Ethics, or lack thereof

It’s election time folks, that means the plastic squareflower pops up in gardens all over the District, debates are held by the League of Women Voters, and officials past and present come out to offer endorsements.

Here in D113, things are usually pretty civil. That’s a refreshing contrast with our neighbors to the south - Chicago. But occasionally some of the election-cycle activities start to lean toward Chicago-style and that gives me pause and concern.

The letter from Ms. Shlensky, et. al giving endorsements to Ms. Culver and Ms. Hymen is anything but fair and balanced. In fact, quite the opposite. I’m not about to bring myself down to the level of subtle mudslinging that the authors of that letter engage in. Suffice it to say that there are several reasons why I have not spoken with any of them about an endorsement:

I know Harvey, Bonnie, and Michael - we’ve all gotten to know each other in a more formal setting over the years that I’ve been involved with D113’s activities and projects, and during previous election cycles when I ran for a Board seat. I may not agree with them from time-to-time, but I’m able to agree to disagree. They’re decent people, they spent (or are spending) a lot of their personal time on the Board, fulfilling their civic duty, and I respect that; I’d have no hesitation in having a nice corned-beef sandwich on rye with them at Once Upon A Bagel if I ran into them. I’ve run into Harvey at Sunset a few times, and we’ve had some nice conversations in the aisles.

That said, I’ve been to countless meetings at the District, submitted numerous letters and ideas to them, and discussed all kinds of issues with Dr. Fornero and others at the Admin Building. They have my contact information - they’ve got my cell number, my email addresses, and they know where I live. If they were considering endorsements, and they had questions, they certainly could have reached out to me to discuss my thoughts even though I wouldn’t seek their endorsement.

Some may be wondering why I didn’t reach out to them. And my answer can be summed up in one word: ETHICS.

I don’t believe that a sitting Board member ought to endorse anyone. They need to remain neutral and beyond reproach. Who they vote for in private is entirely their own business, but publicly - they need to stay out of it, and in fact, by endorsing someone they come dangerously close to violating election laws.

I have the greatest of respect for past Board Members and Presidents, and I don’t discount their opinions, but I never bought into the whole concept of seeking endorsements from past Board Members, it seems sleezy, unethical, and contrived. It seems to perpetuate the continuance of the ”same ole, same ole” nonsense that our Community has been dealing with for many years, and if we want to MOVE FORWARD, then we have to put the past in the past.

There’s a lot of unfortunate internal politics that’s taken place over the years in D113. It’s adversely affected our Community, our Students, and made us the laughing stock across the Nation. Signers of the letter were involved in it, why would anyone take their endorsements seriously?

I’m David S. Greenberg, and I stand for Academic Excellence, Ethics, Fiscal Responsibility, and Honesty. I’d appreciate your vote. Thank you.