An object lesson for local campaigns

At the onset of a June heat wave, the municipal and school board elections of last April may seem a distant memory. But a case in Grayslake presents an object lesson on candidacy that never goes out of date.

The issue is brewing in Grayslake Elementary District 46, a system that is perhaps too familiar with controversy lately. But the subject of this latest battle — ethics — is likely not exclusive to District 46 and may extend to candidates, particularly incumbents, for many offices, municipal as well as educational.

To be specific, the focus in District 46 is email and the use of it by school board members. Northbrook/Glenview Elementary District 30 teacher Mary Garcia — the District 46 school board president until she was unseated in April — is accused of, among other things, using her school email account to promote her candidacy in District 46. As Daily Herald staff writer Bob Susnjara reported last weekend, Garcia’s employer believes she may have violated state law and is forwarding to the Cook County state’s attorney evidence it gathered during an internal investigation. District 30’s letter to the state’s attorney describes a “pattern” of political activity. It’s too early to tell whether such a claim is justified, but its point should not be lost on anyone running for local office.

It is unethical and illegal to use public resources for campaign purposes. In Garcia’s case, that means she could not use her work email, provided by the taxpayers of District 30, to discuss her school board campaign. For scores, perhaps hundreds, of other school board candidates, it also means not using your taxpayer-provided email account to do campaign work. That includes using your school or village board email to respond to newspaper and special interest questionnaires, seek donations, or campaign for yourself, a colleague or a referendum.

Candidates for statewide and national office tend to be familiar with these rules, and most go out of their way not to break them, But the emphasis is not always so pronounced at the more-casual, far-lower-budget local level, and, whatever the situation with Garcia, we suspect many candidates for local office don’t pay them as much attention as they should.

The philosophy behind the law is obvious and sound. Not only should taxpayers not be unwittingly helping to fund the campaign work of individual candidates, but incumbent candidates should not get an advantage over challengers by using taxpayer-supported tools — tools that have a very legitimate value for communicating with and serving constituents — to promote their re-election or referendum efforts.

The April elections may be months behind us and the next local campaign months in the future. But the Grayslake case reinforces the importance of separating politics and the public’s business even now.