Can You Say Nepotism?

Let us start with a simple definition of the term.

nep·o·tism / ˈnepəˌtizəm/
noun
the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs.

synonyms:favoritism, preferential treatment, the old boy network, looking after one's own, bias, partiality, partisanship

"hiring my daughter was not nepotism—it was just good business"

Now, lets look at Indiana's "nepotism law" effective July 1 2012.

Ind. Code § 4-15-7-1 : Indiana Code - Section 4-15-7-1: Nepotism

(a) No person being related to any member of any state board or commission, or to the head of any state office or department or institution, as father, mother, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, a husband or wife, son or daughter, son-in-law or daughter-in-law, niece or nephew, shall be eligible to any position in any such state board, commission, office, or department or institution, as the case may be, nor shall any such relative be entitled to receive any compensation for his or her services out of any appropriation provided by law.

(b) This section shall not apply if such person has been employed in the same position in such office or department or institution for at least twelve (12) consecutive months immediately preceding the appointment of his relative as a board member or head of such office, department, or institution.

(c) This section does not apply to the authority of the board of trustees of a state educational institution to employ any person the board considers necessary under IC 21-38-3-1.

(d) No persons related as father, mother, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, husband, wife, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, niece, or nephew may be placed in a direct supervisory-subordinate relationship.

(Formerly: Acts 1941, c.16, s.1; Acts 1961, c.8, s.1.) As amended by Acts 1982, P.L.23, SEC.35; P.L.36-1995, SEC.1; P.L.2-2007, SEC.44; P.L.3-2008, SEC.8.

With this background information, let's take a look at the reappointment of Sarah O'Brien to the Indiana State Board of Education and her recent election as the board's Vice-Chair.  How does this appointment and Vice-Chair position relate to a possible violation of this "nepotism" law, along with a variety of potential ethics violations?  Mrs. O'Brien isn't just a 4th grade teacher from Avon who, as a Republican, was appointed to the SBOE and recently reappointed after legislative changes to the boards structure, she is also the daughter of Republican State Representative Bill Fine of Munster.  This is where the possible violation occurs.  Representative Fine is a Republican member of the House Education Committee who pushed the passage of legislation that changed the structure of the SBOE and co-authored key language that created the Vice-Chair position to share powers with the Elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, Glenda Ritz.

With the passage of this legislation, Governor Pence re-appointed O'Brien to the Board and set up her opportunity to be elected as Vice-Chair.   This selection was rumored before the SBOE met for their restructuring meeting.  The "election" of O'Brien appears to have been a done deal as part of Pence's plan when he made his recent appointments and refused to reappoint certain members who might have been more viable possibilities to be named Vice-Chair.

This may not be a clear violation of Indiana Law, but it appears to set up potential questions regarding "nepotism", board appointments, committee selections, and legislative ethics.

Indiana voters need to be vigilant in monitoring recent SBOE actions, the Governor's continued education agenda, and the co-mingling of legislators and appointed board members.  Raise questions, raise your voices, and demand transparency in all aspects of government activity.  Most importantly,  voters in Indiana need to get to the polls and vote to save our PUBLIC schools from the continued destruction and privatization planned by Pence and his wealthy corporate "reform" supporters.

Legislative Lunchbox v.3

"Do legislators deserve the same apples teachers get for their efforts in education? Every Friday, "Hoosier Mom on Politics" makes that decision, giving two legislators a good or bad apple, depending on their support of Public Education and Indiana’s children. Check back every Friday at lunchtime to see what the Hoosier Mom packs in the Legislator Lunchbox for the week!

For this post of the “Legislative Lunchbox”, I chose to pack a lunch for Senator Karen Tallian(D-Ogden Dunes)and for State Representative Jim Lucas (R-Seymour).

Senator Karen Tallian received a good apple in her lunchbox for authoring SB 469 which provides that Full-Day Kindergarten become mandatory and, more importantly, that each Kindergarten Pupil counts as a full student in the annual ADM. Sen. Tallian, kudos to you for not only recognizing the need for a continuum of early childhood education provided through Indiana's public schools, but for actually standing up and doing something about it. So many legislators pay lip service to the educational needs of Kindergartners, sometimes taking action simply to publicize and further their own political careers. But not you Senator Tallian! This bill is simple and to the point - not only does it outline mandatory Kindergarten but it counts Kindergartners as full students so Public Schools can receive full-funding for the education provided. But here comes the sticking point - this bill hasn't even received a hearing in the Senate Committee on Education and Career Development. Bills are getting heard which expand vouchers to fully-fund preschool but apparently the legislative rationale is that during the magic year of Kindergarten, Indiana children only deserve to have their education only halfway funded. Where the heck is the common sense in that? Come on Senate Committee on Education and Career Development: listen to Senator Tallian on this matter. It is time for Indiana to have a hearing on this bill.

Representative Jim Lucas received a bad apple in his lunchbox for his letter to an Indiana voter concerned about the voucher expansion bill (HB 1003)which cleared the House Committee on Education Thursday. Mr Lucas writes, "I am aware of the potential for the growth of vouchers, and yes, this growth may come at the expense of what is referred to as our public system, but as long as that child is receiving an education, and better yet, an education of the choice of the parent, then I fail to see the negative of this." There are so many levels of 'wrong' in this statement (let alone the whole letter), where is a Hoosier Mom to begin? First of all Mr. Lucas, "what is referred to as our public system" is the public education system which you, as an elected official, are required to provide (please read Article 8 of the state constitution, Mr. Lucas if you are unsure of what I reference about your job). I understand that this is your first term and you aren't particularly familiar with all the 'ins and outs of serving your constituents, but I can guarantee you that if you take this kind of "my way or the highway" approach, you will be out of this job soon enough and back shilling awnings in Seymour. I don't think I need to remind you but this is the first time in a while that a Republican has been elected to district 69, and if you continue with your back-handed comments about public education, I can guarantee that reelection is not in your future.

Just in case you weren't aware Mr. Lucas, most all of your constituents received their education via Indiana's public school system and most all of your constituents with children are sending their kids to public school. These are your constituents: as an elected representative it is your duty to serve the best interest of the people, not the best interest of a few private religious companies that seek to receive government hand-outs (via corporate welfare) on the backs of hard-working Hoosiers. As a tax-paying mom and life-long Hoosier, I can tell you that I don't care to pay for some other parent's education "choice". If a parent chooses to send their child to a private school, then they can pay for their choice - I and the other taxpayers in Indiana aren't financially responsible for their personal preference and you should stop trying to make us pay for it. However as a taxpayer, I strongly believe the money I give to the state needs to go to the betterment of most ALL Hoosiers, not just a few. Public Education is the only means and method which effectively and efficiently provides for a common education of Hoosier children. It is time you learned to not only vote in the best interest of your constituents, but also in the best interest of Hoosiers on the whole.

The Hoosier Mom hopes all the readers will spread the word about the Legislative Lunchbox. Feel free to email me with suggestions for next week’s lunch: for whom should I pack lunch and why?

The Race To Waste $46 Mil In The House

An Open Letter

To The Members of The House Committee On Education,

HB 1003 is scheduled for a hearing and you are expected to vote on this bill today. As a mom of 2 children that attend Public School in Northwest Indiana, as a woman raised on a grain and hog farm in Central Indiana, and as Hoosier through and through, I implore you to vote NO on this measure. It needs to stop where it is at in an attempt to bring a little bit of common sense back to your actions.

Indiana's voucher program (the LARGEST voucher program in the country) has been legally challenged as it conflicts with the Indiana Constitution on two grounds. First, that you as Representatives are charged with creating policy in line with the Constitution which directs you to educate children through a system of common schools - Indiana's "so-called" Public Education system. Second, you as Representatives are charged with creating policy that would not compel "We The Taxpayers" to pay taxes which support religious institutions.

This legal challenge has not been resolved and to be quite frank with you, the Legislators interested in "reforming" Indiana's Public Education System might be surprised how it ends. Now you plan to expand a program this session, that will potentially be deemed unconstitutional? Where is the common sense in that action! This isn't the Indy 500 - you don't have to pass it now - time is on your side and you should use it to your advantage. Sit it out, let us see what happens in court before moving forward in any method or manner on this Bill.

Finally, I will argue and I believe MOST of the taxpaying and voting citizens agree on this...It is NOT your responsibility to pay for - with my tax dollars - "school choice" in Indiana. My tax dollars should be going to the benefit of Indiana citizens as a whole, to the betterment of most all Hoosiers, not just a few. Private and Religious Schools can not and will not serve most all Hoosiers. If a parent chooses to send their child to a Religious School - so be it, that is their choice. They should have to deal with the financial implications of their choice. The rest of the children in the State of Indiana should not pay for their choice.

Now, you vote how you want, but don't forget the rest of us regular hard-working Hoosier moms and dads are watching - and we will vote in less than 2 years. And if Public Education continues to be dismantled, I guarantee you - my vote will go with Public Education.

Sincerely,

The Hoosier Mom On Politics

Charters, and Vouchers, and Reform - Oh MY!

The Indiana House Education Committee strikes at Public Education again! Tomorrow, HB 1338 and HB 1003  are planned to receive a hearing in the House Chambers starting at 8:30am.

WE NEED YOUR HELP!

Please contact the House Education Committee members (emails listed below) in separate emails for the two bills, and tell them to vote NO. For more information on how to write to your legislators, click here.

  HB 1003: This is Rep. Behning's bill that would expand voucher eligibility to students who have NOT previously spent a year in public schools. It also would triple the home school and private school tax deduction to $3,000. 




HB 1338: Charter Schools are public schools by law yet this bill would take them from the Dept. of Ed for reporting, funding and facilities incentive purposes and put them under the Budget Agency.

§       Teachers, all teachers, should have content area requirements for licensure yet HB 1338 removes the requirement for already unlicensed charter school teacher to have training “in the content or related area in which the individual teaches.”

§       The bill provides that a virtual charter school would receive tuition support in the same way bricks & mortar charters do.

§       And if that isn’t enough, if the bill passes, virtual schools will receive funding for all students, even those never in public schools.  Home schools could receive tax money.

Contact those members of the House Education Committee who are likely to vote for this bill.  Do it ASAP.

Rep. Behning, Chair, h91@in.gov 

Rep. Rhoads, h70@in.gov

Rep. L. Arnold, h74@in.gov

Rep. Burton, h58@in.gov

Rep. Clere, h72@in.gov

Rep. DeVon, h5@in.gov

Rep. Huston, h37@in.gov

Rep. Lucas, h69@in.gov

Rep. Thompson, h28@in.gov

For HB 1003:  Express your opposition to voucher expansion AND share your views with your representative.

•       Ask them to vote NO on HB 1003.

For HB 1338:  Explain in your words how all teachers need to have training in content areas in which they teach.

§       Discuss how funding virtual school at 100% of tuition support impacts your school.

§       Explain that funding for students never in public schools (never part of the ADM) puts traditional public schools at risk of losing even more funding without losing students.

§       Ask them to vote NO on HB 1338.