Here's a link to what I think is a well-written commentary about the D64 candidates with potential conflicts of interest nearby Park Ridge.
11 months ago on 03/08/2017 at 11:41 AM
13
Likes

Here's a link to what I think is a well-written commentary about the D64 candidates with potential conflicts of interest nearby Park Ridge. It echoes, but more eloquently perhaps, my comments on the subject posted elsewhere on this page. Please give it a read and, just for a moment, try to overcome your biases toward the author. https://www.publicwatchdog.org/archives/2017/03/07/three-shameless-d-64-candidates-fail-caesars-wife-standard-of-integrity/

18 Comments:

11 months ago on 03/08/2017 at 11:47 AM
11 months ago on 03/08/2017 at 11:51 AM

Thanks for posting this. if they get elected we deserve it because we are idiots.

1 Likes

11 months ago on 03/08/2017 at 11:58 AM

Conflict of interest? Nahhhhh.

2 Likes
11 months ago on 03/08/2017 at 12:37 PM

It is only a "well written commentary" if you follow the logic of a Tea Party conservative who blogs from the depths of his dark lonely basement about free loaders and parasites. Bob Trinza has only one agenda an that is to achieve a $0 tax bill.

1 Likes
11 months ago on 03/08/2017 at 12:41 PM

That's something to be aware of, but as the father of a young girl I'm more concerned about misogyny and bigotry on the board. We already had the fine Dr Paterno resign in disgrace this year because of his hostile position against women. Tom Sotos is already on the board. He didn't want people using the word "vagina" to talk about what his buddy Paterno had said -- but also owns a Tilted Kit franchise that has been the subject of sexual harassment suits. Rick Biagi, on the slate this year, was supportive of a joke by Mel Thillens in 2015 about naming restrooms after Hillary Clinton. I'd take, for example, an educator who's married to an educator and has experience with the needs of special education students (Mr Bublitz) over an intellectual property attorney with a questionable attitude towards women, personally.

21 Likes

11 months ago on 03/08/2017 at 12:50 PM

I guess you can sum it up as: If you value education and candidates who have a working knowledge of the schools and what the schools need then vote for the candidates who respect education, teachers and most importantly our students—often those candidates have a connection to the schools. If saving money on your property taxes and holding teachers accountable through punitive measures as opposed to supporting our teachers then vote for the other guys. If you are worried that a spouse will approve a 2% raise then, certainly, vote for the other guys. If want to get your nose into a contract negotiation and give you opinions on how you think teachers should be compensated then vote for the other guys. If you think that merit pay is only going to affect the teachers and not have negative impact on your student, fine—that is misguided but fine. Know that that is a great way to push highly qualified teachers out of the district. If you want your teachers treated fairly and nurtured and encouraged to collaborate, if you want teachers fairly compensated, if you want school board members who are more interested in stronger teachers and stronger schools and effective learning then vote for a school board member who embraces those ideals. I want our school district to attract and retain the most effective teachers because those are the most successful school districts. Don't feel like the "fiscally conservative" candidates can wrap their brains around that. I don't mean that as a dig, I mean it for real.

4 Likes
11 months ago on 03/08/2017 at 12:53 PM

I love Bublitzs, Schaab and Tiu for the school board. I want people familiar with education. There are already plenty of lawyers on the school board. It is time to approach the school district with another perspective.

3 Likes
11 months ago on 03/08/2017 at 1:05 PM

Thank you, Kathy. Exactly. Not that there isn't merit in having a separation of interests, but given the choice between "educator whose flaw is being married to an educator" and someone whose primary argument is fiscal control, I know what I prefer. (And, on a more personal level, knowing as many teachers as I have, and knowing the amount of their own money they spend and the amount of unpaid time they put in because they're already underfunded, and that they do it out or nothing more or less than concern and love for their students, I find "we shouldn't vote for a teacher because he might want to give other teachers raises" to be a pretty coarse argument. But that's just me. )

7 Likes

11 months ago on 03/08/2017 at 1:14 PM

Clear conflicts of interest that disqualifies them from this board.

1 Likes
11 months ago on 03/08/2017 at 1:18 PM

I am a huge advocate for attending the school board meetings- spouse of a teacher or not. I have been to almost every school board meeting and I must say the only person I see at the meetings that is running for a board position is Michael Schaab. I think it is so very important that their presence be known so they are aware of the issues that are present in the school district. I cannot say that for any of the other candidates. I don't know if this matters to anyone else but I want my board members to be informed.

11 Likes
11 months ago on 03/08/2017 at 2:32 PM

Have to say, regardless of the manner in which the article is written, it makes a valid point that I had not considered.

2 Likes
11 months ago on 03/08/2017 at 3:22 PM

I'm getting pretty fed up with crap like this. People don't sign themselves up for donating hours of personal time to be on a board so they can give their spouse a raise. They'd be better off working a little extra with the spare time they would have by not running. To call into question someone's integrity without mentioning a single issue is crap. And for any candidate running to use this argument to get votes really means they don't have much to say. Let's see some talk about real issues instead of more nonsense from an adult that behaves like a child when it comes to name calling.

10 Likes
11 months ago on 03/08/2017 at 6:48 PM

Kathy Meade, you keep saying that "the board is already full of lawyers. " That's not true. Of the seven board members, there is only one with a JD, Tom Sotos. He also runs other businesses. From what I can tell, Borelli is a doctor. Lee is currently a stay-at-home mom with an MBA and previous business experience. Zimmerman is a CIO. Eggemann is in sales. Cameron is an IT tech in the healthcare field. And I can't find what Bob Johnson does for a living, but I've heard it isn't law. He has a tough name to google. I find it odd that you would keep using this argument to discount a whole profession full of people when your premise is false. (By the way, a knowledge of the law is valuable in elected office, as it is largely the language of governance)

6 Likes
11 months ago on 03/09/2017 at 10:16 AM

Attorneys have an edge because they already understand the procedural requirements that annoy civilians are exactly what keep the whole thing from descending into a brawl. People love to quote the Shakespeare line, "the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers, " not knowing that the whole quote says something like, if you want to destroy civil society, the first thing is to. etc. Attorneys understand also that everything they do in office establishes, reaffirms or upends a precedent. No act is independent. As others have mentioned, the rape-and-pillage set who are used to banging on the table and getting their minions to scurry are ill-suited to the plodding, sequential, big-picture, long-game work of policymaking. Attorneys don't mind it. You can be an attorney and be a self-seeking jerk, of course. That's why so many lawyer jokes. And you can be a non-attorney and be excellent at policymaking. It's just that the disposition and discipline are rarer in those cases.

4 Likes
11 months ago on 03/09/2017 at 1:41 PM

I've been thinking about this a lot today. I can see how some would be concerned about a conflict of interest, but to make an blanket judgement that these people are not good candidates because their spouse is an educator means the author is making assumptions about the morals and integrity of the candidates that he may not have the knowledge to make. I agree with Mr. Cline that there are much easier ways to make some extra bucks that giving hours of time and effort on a school board. I think it is up to the voter to decide whether being married to a D64 teacher is a pro or a con, and there are so many other aspects of the candidates that have to be considered--will they be able to compromise with others on the board, are they familiar with current issues and concerns in education, will they be able to balance fiscal concerns with quality of education, facilities needs, etc. I work in the environmental field, and I will say that my husband as a result knows quite a bit about environmental issues because of our discussions at home, as well as his own interest as a citizen.

11 Likes
11 months ago on 03/09/2017 at 3:46 PM

It's too late to tell now but I would have been curious to learn if the blog post and replies/comments on the Publicwatchdog site, plus this, helped, hindered, or didn't affect, the three "married to D64" candidacies

0 Likes
11 months ago on 03/09/2017 at 7:17 PM

Thanks for sharing this Matt!

0 Likes
11 months ago on 03/09/2017 at 7:20 PM

Will do

0 Likes