Education Matters US

Responsibility is defined as:

1. The state, quality, or fact of being responsible.
2. Something for which one is responsible; a duty, obligation, or burden.

This is the key word describing the alleged Ethics Violations by Dr. Anderson, the District Superintendent in CCSD #46. The charges were brought in March because of flyers going out in several school newsletters in Jan and Feb supporting the referendum on the April 5th ballot.

Before going into some of the evidence, let me explain what Election Interference is about. Election interference is defined by Illinois statute as

District 46 School Board Policy says the following:

To read more about Election Interference go here.

Now, let’s review the evidence. On multiple occasions and at multiple schools Friday flyers were sent home with the kids with information supporting a Yes vote for the referendum. On 2 of these occasions, specifically the Feb 4 instance, an email was produced by Dr. Anderson’s Attorney basically showing that these were accidents and was not to be repeated. There were no emails or evidence disputing the other instances as accidents however.

The Commissions’ Attorney flatly told Dr. Anderson’s Attorney that what he had done by taking a letter to Sue Facklam’s house was unethical. He knew Sue was not his witness and that personally taking a letter asking her to reconsider testifying was wrong and unethical. This happened when Dr. Anderson’s Attorney was objecting to the Commissions Attorney having talked to Sue himself. Dr. Anderson’s Attorney was stating it was a conflict of interest for him to have done so. The Commission’s Attorney stated he did not personally represent Mrs. Facklam. He represented the Commission and the School Board only.

The testimony for Mrs. Facklam was held in private so the only indication of what was said was from the summary that was read and the statements in the closing arguments by the attorneys.

Dr. Anderson’s attorney argued that the case should be dismissed and that it was a witch hunt and personal vendetta against Dr. Anderson. He urged the Commission to also rule that the plaintiff had brought false and frivolous charges against Dr. Anderson. The reasoning was that the district was more at fault than Dr. Anderson. He stated, the case was more substantial against the district than against Dr. Anderson personally. His believe was that the intent had not been proven against Dr. Anderson. He stated that Sue Facklam did not provide intentionality. He claimed the State’s Attorney office had dismissed the claim as frivolous.

The plaintiff’s attorney argued that there was no legal precedent showing the plaintiff had to prove direct intent to place the information on the flyer, i.e. with an email, a recording or video tape. His argument was that the multiple flyers at several schools and on different dates proved this was a pattern and therefore was intentional. He stated that Dr. Anderson was aware of the rules and had stated that in his email showing the Feb. 4th flyers as accidents. His argument was also that even after the complaint was filed on March 6th, that another flyer went out on Apr. 22nd to promote the “Day for our Kids” at the State Capitol reflected his intent to flaunt the rules knowingly. He also stated the State’s Attorney had never said the charges were frivolous. The State’s Attorney had ruled that the proper venue for the case was an Ethics Commission within the School District. He also stated these were not false statements made by the plaintiff. The evidence shows the tax payer money was used to promote the referendum and that any district resident had the right to bring this up as a breech of the Districts Ethic’s Policy. He also stated that as the CEO of the District it was Dr. Anderson’s job to make sure everyone knew and obeyed the guidelines. He has final authority and had showed such with the emails of Feb. 4th. He argued that there is a strict liability that rests on Dr. Anderson for this and that he should be found in violation of the Ethics Policy.

The Commission will make a finding of fact and a ruling in writing in 10 days.

Now, let’s review this in respect to the original definition of responsibility. Dr. Anderson showed he knew this information going out was against policy, again using the emails as proof. Even though he knew it was wrong more information went out promoting political activity even after the complaint had been filed. He is responsible for these actions because it showed a pattern of disregard for the ethics policy.

I know there was some that claim the PTO paid for these flyers. If so, why were they not called to testify? That’s simple, the district personnel were responsible and they knew what was happening. The emails again prove this.

From what I also understand about some of the closed door testimony, the smoking gun was not produced, but the gun and evidence that it had been fired was.

Let me leave you with this analogy. You have a child that you send to the store with money. They come back with candy they bought with the change. You tell them that is against the rules and you do not want them doing it again. They apologize and say they didn’t know. The following week, they do the same thing again. This time they claim it was an accident and that they had forgotten. A month later, you send them to the store again. They don’t buy candy this time, but they buy a toy. Do you believe them when they say it was an accident this time? Or do you know it was intentionally done? Do you let them off the hook again or do you punish them?

That is what we face here. It was intentional because of the number of times and timeline of events. This is inappropriate use of tax payer money. It is wasteful spending that could have been used for our kids’ education, not to promote political activity which is a breech of the Ethics Policy.