Does Annette Johnson have an appropriate demeanor to lead a public school district?

Facts:

•  Annette Johnson berated employees during a recorded meeting. Johnson defended it as a moment of extreme frustration. But a pattern exists.
• In 2012, Johnson verbally sparred with another board member, insulting his family and people who live in low-income housing.
• In March 2014, a police report filed by the then-superintendent indicates that Johnson threatened to shoot people.

Information:

As we indicated in our first post, “controversial” is word that is often associated with Annette Johnson. It is a word that she has embraced, saying that controversy comes with the territory.

However, at what point does Johnson’s behavior cross the line?

In April, board member John Laesch posted a two-minute, 30-second clip of Johnson berated an unidentified employee. In a Beacon-News article, Laesch called on Johnson to resign, and claimed that the recording was part of larger pattern of inappropriate and unprofessional behavior.

The recording can be heard here:

Johnson admitted it was her on the recording. Johnson subsequently apologized at a May 2 Board meeting “if she was harsh”. She later said in a Board meeting that the recording was a “moment of great frustration”. 

Despite this being described repeatedly as a “moment of frustration”, this is far from Johnson’s first frustration. In 2012, she and then-board member Ray Hull participated in a nasty argument during a public meeting.

Hull - who is no longer on the board - insulted Johnson, and she responded in kind.

Board policies have few specifics to say about how board members should conduct themselves in demeanor or conversational tone.

Policy 2:230 asks speakers at board meetings to “Conduct oneself with respect and civility toward others”.

However, board policy 8:30 outlines conduct expectations for visitors to District events. The policy specifically defines a school property as “district and school buildings, grounds, and parking areas; vehicles used for school purposes; and any location used for a School Board meeting…”

The same policy defines a visitor as “Any person other than an enrolled student or district employee.”

By this definition, a board member at a board meeting or in the district office would qualify as a visitor and be subject to the policies in 8:30.

Among the requirements:

• The School District expects mutual respect, civility, and orderly conduct among all people on school property or at a school event.
•  Behave in an unsportsmanlike manner, or use vulgar or obscene language;

Similarly, the District Handbook – which sets expectations for students - says discipline shall be imposed for:

• Any behavior which disrupts the appropriate conduct of a school program or activity; or
• Hazing, bullying, or harassment of any kind

Students are specifically prohibited from:

• Engaging in bullying, hazing or any kind of aggressive behavior that does physical or psychological harm to a staff person or another student or encouraging other students to engage in such behavior. Prohibited conduct specifically includes, without limitation, any use of violence, intimidation, force, noise, coercion, threats, stalking, harassment, sexual harassment, public humiliation, theft or destruction of property, retaliation, hazing, bullying, using a school computer, or a school computer network or other comparable conduct. 

If students are held to this standard - and can expect to receive consequences - then it is reasonable to expect adults would be held to the same standard.

Sadly, these two above instances are not the only examples. In 2014, superintendent Jerome Roberts called Aurora police to report that he had been threatened by Johnson.

The following  report was obtained through a Freedom of Information request. The police blacked out parts of the report.

A copy of the report, without the blacked out portions, was also mailed to voters in the East Aurora district. A copy is published below:

It is left to voters to decide if these are isolated incidents from a passionate board member or a pattern of behavior that does not meet a policy requiring “mutual respect, civility, and orderly conduct.”

We urge you to weigh these facts carefully and then vote against Annette Johnson in the April 4 election. 

We have reached out to Mrs. Johnson but have not received a response.

Have an idea, suggestion, or a tip? Email us at voteoutaj@gmail.com

Did Annette Johnson violate Board policy by using a District logo on her private business account?

Facts:

• Annette Johnson is or was the owner of Ciprianis Pasta and later, Edible Eatables or Editable Eatables.
•  She uses the East Aurora Tomcat logo on her business site, mixing her personal business, District property, and political advocacy.
•  Board Policy 2:105 prohibits Board members from intentionally using “any District property or resources in connection with any political activity.

Information:

When she was first elected to the school board, Annette Johnson was the owner of a Chicago Heights business named “Cipriani’s Pasta”. This is a point of pride for Johnson: when speaking about the district’s financial issues, she consistently cites her thorough business knowledge and links it to her experience running a small business. As noted in various media reports, at board meetings, she will compare purchases of curriculum or educational supplies to purchases she makes in her food business – saying she has learned to watch the bottom line in her business life and is applying those principles to public education.

Johnson cites her business expertise repeatedly at Board meetings and mentions it on her district biography. 

According to multiple media reports and the district’s website, Johnson bought this pasta company from the original owners in 2004. Johnson later ran into some trouble with the name of her company when, in 2014, she was sued by a much larger Cipriani’s Pasta out of New York for trademark infringement. The incident prompted a bit of media coverage:

http://nypost.com/2014/10/27/ciprianis-pasta-and-sauce-files-countersuit-against-cipriani-group/

https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/blog/mama-mia-its-a-pasta-war-cipriani-v-cipriani.html

In the end, Johnson told the Beacon News that – although she had superior pasta and would likely have won the copyright lawsuit – she decided not fight the suit for unnamed reasons. Regardless, Johnson agreed to change the company’s name to “Sipriani’s Pasta” to avoid confusion.

What happened after this suit is a bit unclear. “Cipriani’s Pasta” is still registered under the original name with the Secretary of State’s Business Services Department. And Johnson still appears to use a “ciprianipasta” – original spelling – in her email address. There is no record of a Siprianis Pasta in Illinois. What has become of her business is unclear.

The ciprianispasta website is no longer active. Another site “Edible Eatables” is now online. This company offers a product very similar to what Johnson is known to have sold: printable food. The name of the new company is confusing. The site lists the names as both “Edible Eatables” and “Editable Eatables.” Neither of these companies are a registered LLC with the Secretary of State’s Office, although Cipriani’s Pasta was renewed as recently as April 2016.

However, the Edible/Editable Eatables site clearly lists the same Chicago Heights address that was used by Cipriani’s Pasta. The phone numbers for both companies is the same, and it is connected to Johnson. It’s clear that the Edible/Editable Eatables are connected to Johnson.

The concerning item on the site is what appears to be lone item for sale:

A cookie listing “Johnson for District 131 School Board” with the Tomcat logo and “Catch the Tomcat spirit” design on the cookie. 

East Aurora Board Policy 2:105 outlines an “Ethics and Gift Ban”. It says “No Board member or employee shall intentionally use any district property or resources in connection with any political activity.”

There is no doubt the “Tomcat” logo is the property of the district and it was created by district staff. There’s also no record of Johnson requesting permission to use this logo as a political advertisement/personal business vehicle in any posted board minutes.

Use of the district logo is not an idle concern. Board policy requires that even district support groups – such as band or sports boosters – have to petition for the use of the school logo. (See Board policy 8:90.) Staff is expressly prohibited from violating copyright. (See Board policy 5:170)

So, is it a violation of board policy for the sitting board president to use district images created by the district for a private business venture that she would personally profit from? Is Johnson using the district’s name to promote her private business?

Johnson is blending her district role with her personal business. Is she also drawing in her political career by putting a campaign ad on a private business website? Has her company made an in-kind donation to her political campaign?

Maybe it was an oversight by Johnson that she used her own campaign materials on a retail item with a district logo. Johnson, or a web designer, may have needed to put something on a new website and grabbed the first thing easily available. However, the image has been posted for more than six months with no change. This is the kind of carelessness and disregard for best practices that Johnson claims to have no patience for.

Where are the lines between Johnson’s personal for-profit business, the public school district she represents, and her political campaign to be elected to the board? If it is a mistake, why is it not corrected?

We urge Annette Johnson to explain or correct this issue as soon as possible.

We urge everyone else not to vote for Annette Johnson on April 4.



Have an idea, suggestion, or a tip? Email us at voteoutaj@gmail.com

Vote Out Annette Johnson

Vote Out Annette Johnson

Annette Johnson has filed her paperwork to run for a third term on the East Aurora School District 131 Board of Education. Johnson has served on the East Aurora board since 2009. She served as board president from 2010 to 2014, then from 2015 to present.

During that time, Johnson has been described as “outspoken” and “controversial”. These are terms Johnson embraces, and she has used them to describe herself during board meetings.

While there is some accuracy to these descriptors, they fall short of the truth. The truth is that Annette Johnson has been a destabilizing force in the district for nearly all of her eight years on the Board.

Annette Johnson’s unsteady, erratic leadership has damaged the district’s reputation in the community, decreased transparency, cost taxpayers money, and undermined the leadership in the district.

Among the main concerns:

• Despite pledges to watch every penny, Annette Johnson’s actions have needlessly cost the district thousands of dollars. 
• Annette Johnson’s demeanor does not fit the board for a school district. Her behavior would be called bullying in the classrooms she was elected to represent.  
• Annette Johnson is not transparent.

We will share the facts behind these statements, as well as other concerns, in the coming months.

When a Board members is sworn in, they take an oath. They promise:

• I shall respect taxpayer interests by serving as a faithful protector of the School District’s assets;
•  I shall encourage and respect the free expression of opinion by my fellow Board members and others who seek a hearing before the Board, while respecting the privacy of students and employees;
• I shall recognize that a Board member has no legal authority as an individual and that decisions can be made only by a majority vote at a public Board meeting;
•  and I shall abide by majority decisions of the Board, while retaining the right to seek changes in such decisions through ethical and constructive channels.

Annette Johnson has repeatedly violated that oath, which she has taken twice and hopes to take again in April.

We will not endorse any candidates in the April 4 election for the East Aurora School District 131 Board of Education. We won’t tell you who to vote for. We are only here to make a case that you should not vote for Annette Johnson. We wish her well in her personal and professional life. We hope she is successful in whatever she chooses after being a school board member. But East Aurora is a great district and she is not a worthy leader. She should not be in a position to make decisions that affect the lives of more than 15,000 young people.

Don’t vote for Annette Johnson.

Starting soon, and then over the next several weeks, we’ll outline the reasons we consider her unfit to lead.

Meanwhile: Have an idea, suggestion, or a tip? Email us at voteoutaj@gmail.com