ICCSD Board Member Jeff McGinnis' Law License Suspended for Six Months for Dishonesty, Deceit, and Fraud

The Iowa Supreme Court has rendered its verdict on whether to suspend or revoke Jeffrey K. McGinnis' law license and for how long. The court suspended Iowa City Community School District Board of Directors member Jeff McGinnis' law license for six months. Frankly, I think a longer suspension or revocation would have been in order.

The 20-page decision is interesting because it recounts in great detail exactly how many lies Jeff McGinness told in a case in which the court had to use its own resources to prove that McGinness was lying (case 12-1213, Iowa Supreme Court). The details of those lies were not so carefully described at the Jan. 22nd hearing.

At the hearing Jan. 22nd, 2014, one of the Iowa Supreme Court justices, possibly Justice David Wiggins, asked Theresa Vens, the prosecuting attorney from the attorneys' disciplinary board, why she wasn't asking for revocation, given McGinnis' offenses. She said that she was leaving that decision up to the court.

At this point, I think it would be appropriate for Jeff to resign from the ICCSD Board of Directors, but apparently he has no intention of resigning, or he would have done so already. Now the only question is, will he run again? Let's hope not.

Do we know who to pick to serve on our ICCSD Board of Directors? I don't think so. Few directors, with the exception of Tuyet Dorau, seem to understand the concept of reciprocal civility and the right to free speech in public meetings where the question of how millions of taxpayer funds are being spent is discussed.

If taxpayer funds were being spent correctly, we wouldn't be talking about laying off 35 teachers in a growing district, would we? 

According to Phil Hemingway, the district spends $6,224,300.00 for administrative compensation. The administration's $172,000 parking lot in the back of the administration building on North Dodge Street leap-frogged its way ahead of student needs.

And now we're laying off 35 teachers. Who, really, is the customer in this district? The students, as the official motto goes? Or are the district's real customers the overpaid and redundant district administrators, the consultants who are hired to do the administrators' work for them, the contractors who build new schools and remodel old schools, and the realtors who sell property near the new schools?

If you follow the money trail, you'd have to conclude that the students and the teachers who teach them are not the real customers of the district, or they would be served better, test scores would be higher, and graduation rates would be higher.

Educational adequacy can't be measured by buildings, administration pay and benefits, or how much administration parking there is. It's the students in the buildings and the teachers who teach them who determine whether the district is educationally adequate.