Skip to main content

Another question of ethics and integrity for the News Journal: Rodel lobbyists

Among the more interesting paragraphs in the Harvard Research Group study about the Rodel Foundation and education reform in Delaware is this bit that includes Paul Herdman talking (obviously before the 2012 school board elections) about the new areas Rodel would be moving into:

The foundation’s communications efforts and coalition building will deepen and expand as real changes begin to take effect. Rodel will concentrate on broadening support for those leading the change. While continuing to educate and inform the public about the need for change and what kind of change is possible, Rodel will direct communication efforts regarding specific larger scale changes that are going to be implemented by the state and districts—higher standards, greater accountability for performance, and development of strong new teachers and leaders. For these changes to be effective, many constituencies need to be willing to put aside old ways of doing business. One investment Rodel is making to support change processes on the ground is to incubate the emerging Voices 4 Delaware Education organization, a 501(c)(3) education advocacy organization. Other private sector partners will support the legally separate 501(c)(4) organization, Voices 4 Delaware Education Action Fund, as well as a functioning PAC. The investment in Voices is focused on bolstering broad public understanding of change needed in the state’s education system and on providing public leaders and lawmakers with information and knowledge to make the right choices for Delaware kids. Herdman adds, “When teacher evaluation efforts start to have consequences attached to them, when school board elections are no longer controlled by the old power structure, and when we take on fiscal equity issues and the funding formula, we anticipate strong voices of dissent. Changing behavior and shifting resources is extremely challenging to the status quo. There must be an effective counterbalance, an equally strong set of voices saying we need to do the right thing for kids and to support the elected officials and school-level leaders who are going to be receiving most of the heat in this new environment.”
Now the truly intriguing part about this is that what Herdman doesn't tell Harvard (and what, in an equally intriguing manner, they don't ask) is that Voices 4 Delaware Education will be engaging in candidate advertising, and directly attempting not only to elect like-minded individuals to school boards around the State, but to unseat existing board members like Shirley Saffer in Christina.

What's also truly interesting is the lack of integrity on the part of the report writer:  the report was issued in October 2012, months after the Rodel-led charge to drop tens of thousands of dollars to influence school board elections had gone down as a dismal failure.  Yet all readers get to see is a puff piece with Herdman holding forth on educating the public to "do the right thing for kids."

Apparently the right thing to do for kids is to spend thousands in trying to influence elections instead of spending it in the classroom.  (That kind of goes with all those multi-thousand dollar celebratory events that get covered in the News Journal more often than student test scores or the steady re-segregation of Wilmington schools.)

Apparently the right thing to do is also for Paul Herdman to saddle up as a registered lobbyist to push for (just this year) the passage of HB 90 and SB 51--at least according to the Delaware Public Integrity Commission:
OK, I happened to like HB 90, and applaud Kim Williams for introducing it.  I happen to think SB 51 is going to harm teacher preparation programs (and therefore the supply of new teachers) in Delaware.

And I want to point out that there is nothing illegal or inherently shameful about being a registered lobbyist.

There is, however, a question of journalistic integrity here for the News Journal to ponder.

What's missing here is the fact that Herdman is a registered lobbyist.  I don't necessarily blame him for the omission:  when you are shilling for a cause you take all the publicity you can get, however you can get it.

On the other hand, the newspaper would appear (even when it has no statewide competition, and is therefore effectively a monopoly) to have some journalistic obligations toward its readers.  And that means that when it allows people who have registered as lobbyists to write editorials it should actually inform the public.  I don't care if that registered lobbyist is John Daniello, John Flaherty, Frederika Jenner, Richard Korn, Chuck Mead-e, John Sigler, Wayne Smith, Ezra Temko, or Nancy Willing (all of whom are currently registered), the public has a right to know and the newspaper has a responsibility to report their status.

Again:  there is nothing illegal or unethical about being a registered lobbyist.

But we make people register for a reason, and the reason is ostensibly for transparency in government.

The public is supposed to be able to depend on its news sources for information about vested interest and who is exercising it in Legislative Hall:
Paul Herdman is CEO and president of the Rodel Foundation of Delaware, a nonprofit that advocates for education reform.  Mr. Herdman is also a registered lobbyist.
See?  That wasn't so hard, was it?

Comments

Scott G. said…
Good Post Steve!
kavips said…
You should try cross referencing all News Journal commentators including letters to the editors and the lobbyist list...

it's an eye opener.

The News Journal opinion page would be very small if not for the lobbyist contributions.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...