In Partnership with 74

Questions About Kayser Plan

Hillel Aron | November 13, 2012

Your donation will help us produce journalism like this. Please give today.

Board member Bennett Kayser’s recently announced proposal to have Board members recuse themselves from certain votes is brief – only 85 words — and appealingly vague. Board members would “automatically recuse themselves from voting on a charter contract if they have received campaign contributions six months prior to the vote.”

But already it has generated some pragmatic questions and skeptical reactions:

Bob Stern, the former head of the Center for Governmental studies, said he hadn’t seen the proposal, but when it was described to him, he expressed skepticism. Although he likes the idea of banning contractors bidding on government contracts from contributing, he agreed that it sounded strange to ban charters but not unions.

Stern also wondered about the amount of money being given. “Does he mean if someone gave $500?” asked Stern. “Maybe it should be some overall amount.”

“Why is he singling out charter schools, as opposed to any union or vendor that has a contract with the district and requires Board approval?” asked Sierra Jenkins of the California Charter Schools Association. “It seems contradictory.”

Kayser’s proposal is on the agenda for today’s Board meeting, which is also scheduled to include deliberation over the Deasy proposal to restore additional days of school and the Zimmer proposal on charter oversight. (See full agenda here). Previous posts: Conflict Of Interest, OversightDeasy to Ask Board to Restore Full School YearZimmer: Charters & Fundraising Update

Read Next