Following here are Jane McGill's notes for the request she made to the board during open session on September 24. Just an FYI, the board scheduled the agenda items that Jane McGill was addressing for later in the evening when most of the public had left. Coincidence?
"Good evening. I have had the pleasure of serving on the Sweetwater Union District Proposition O Bond Oversight Committee for several years. This has been a wonderful opportunity to see various sites updated so that students in our district will be able to attend schools that would make any community proud. Also, during a recession it has poured huge sums of money into the local economy. I am delighted to see both of these things happening.
However, I do have a concern. It is one I have brought up before and it has become much more of an issue with the huge amounts of money being spent under Proposition O. At every board meeting millions of dollars are approved for various contracts and change orders. These contracts go to architectural firms and construction companies. When we voters approved this bond measure we expected the money to be spent totally without bias. I think it is inappropriate for board members to approve contracts and then take political contributions from companies that are involved with these contracts. I think all candidates for members of the board should decline all political contributions from firms that might be involved in work on the schools.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. I have seen some contribution records and I know two of the current board members have accepted donations for their current campaigns from these companies. This is a great concern to me. The people selected for contracts to work on our schools should be selected based on qualifications and the bidding process with absolutely no personal factors influencing the decision. If a board member does take funds from an architectural firm or contractor with any ties or even potential ties to the district, the ethical approach would be for the board member to refrain from voting on any issue that impacts that company in any way. Tonight that specifically applies to K1 on page 26 and M2 on page 27. Will the members of the board take an ethical approach and pledge to refrain from voting on any and all issues that are related to their campaign donors?"
However, I do have a concern. It is one I have brought up before and it has become much more of an issue with the huge amounts of money being spent under Proposition O. At every board meeting millions of dollars are approved for various contracts and change orders. These contracts go to architectural firms and construction companies. When we voters approved this bond measure we expected the money to be spent totally without bias. I think it is inappropriate for board members to approve contracts and then take political contributions from companies that are involved with these contracts. I think all candidates for members of the board should decline all political contributions from firms that might be involved in work on the schools.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. I have seen some contribution records and I know two of the current board members have accepted donations for their current campaigns from these companies. This is a great concern to me. The people selected for contracts to work on our schools should be selected based on qualifications and the bidding process with absolutely no personal factors influencing the decision. If a board member does take funds from an architectural firm or contractor with any ties or even potential ties to the district, the ethical approach would be for the board member to refrain from voting on any issue that impacts that company in any way. Tonight that specifically applies to K1 on page 26 and M2 on page 27. Will the members of the board take an ethical approach and pledge to refrain from voting on any and all issues that are related to their campaign donors?"
Thank you, Jane. Who is donating to SUHSD board incumbents' campaigns?
No comments:
Post a Comment