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The ciprianispasta website is no longer active.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