Kerris Lee chosen as the newest board member

From Stephanie Stuart:

The Champaign Unit #4 School District Board of Education has selected Mr. Kerris Lee to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr. Stig Lanesskog, who stepped down from his Board position in June. Mr. Lee will complete Mr. Lanesskog’s term, which expires in April 2015. The Board was required to fill the seat within 45 days of the vacancy, according to Board policy.

The Board interviewed six candidates in open session at the meeting on Monday, July 15, 2013 and then deliberated in closed session. The Board voted unanimously in open session to select Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee will be sworn in at the August 5, 2013 Board of Education meeting.

Meg also has a “Breaking News” article up:

The Vimeo video should be up shortly.


UPDATE: Video with audio now available:


6 Responses to “Kerris Lee chosen as the newest board member”

  1. Karen Says:

    Will this pose any conflict of interest issues, given potential ‘vendor’ status of the selected candidate? EToys has an association with Illini for Kids. ‘ Illini for Kids has successfully worked with Unit 4 and UIUC to employ a curriculum that teaches kids …’ something linked to the NG (don’t have online/subscription to NG so can’t read any more of it). Just wondering how that all works when money exchanges hands for services rendered.

  2. charlesdschultz Says:

    I am told that the board and Dr. Wiegand discussed possible conflicts of interest and they did not find anything. Take that however you like. Illini for Kids is 100% non-profit and all volunteer. I am searching out more information about the Summer Entrepreneurship Consulting (S.E.C.) program, a collaboration between Parkland and Kerris’s Lost Points LLC.

    Personally, I am finding these initiatives quite fascinating.

  3. Karen Says:

    I did not know that paying for the services of a non-profit excludes the non-profit from vendor status. Presumably the week-long session Unit 4 teachers had
    involved a fee for services? Maybe I am wrong.
    ”Contact us for rates and other information about inservice and preservice professional development, workshops, presentations, and technical support.’

    Does Mr. Kerris recuse himself on votes involving district spending on initiatives/services/etc. related to his professional market, even though I think I recall him stating that his tech knowledge/skills would be an area of expertise that would serve the board and Unit 4 well? If so, does that limit his ability to share the very expertise that made him an attractive candidate? Obviously his relationship with Unit 4 is valuable. In what capacity will Mr. Kerris best serve Unit 4? As a vendor (non-profit or otherwise) or a board member? Can you, legally, be both? Some things may be legal, but, the bigger backdrop of trust-building , ethical conduct, etc. can raise ‘should we’ concerns.
    Mr. Lockman was at the special board meeting, so maybe he can point to the legal distinctions among types of vendors that give non-profits a unique status when it comes to being hired and doing business with clients. I am assuming the non-profit distinction is what Dr. Wiegand considered to be proof of an absence of conflict of interest issues? Ethically, these things can become a slippery slope once a precedent is set. It may be all fine and well now, but, with different people/situations down the line who knows. Does the board see itself as having an ethical obligation to protect into the future an aboveboard manner of conduct, so to speak? It will be a win-win in this case if in fact non-profits lack vendor status for services rendered (Mr. Kerris is an asset to the Unit 4 community and with a child reportedly starting K, a whole new dimension to his perspective will be fostered). As a tax-payer I would like to see legal verification of that. Wading through legal terminology is difficult for a layperson at the best of times, so it would be great if the school attorney could clarify the issue.

  4. pattsi Says:

    Interestingly, Melodyne Rosales asked in essence this question of Sarah Pratt during her presentation last week. Just a reminder, Ms. Pratt is the PAC in the AG office. In other words, when does a non profit function under the OMA? Is it when there is a discussion concerning whatever that is funded via public monies? Is there an obligation that any public money use be on the non profit web site along with meeting agendas and minutes when there is any discuss of the public monies. Actually, this is a very relevant question of all non profits.

  5. pattsi Says:

    Here is more information related to the above posting. No matter what a private and not-for-profit entities whether given any amount of public monies does not have to function under the OMA.
    With a bit of research, I discovered that two bills were introduced to the GA to change this situation. The bill numbers are SB3773 and HB943. Unfortunately, these bills did not pass. Maybe if a critical mass of citizens contact their respective GA members, the bills will be re-introduced and even passed. Many not-for-profits receive a lot of public funding; yet, there is no transparency.

  6. charlesdschultz Says:

    Video with audio now available:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: