7/28/05
HOW VENDORS
‘GREASE' SCHOOL OFFICIALS
The good news is, Nebraska's school spending has wavered
just a few dollars above or below the national average for the past 30 years,
according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
The bad news is, like the national average, Nebraska's
spending per pupil has increased an incredible 900 percent in that time frame.
Nebraska's spending per pupil has gone from $833 in fiscal
year 1971, to $7,547 in fiscal 2002. Figures are in raw dollars, not adjusted
for inflation. Take a gander:
http://www.azsba.org/research/NCESstates.htm
Gee whiz. Do teachers make nine times as much money now as
they did then? Do pencils cost nine times what they used to? Do books? Does
electricity? Bus gas? Pull-down maps?
If not, then what's fueling that increase? A lot of people
say it's interactions between corporate vendors and school administrators, who
are nowhere near as "watchdogged" financially as other important public
officials such as mayors and state senators. Lobbying and persuasion by school
vendors may be ratcheting up the cost of K-12 education far more than inflation
or true academic need.
As we watch the "Battle of the Superintendents" in Omaha
going on -- the poohbah of the state's largest school district, the Omaha
Public Schools, trying to take over the districts ruled by the lesser suburban
poohbahs -- you have to consider self-interest along with all the other
motivations in this battle.
Money and power, power and money. That's what drives most
people, including most people in public education, all too often.
It's not only job security for the superintendents that's at
stake. When you puzzle through how a big school district like OPS can think
it's OK to drop a quarter of a million dollars on laptops for fourth-graders in
the utter absence of any evidence that it will help them learn better, there's
really no other explanation than that somehow, the decision-makers were
"greased" by the technology vendors.
You know: junkets, golf games, lavish dinners, theater
tickets, jobs for the superintendent's family and friends . . . maybe nothing
that's downright unethical, but certainly giving the appearance sometimes of a
conflict of interest.
School officials are ripe for schmoozing by corporate
vendors because the school budgets they control are in the multi-billions of
dollars, all told. And that ain't hay.
Is it happening in Nebraska? You tell me. It's happening all
over, and here are a few other examples in today's column.
What's the answer? Any time human beings and money mix,
there's going to be fandango. Nobody can reasonably hope to contain it all. But
we'd make a darn good start by holding school administrators – especially
superintendents -- and school-board members accountable for financial decisions
the way we do with other public officials.
We really should strengthen our disclosure requirements and reporting
about public records of their campaign donations, gifts, favors, expense accounts,
compensation packages and retirement deals.
It's about time we got some sunshine on school spending –
and we might be able to dry up some of this flooding.
How Vendors ‘Grease' School Officials
Q.
Our superintendent's best friend works for a company that recently made a lot
of money in a contract with the district. How much do "sweetheart deals" affect
school spending decisions, and how can the public stop this sort of thing?
Most states have competitive bidding
requirements, of course, and most require public officials to report campaign
contributions and gifts over a certain amount.
But there are so many gray areas,
ethically, that it's difficult to gauge how widespread influence peddling
really is.
Is a superintendent's weekend golf
outing to resort location paid for by a law firm whose client wants to do real
estate business with the school district a proper move?
Is a night out on the town with
spouses – a lavish dinner and theater tickets -- with the owner of a
construction company, a friend of the superintendent, OK even if there's a
contract coming out on a new school building?
How about accepting favors like free
snow removal at your home, free magazine subscriptions, or free office
supplies?
The rule is supposed to be that
there should be no personal benefit to a school official for interactions with
vendors and potential vendors. The ultimate benefit is supposed to be "for the
kids."
But consider what's gone on recently
in Dallas alone:
--
Dallas Independent School District trustee Ron Price was reported as receiving
just three political donations last year totaling $25,000, all from three
closely associated computer contractors, including one who gave the district's
top technology boss years' worth of free sea-fishing trips and use of a 59-foot
yacht. One donor was Frankie Wong, president and chief executive of Micro
System Enterprises of Houston. That firm is the head company in a consortium
that will reap more than 96 percent of federal technology grants that the
Dallas district has applied for – $369 million in all. Price, who chaired the
committee that heard the technology proposals, has said he doesn't know any of
the three individuals who made the donations, according to the Dallas Morning News.
--
Dr. Mike Moses, superintendent of the Dallas district and former state
commissioner of education for Texas, was revealed to be "moonlighting" with a
Texas law firm, Bracewell & Patterson, being paid a consulting fee to help
find a new superintendent for another school district. At the time, Moses was
the highest-paid superintendent in Texas, among the highest-paid anywhere,
making $337,500 plus perks last year, according to Texas education activist
Donna Garner. He has said he was paid in the "tens of thousands" of dollars by
the law firm. The law firm had contracts with the Dallas district worth more
than $700,000, according to the Dallas
Morning News.
Homework: There's a good article on ethics
from the American Association of School Administrators, http://www.aasa.org/publications/SA/2004_09/pardini_payzant.htm
