Background checks should be done for all our elected officials. Court proceedings are public anyway. Im sure the independent auditors would like to know if a board member is a felon before they sign off on the audit.

Yes, and the Candidates should reimburse whoever is processing the background check!! This should happen every time they run!!

Interesting idea, but I have some concerns about this.

1. Who has access to the information that is gathered in a backgound check? I cann see a situation where a board member running for re-election could use this against an opponent. Not all negative information would be a disqualifier. A person with a DUI or domestic assault conviction or a bankrupcy, for example would not be disqualified from being a board member, but that can be used against them in a campaign. If that happens, doesn't this become taxpayer funded opposition research? Can an administrator use something found in a background check as leverage against a board member? Can board members use it against each other?

2. What would be the disqualifiers? The most obvious on would be sex offences, which would preclude someone from being in or around a school. Would there be any other disqualifiers? Can a background check be done that only looks at those acts that would disqualify someone from serving?

3. Who would pay for a background check?

Usually, in a higher profile election, the media and/or opposition candidates do a pretty good job of digging things up. For those down ballot positions, like school board, I can see where some nefarious characters can get in under the radar.

Perhaps a background check can be conducted after the election on the winners. This could be done by an outside company and be restricted to only those things that could disqualify someone from office.

Board Members should be considered elected public officials... all background information should be public... and they should not be allowed to hide infractions such as DUI or domestic assault (!!!) -- these are NOT minor issues and SHOULD be disqualifiers. Do you really want someone making decisions about kids when they have been charged with possibly battering their spouse or own children, or driving drunk? Really? We shouldn't allow Board members to be immune to public scrutiny and they should be culpable for their records, as these issues can color their decision-making. Also, Board members who have school-aged children (grammar and HS) should be required to send their own children to the public schools over which they preside. Public school board members who send their own children to private schools should be disqualified from the posts. That practice is an affront to the rest of us who have a truly vested interest in the public schools our children attend.

Board members ARE considered public officials. As with every person who runs for office, their past is fair game. It's a question of whose repsonsibility it is to find out about that past .Disqualifiers for public office are determined by the state. For most offices, a felony conviction will disqualify someone from serving in an elected position. If a candidates' misdemeanors are known, you, as a voter, have the right to vote for someone with a clean record.

I disagree with the idea that a person whose children attend private school shouldn't be allowed to serve on a school board. Whether your children go to public school or private schools, you still have to pay taxes for the school district, so you still have a vested interest. Besides, you can run for Fire District Trustee and have never called 911.

Yes, of course, they are elected public officials. That's exactly the point. Therefore, their records should be completely illuminated regardless of the infraction so district residents can make informed choices. I, for one, would NOT want someone serving on the school board who had a domestic battery charge in his/her records.
As far as who should conduct the background check, I believe the school district should contract with an independent agency - chosen by district voters and not by local politico - and the candidates themselves should foot the cost or be allowed to raise funds if they cannot afford to pay themselves. If someone wants to run for a public post, they should be willing to pay the business expenses that incurs. Besides, wouldn't that cost constitute a tax write-off?

Finally, I disagree with the logic about Fire District/called 911 -- they are not synonymous. Calling 911 has no correlation to running for Fire District Trustee. And taxes paid do not ensure you have a true connection and interest in the welfare of the children involved in your decisions. Simply because i live in OP and pay taxes to support the library doesn't mean I really CARE about the library. In fact, that disconnect actually means decisions might be based more on budgetary/political issues rather than on the best interests of the children, which really should trump all else. That tact might actually work against you, simply because you would be voting on issues that don't affect your own kids because they aren't in the same school system.

laura, I appreciate your opinion about school board members having kids in the district. When I was on the D135 board, i saw my job as a representative of the entire district, not just my two children, who were students in the district. Only about 18% of the families in 135 had kids in the district and I felt I had an obligation to look after the interests of the other 82% as well.

By the way, political spending, for your own campaign or for someone else's is never tax deductible.

John,i also appreciate your view but disagree with your logic. The other 82% really don't care much about school district's policies concerning the kids and rightfully so; they care about their taxes first, and have scant interest in how policies affect education if their own kids aren't directly affected.