Home / Blogs / Jane Grover's blog / District 65 should welcome, not discourage, public scrutiny
District 65 should welcome, not discourage, public scrutiny
The March 17 meeting of the District 65 Board of Education calls into question District 65's commitment to transparency and accountability. We were appalled by Board President Mary Erickson's public scolding of members of the community who filed proper requests pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), dismissing those requests because, in her opinion, the "information doesn't amount to anything new and exciting". Ms. Erickson’s suggestion that recent FOIA requests were somehow an "abuse" of the process reflects either ignorance of the law and its purpose, or hostility toward that law's mandate for open government. District 65 is a public entity, spending public dollars, whose records must be open to public scrutiny. FOIA states:
. . . . [A]ll persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and policies of those who represent them as public officials and public employees consistent with the terms of this Act. Such access is necessary to enable the people to fulfill their duties of discussing public issues fully and freely, making informed political judgments and monitoring government to ensure that it is being conducted in the public interest.
The FOIA requests Ms. Erickson found so burdensome were not fishing expeditions – they were drafted with careful deliberation and sought information directly relevant to pending Board decisions about the school calendar and the accelerated geometry program.
As part of the discussion about the school calendar and adding more professional development time to the school calendar, the FOIA requests sought information showing teacher attendance at the non-mandatory, District 65 professional development opportunities, the impact of short attendance days on the District’s hourly employees, what the District 65 Administration knows about the length of other school districts’ schools days and school years, and what information the District relied upon to draft the calendar.
As to District 65’s accelerated math program, the FOIA requests sought information about enrollment in the program, performance of students in the program, the qualifications and compensation for teachers in the program, agreements between the two school districts for funding, transportation and scheduling of the program, and the results of a parent survey about the program.
Ms. Erickson's remarks at the Board meeting were clearly intended to discourage further lawful requests pursuant to FOIA. That's a sure way to invite even more FOIA requests.
There are two simple steps that could relieve District 65 of the FOIA burden about which Ms. Erickson complains.
First, the District Administration could choose transparency – voluntarily and informally providing complete and unbiased information to the community – so that the formal procedures of FOIA don't need to be employed.
More important, the members of the Board of Education could insist that the Administration provide them with all relevant information for their decisions, so that the community members those Board members are elected to serve don't have to seek this information themselves.
Jane Grover
Pam Waymack
Jonathan Baum
Gretchen Livingston
Grover, Waymack and Baum for School Board. Let's give the current members time off as they clearly don't have the willpower needed to question the District 65 Administration about anything.
I have never observed such a weak-kneed bunch of do-nothings in my life. If Hardy Murphy yelled jump, one second later, the current School Board members would on the way done already, asking whether that was high enough.
With Mary Erickson leading that group, we can expect several years of "yes, sir, Mr. Murphy, sir" from this goofy group. Why did they run for office when they have no desire to fulfill the responsiilities of their office?
Instead, they just smile and nod as Hardy Murphy tells them (and us) a bunch of nonsense. Then they blather on about nothing and vote for the Superintendent's proposals every time.
The current School Board gave the Superintendent a contract that goes on for years so they can't fire him for the bad job that he's doing. Thanks a lot for that brilliant management decision.
In the next election, I want School Board members who will ask questions and vote in the best interest of our children -- NOT just rubber stamp Hardy Murphy's decisions. Superintendent Murphy's tenure has have taken our District to the brink of total mediocrity. He keeps making proposals that will land us in the middle of really pathetic.
Post new comment