"Mr. Transparency" Non-Committal on Background Checks

All D 158 teachers have to have a background check.

All Substitute teachers have to have a background check.

All custodians have to have a background check.

All lunchroom workers have to have a background check.

All vendors who do work in the schools have to have a background check.

So it only makes sense that school board members, who can roam schools freely and unsupervised, should have to have background checks, right?

Aileen Seedorf doesn't think so, and it appears that Larry Snow doesn't either.

A few months ago the board discussed whether or not they would support a suggestion by some other Illinois School districts that a law should be created that would require it. At that meeting late last year, Snow voted against it.

But wait a second. Wouldn't a background check provide increased transparency?

Last month, board candidate Paul Troy spoke during public comment and suggested that D 158 write its own policy that would require background checks for board members. Snow jumped right in, and by the way he stammered and responded, it was clear that he was not comfortable with the idea.

Again, you'd think that the guy who has been clamoring for four years about increased transparency would be all over the idea.

Then last night at the Committee of the Whole meeting, the idea of background checks was an agenda item for discussion.

Disclaimer time: Bongo has no reason to believe that any of the current or future board members have committed a felony.

Having barked that, Bongo wants to make sure that you humans understand that since there is no state law that currently requires background checks for school board members, the policy would be much like the board member code of conduct; it represents a high standard of behavior and shows a good faith effort to protect the students from any potential harm by a visitor in the buildings, but it is not enforceable. Humans could not prohibit a board member from serving as a board member, but they could, based on information revealed through a background check, try to prohibit the board member from being around the students in the schools.

After all, the kids' safety should be the #1 concern, right?

After hemming and hawing and throwing out words like "intimidation" and "political," Seedorf eventually went on record as being against background checks for board members. Snow refused to take a stance, and even after he was flat out asked if he wanted to pursue a policy or not, the closest Snow came to answering the question was saying,

"It could be a good thing, or something people may not want."

His little play on words didn't fool Bongo. You're either for it or against it. It's not like a policy was on the table for a vote. The question was, "Would you like to begin drafting a policy."

The other five board members stated without hesitation that a policy requiring board members to get background checks was a good idea because of student safety.

Why on earth would a board member not want to make sure there weren't people roaming the schools who really shouldn't be around kids?

Here is a link to today's Northwest Herald story about it.