Erica Vilardi-Espinosa: Campaign Donations Are All The Same

“Financially speaking, campaign donations are all the same, it is simply a matter of opinion of which one prefers.” - Board District 2 Candidate Erica Vilardi-Espinosa

This is the second in a series on ethical issues facing the LAUSD. Please read the first part for an introduction to the issue.

In the 2020 LAUSD School Board Elections over $14.9 million was spent by independent expenditure groups, breaking the record set during the 2017 election cycle. This, in turn, had surpassed the amount spent during the previous cycle. There is no reason to believe that this year’s spending will not break the record again.

By design, the LAUSD had no say in the operation of charter schools, as these organizations have their own, often unelected, governing boards. This has not stopped the charter school industry from being the largest spender in LAUSD school board elections. In fact, charter schools are, by far, the largest supporters of Democratic candidates in California. The Democrats are supposed to be the party that supports public education.

What this spending does provide is a lack of regulation for charter schools. Having its supporters hold a majority on the school board has ensured that charter schools will not be held accountable for the $13.7 million that they owe to LAUSD students. The money that they will spend to re-elect Nick Melvoin and Kelly Gonez is an investment that will pay substantial dividends.

Given the role that the LAUSD Board plays as a regulatory agency over charter schools, I asked the candidates in the June 7 elections if those elected with the help of the charter school industry should recuse themselves from votes regarding these publicly funded private schools. As part of her response, Board District 2 candidate Erica Vilardi-Espinosa asked “What is the difference between donations from Charters or UTLA or any union?” This is a question that is frequently brought up when discussing the ethical problem of the charter school industry contributing to candidates who hope to be elected on a board that is supposed to represent public school students.

First, it must be noted that comparing charter school spending to what is spent by unions is a case of false equivalency. While UTLA does provide a little bit of a counterweight to the charter school industry’s spending, the amount it spends is much less. In 2020, union spending was 22.7% of the amount spent by charter schools. In Board District 4, supporters of privatizing schools have already spent $500,102 promoting Nick Melvoin. UTLA has spent $0 in the race. In 2017, UTLA stayed out of the Board District 3 race but charter school supporters spent $622,536 to re-elect Monica Garcia.

Looking at who provides the money to the campaigns provides another important difference. A lot of the money spent by the charter school industry is donated by people who have no stake in Los Angeles schools. For example, Reed Hastings spends his Netflix money on LAUSD elections but he lives in Santa Cruz. The Waltons provide funding for Nick Melvoin’s Speak Up, but they run their Walmart empire from Arkansas.

In contrast, the money spent by UTLA is provided by dues-paying members of the union. These are the people who teach our children and are the experts on how district policy affects the classroom. They have a direct stake in the district.

Vilardi-Espinosa is correct in her assessment that the millions poured into campaigns is “an incredible waste of resources.” As she notes, publicly-funded campaigns would ensure that all candidates would be on equal footing and elections would be more focused on a battle of ideas. “This would be true democracy.”

The following are Vilardi-Espinosa’s complete answers to the questions about ethics:

• Former LAUSD Chief Strategy Officer Matt Hill was employed by the district but his salary was paid for by Eli Broad, creating a conflict of interest and questions about whose strategy he was pursuing. More recently, the board approved a no-bid contract with Leadership for Education Equity where the organization's fellows would pursue “policy opportunities.” If elected, would you vote to ban these types of arrangements? If not, how would you ensure that the people working under these contracts do not allow their loyalty to the people providing their paycheck to interfere with their obligations to the students of the district?

If organizations want to fund specific positions dealing with LAUSD, they can submit recommendations as an exterior study. If a new position is created within LAUSD, there should be an open bid to fill the position with the best candidate to avoid this situation.

• In May 2018 LAUSD Board member Nick Melvoin held a meeting with the California Charter School Association (CCSA) where he disclosed confidential information obtained from the district’s attorneys regarding a lawsuit the charter school industry’s trade group had filed against the district. Do you find this type of disclosure to be acceptable? If not, what steps would you take as a board member to deal with this type of leak?

When there is a discrepancy dealing with confidential information or Brown act violations a complaint should be made to the ethics commission with evidence so it can be investigated and handled by the department that handles these issues.

• Also in 2018, the LAUSD Board was accused of violating the Brown Act during the hiring process for Austin Beutner. In response, Board Member Scott Schmerelson disclosed key points of the closed-door deliberations in a public forum. Do you find this type of disclosure to be acceptable? If not, what steps would you take as a board member to deal with this type of leak?

Refer to the previous answer.

• The Inspector General’s office has been widely seen as ineffective since the district’s pro-charter school industry majority orchestrated the departure of Ken Bramlett. As a board member, what would you do to ensure the independence of this office?

The inspector general should be…

• By law, the LAUSD is responsible for overseeing the charter schools that it authorizes. Is the district’s role as a regulator compromised by the $18.6 million that the charter school industry has spent on the campaigns of past and present school board members? Do you believe that board members who receive contributions from the industry should recuse themselves from votes regarding charter schools? What actions would you take as a board member to prevent conflicts of interest stemming from campaign financing?

What is the difference between donations from Charters or UTLA or any union? Financially speaking, campaign donations are all the same, it is simply a matter of opinion of which one prefers. Because elections are grossly overfunded by private corporations and PACs, every current board member would be required to recuse themselves on issues relating to campaign donations on a regular basis. This would effectively render the board useless.

It is my opinion that all campaigns should be publicly funded. I participated in and supported efforts by Senator Gillibrand to end Citizen United some years ago and fully support Adam Schiff’s attempt to bring it up again.

I find campaign spending an incredible waste of resources. Particularly for school board races. UTLA spends teachers’ hard-earned salaries collected through dues only to fight the Charter Association funds that could be used to pay teachers better wages instead. The other unions do the same thing with dues collected from insufficient salaries and in the end, all board members are in one pocket or the other. Imagine what all this campaign money could do in the actual pockets of teachers or schools, instead of advertising that is looked at for maybe 15sec.

If school board elections were publicly funded with each candidate given equal amounts, you would have school board candidates fighting for the constituents. I believe a better use of corporate or unions fund in elections would be to create forums or debates where all candidates are included and can discuss the issues. Then the voters could see what the goals and ideas the candidates are fighting for collectively or individually, not just be bombarded with advertising through the campaign season. This would be true democracy

Board District 2:

Board District 4:

Board District 6:

Up Next: Marvin Rodríguez

Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for students with special education needs and public education. He is an elected member of the Northridge East Neighborhood Council and serves as the Education Chair. As a Green Party candidate in LAUSD’s District 2 School Board race, he was endorsed by Network for Public Education (NPE) Action. Dr. Diane Ravitch has called him “a valiant fighter for public schools in Los Angeles.” For links to his blogs, please visit www.ChangeTheLAUSD.com. Opinions are his own.