Last week, I observed a development that raises ethical concerns in the race for State Board of Education District 9 between incumbent Don McLeroy and Thomas Ratliff.
The lobby held a fundraiser for Ratliff. (I've been forwarded several copies of the lobby invitation, one of which can be viewed here.) Several of the lobbyists listed as fundraiser sponsors represent companies that could have business before the State Board of Education. Some represent computer companies that pushed for legislation watering down state textbook quality control efforts and making it easier for computer companies to get state textbook money – bills that passed over the objection of several State Board of Education members. Others represent firms that have provided or could provide investment services to the Permanent School Fund. Still others have no direct connection to board business, but are simply Ratliff family friends.
I'm not the only one who noticed this. The Texas Tribune also wrote a story on this issue Dec. 4.
Normally, this would not be news. I don’t regularly report on who’s doing fundraisers for whom. But the State Board of Education is governed by a rather weird statute on who can give money – a statute written by Ratliff’s father, former Sen. Bill Ratliff (R-Mt. Pleasant). (In 1992, Ratliff narrowly survived a challenge from former State Board of Education member Bob Aikin (D-Paris)).
The statute can be found at Education Code, Section 7.108 and reads as follows:
(a) A person interested in selling bonds of any type or a person engaged in manufacturing, shipping, selling, or advertising textbooks or otherwise connected with the textbook business commits an offense if the person makes or authorizes a political contribution to or takes part in, directly or indirectly, the campaign of any person seeking election to or serving on the board.
Here’s the issue with this statute and why this matters – the board’s responsibilities affect more interests with lobbyists than it did in the mid-1990s when this statute was written. Back then, textbook publishers and education groups were the main outside lobby groups that cared about the board. Most of the permanent school fund assets were managed by state staff and not outsourced. So bond buyers and textbook publishers were the main interests with business in front of the board.
Now, that’s not the case. The board lets several very lucrative consulting contracts relating to the Permanent School Fund. Computer companies now want to raid textbook funds to buy laptops and other computer hardware, something they couldn’t do in 1995. And those computer companies sought – and got – from the Legislature an exemption from the state’s quality control standards. Computerized textbooks no longer have to cover even half the state’s curriculum and don’t go though the same rigorous public review and comment process that State Board of Education-adopted books do.
Several members of the State Board of Education fought this change, and it’s not much of a stretch to think there are some in the computer industry who won’t be happy about that. Ratliff himself is a lobbyist who lists Microsoft as a client.
While textbook publishers are expressly prohibited from giving money to a state board member, others with interests before the board are not. This may include lobbyists for independent school districts, school organizations, Permanent School Fund money managers and computer hardware manufacturers, among others.
I’m not naming names and connecting dots in this post. I would note, however, that Ratliff is required to report any contribution given at this fundraiser to the Ethics Commission on the contribution and expenditure report due Jan. 15.
When that report is filed, I will examine it carefully. I want to see which of these lobbyists gave money to Ratliff and in what amounts. And I want to see which of these contributions Ratliff chose to accept.
In all fairness, not all the people on this lobby invitation have business before the board. Some are personal friends of the Ratliff family.
But there’s a legitimate policy issue here for the Legislature – should all lobbyists with business before the State Board of Education be subject to a ban on contributing? I could understand a situation similar to the Legislature, where all have to disclose but there are no limits on contributions. And I could understand a blanket ban on all contributions from those with a financial interest. But current law has set up a system where some lobbyists with business before the board can’t contribute but others can. That’s not a fair or level playing field.
Additionally, this fundraiser invites careful scrutiny of upcoming ethics reports. I’ll keep our readers posted as more information comes to light.