Public should know of union endorsements

In most of our communities, local school districts account for about 75 percent of the property tax bill. As much as 80 percent of that amount (in Naperville Unit District 203, about a quarter of a billion dollars annually) represents labor contracts.

It has always seemed strange to me that there are no restrictions on the amount of energy or money the unions representing those labor contracts are allowed to invest to influence the outcome of these elections. Unions provide endorsements (usually private), campaign workers and often advertising. As a local taxpayer (speaking for myself and not the board on which I sit), I am calling on both the unions and the candidates to recognize the inherent conflict this represents and refrain from this activity.

It is evident that these parties already recognize that the average citizen would be concerned with this behavior. Last election, the union PAC endorsed four District 203 candidates.

Unlike all the other groups issuing endorsements, though, there were no public announcements or publishing of names. One can only conclude that they did not want the non-union public to know of their involvement — or who their choices were. Furthermore, the endorsed candidates went out of their way to hide this endorsement also. When asked point blank at a public forum if they had received the union’s endorsement only one candidate acknowledged it.

Given the fact that the school board is responsible for negotiating the labor contracts for these same unions, and union-related arise almost monthly, it seems that in the interest of objectivity and a desire to avoid the appearance of collusion, all parties would refrain from these endorsements. At the very least the process should play itself out publicly so all voters can decide for themselves if they are comfortable with it.

Dave Weeks

Board member, Naperville Unit District 203