the incumbents’ experience on the board works against them has to do with how they’ve handled disputed matters coming to their attention for review.
One such example culminated earlier this year with the board approving a $54,000 settlement in Federal Case Number 18-3166. There was never any public discussion surrounding the circumstances that led to that settlement.
The board often hides behind the shield of confidentiality; they can’t talk about something publicly because it involves personnel or a student. Indeed, confidentiality must be protected; and, therefore, neither a name nor facts that would identify a person should be disclosed. However, if it chose, the board could certainly share with district families basic circumstances surrounding the topic at hand.
Fortunately, our court system, like public bodies, operates on transparency. With a few exceptions, court proceedings occur “in open court” where any citizen can observe. Likewise, the case file is “open.” There may be redactions or names designated with initials to protect a minor, but anyone can look up court cases to see what’s going on.
January’s $54,000 settlement was the result of a second lawsuit a family had to pursue on behalf of their child because the district wasn’t acting in accordance with the law. It involved a special-needs child and the district not fulfilling its legal educational responsibilities. After advocating for their child at all district levels (which always ends with school board review) and the district failing at all levels to uphold its responsibilities, the family was forced to seek legal remedy. Both sides agreed to mediation, which is a more economical and time-efficient way to resolve a lawsuit short of a formal trial at the courthouse. By entering into this type of agreement to have an independent hearing officer resolve the case, both sides agree to be bound by the decision, and the side losing pays the prevailing party’s attorney’s fees. In this case, the independent hearing officer found in favor of the parents on all allegations. Then the district contested the parents’ attorney’s fees, forcing the parents to file the second lawsuit to collect those fees, which ended with the $54,000 settlement agreement.
It’s hard to imagine the stress and emotional toll on this family having to invest so much time, energy, and effort to receive from our school district that to which all students in our district are entitled.
Moving forward, with her knowledge about students’ rights, experience educating families about these rights, and helping families advocate for children involving complicated educational issues such as this, Julie Cebulski will be a huge asset to her colleagues on the board insofar as appropriately navigating tough situations like this and preventing their escalation to the level of a lawsuit.
Less than a year prior to this $54,000 settlement, the district paid well over $200,000 (a $150,000 buyout, plus an 18-month payment of employee benefits, plus the district’s own legal fees) when they parted ways with Lincoln Trail’s Assistant Principal Courtney Porter in 2018.
While the specific circumstances surrounding Assistant Principal Porter’s situation are unknown, it’s evident that the taxpayers lost; and from all accounts, the students also lost an advocate they loved and respected. Instead of consenting to her “reassignment” to the classroom, Ms. Porter chose to exercise her legal right to contest the reassignment as outlined in the Illinois School Code.
It seems the district “played poker” with Courtney, had a horrible hand, but bid high anyway; and Courtney called their bluff. The school is really lucky she didn’t “see their bid and raise the stakes” because if this would have proceeded to a full-blown lawsuit, the cost to the district could have been exponentially greater.
Again, it makes my heart hurt to think about the pain and humiliation Courtney Porter suffered from the actions of our school district.
How the district/school board treats its students and staff members speaks volumes about its character.
From a risk management perspective, the school board’s improper decision-making involving dispute resolutions leave the district vulnerable.
Throughout the campaign, there’s been much discussion about fiscal responsibility, debating whether the district is or is not fiscally responsible. Again, an argument can be made (and has been made) for both sides. It’s up to each voter to decide which point of view you’re “buying.”
The candidates I’m supporting have more of the Dave Ramsey approach that less debt (and, therefore, less interest paid) is preferable.
However, I can totally relate to the slate’s perspective. There have been lots of times in my life when I’ve wanted “stuff” and didn’t have the cash on hand, but I had lots of available credit; so I got what I wanted when I wanted it.
It’s not like the district has over $37 million of debt with nothing to show for it. We have one beautiful new facility and other adequate facilities. There’s sufficient revenue coming in to make our payments timely and, furthermore, a plan is in place to pay off the “mortgage” (which really isn’t a mortgage, and I’m hoping they know that) within “x” amount of years.
That’s no different than what I’ve done in the past carrying balances on credit cards, responsibly making monthly payments, and earmarking future expected extra income to pay off the balance. Then, once I’d returned to a zero card balance, I’d try not to think about the interest paid using those cards and all the “stuff” that that money could have purchased.
The difference, though, is that those times I had credit card debt I still had the money to go about my day-to-day activities without sacrifice. My household bills were current. I had discretionary cash on hand and could still get as many Polar Pops a day as I wanted.
My issue with the school district’s debt is that while we have a shiny new facility, our teachers are limited in the number of pages they can print each month (and it’s a low number). That is unacceptable!
And I get that there are “buckets” of money that must be spent appropriately without commingling. I get that the countywide sales tax can only go toward facilities. As far as that’s concerned, though, it doesn’t have to be spent on building new facilities. It could be used for remodeling, adding onto existing facilities, or repairing facilities such as the fieldhouse.
But with a financial expert on the school board, one who knows more about finances than any of the other candidates (as stated by him at the forum on March 12th), it’s hard to believe that he can’t assist his colleagues on the board and show them how to budget in a way that would not sabotage the teachers so ridiculously by limiting their printing privileges. And if getting what you want when you want it means sacrificing basic necessities, I’d submit you aren’t being fiscally responsible
This is another reason I am voting for Colleen Schultz. As an economist, she understands the balance between needs and wants and can help clarify opportunity costs. With her “kids and teachers first” priority, she’ll advocate that no opportunity cost will result in depriving teachers of the most basic tools needed to provide students the education they deserve.
This campaign has FINALLY come to an end. Of the eight candidates, four of them will soon be the newly elected school board members, officially seated at the next regular meeting on April 15th; and four won’t.
Win or lose, I am PROUD of the four candidates I’m FOR. They’ve run a clean campaign and have communicated consistently, thoroughly, and transparently. Regardless of whether they are officially on the school board, I know they will continue to do what they’ve done for years: Proactively be involved in schools, putting kids and teachers first, and selflessly contributing to the betterment of everyone in our school district.
Whatever seven people comprise our board come April 15th, I hope they take their experiences in this campaign, having listened and learned, to collectively work together to be a school board for which we are all proud, where all people comprising our district have a voice and the majority interests of all are represented, never resting on the fact that our district is good but, rather, recognizing that we can always be better.
-Lisa Cosimini
