Gazette runs interference for Tanner (sort of…)

Remember the days when every personal detail and every utterance of D11 board members was considered front page news when those personal details involved reform board members? Remember how even unfounded allegations of illegal activity against specific board members were considered to be in the interest of the public, and therefore worthy of top-of-the-fold coverage? With progressives running the D11 board, the Gazette philosophy has dramatically changed. Not only are very clear financial shenanigans not worthy of a news article, they are a reason for the Gazette education writer, Sue McMillin, to run interference for the board member in question.

The issue of D11 board member Jan Tanner’s sweetheart pizza contract with the school district did catch the attention of McMillin, but she was not interested in exerting any energy to determine if Tanner or district administrators were violating any state statutes, or even district policies and regulations. The most that McMillin was willing to do was to place an entry into a back page blog on the Gazette website where she produced a rather weak defense for Tanner. In this blog entry, McMillin claims that Tanner’s pizza companies have been conducting business with D11 for over a decade. McMillin, with no professional curiosity at all, then points out that D11 issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in July 2009 for this contract, and that Tanner’s pizza franchises won against several other pizza shops. Since McMillin has obviously chosen to become the advocate for Tanner rather than a reporter, she fails to inform her readers why Tanner has held onto this lucrative pizza contract for over a decade without ever having to bid through an RFP or any other contract. Keep in mind that Tanner became the school district treasurer in 2004 and has held these contracts without any public notice through the current date. As I pointed out in my prior post, Tanner made over $160,000 during the 2008-2009 school year alone.

McMillin sniffs that there is a paper trail for all of Tanner’s district business, yet McMillin never produces any part of this trail. One has to question whether or not McMillin presented D11 with an Open Records Request or if she simply took Tanner’s and D11 CFO Glenn Gustafson’s words that this paper trail actually existed. If McMillin did officially request this paper trail of transactions, D11 had only 72 hours to comply with the request. If there were extenuating circumstances (ie, time was needed for D11 and Tanner to CREATE this so-called paper trail), then D11 had only 7 days to produce these documents, according to state law. McMillin has never indicated that she has ever received any documents from D11.

McMillin tells us, with no proof or explanation, that Tanner signed an “official conflict of interest” document in January 2007, but that this document was never made public. Proving once again that she has very little interest in facts, McMillin does not sufficiently explore or explain why a conflict of interest document, which is used to inform the public of a public official’s conflict of interest, was never made public. Tanner explained to McMillin that she did not believe that she had to tell anyone of her conflict because “everyone knew” that she was making big money off of the school district. Really, Jan? Everyone knew? When you were appointed board Treasurer in 2004, I did not know that you were engaged in contracts with the school district, nor did at least two other board members. In fact, I did not know until quite recently that you were engaged in a six-figure annual contract with D11.

So who did know of Tanner’s hidden business dealings with D11? Glenn Gustafson knew, as did ex-procurement manager John Elliott. What makes this deal smell even more rotten is that, according to D11 Policy DK, written in 1972 and revised in 1979, the person who writes the checks for approved bills in the district is….the Treasurer or Assistant Treasurer. Unbeknown to the D11 tax payers, Jan Tanner was literally writing herself checks from the public trough for several years – unless, of course, she was allowing Gustafson to have the honor of making those payments.

Now let’s take a look at D11 policy DJG, “Vendor Relations.” Under this policy, the CFO (Gustafson) is responsible for, “The establishment of procedures to ensure that purchases shall not be made from a member of the board or their immediate households, or from any enterprise in which a board member holds a substantial interest, except for public utilities, when the purchase is in the best interest of the district, or when there is no conflict of interest.” While Sue McMillin argues in her blog that Tanner was not a “member of the board” until her election in 2006, she is incorrect. Tanner was a member of the board and a public official as soon as she was appointed “Board Treasurer” in November 2004.

McMillin points out that the Board of Education (BOE) does not routinely vote on food service contracts, and that the district purchases milk from Sinton Dairy in a “similar” fashion. That is not quite the case. By BOE policy EF (Food & Nutrition Services) the BOE will approve the prices set for meals and milk. Therefore, the BOE is aware of the contract with Sinton and BOE members are aware of the cost of milk purchases because they are required to set the price for milk.

For even more information on yet another angle in this Tanner money-making scheme, visit Spydrasweb once again at http://www.spydrasweb.blogspot.com/. In the latest Spydra blog entry, read how another pizza salesman named Anthony Mand also had a lucrative pizza contract with D11 and learn how he entered a partnership with – you guessed it – the Tanners, in 2003. As Spydra notes, this legal partnership quickly dissolved after Spydra first wrote of the shady Tanner business dealings.

By the way, Jan Tanner wants to be the D11 board president after this fall’s elections. If the Treasurer slot pays $160,000 per year, one can only imagine how Tanner will profit while seated in the President’s chair.