One comment

  1. A ruling in which the Election Enforcement Commission avoids actually examining whether the superintendent violated the law by offering to donate a year’s raise* and lop off a year of her contract extension if people would vote to approve the budget at the fifth referendum last year. Instead, the commission says it doesn’t even have to examine if the superintendent’s offer was a bribe, because her comments were made DURING the Aug. 8, 2013 Region 1 board meeting but BEFORE the board voted to send the budget to referendum — technically there was no vote scheduled so she couldn’t have influenced it. So, to be clear, this ruling DOES NOT exonerate the superintendent of violating the statutory prohibition against trying to manipulate a vote; it just dismisses the complaint on a technicality without making a determination based on the merits of the case.
    *And speaking to technicalities, the superintendent did indeed donate a year’s raise (to an organization led by the husband of one of her most ardent supporters) but she made the donation outright rather than having it deducted from her paycheck — which means that her salary will show no dip for 2013 when it comes time to collect her pension.
    –Gale Courey Toensing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s