Clayton County School Board: Obligations and Violations

By Lois Robley, Ph.D. and Tom Creely, Ph.D.

In March, The National Accreditation Commission voted unanimously to revoke Clayton County school district’s accreditation September 1, 2008, unless the district meets the conditions set forward by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).

The decision follows allegations that the Clayton County School Board is riddled with financial mismanagement and unethical behavior. A special investigation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools was initiated after Board members filed complaints against other Board members, and members of the faculty and staff, and parents sent written complaints. In January, SACS visited Clayton County schools and interviewed staff members and board members and reviewed the County’s financial records. In February, after compiling the findings of the investigation, SACS sent a scathing report to the Clayton County School District recommending that accreditation be revoked, stating the “Clayton County Board of Education is fatally flawed.”

To students and residents of Clayton County, this is a big issue and many residents have gathered to voice their concerns. The loss of accreditation in September could possibly prevent students from graduating next year. It could also hinder students’ chances of getting into college, and their eligibility to receive HOPE scholarship funds and other scholarships and grants. In a district where students are reliant upon public education, these concerns are a vital issue to both parents and students.

Thousands of Clayton County residents have attended school board meetings and press conferences to demand the present School Board members step down, as many feel the Board has not lived up their obligation to put students first.

Other than violating the standards for accreditation, what other violations do you think the Clayton County School Board has committed? Have they violated the public’s trust? What obligations do members of the Board have? Are they obligated only to the students they serve or to the larger community as well?

Dr. Lois Robley, Ph.D., is assistant director and professor of ethics at the Siegel Institute. Dr. Tom Creely is assistant professor of Leadership and Ethics at the Siegel Institute, Kennesaw State University.

Mortgage Crisis: A Moral Crisis?

By Tom Creely, Ph.D.

The current mortgage crisis has contributed to the United States sliding into a recession which adversely affects all Americans. Recently, three major credit card companies, Bank of America, Capital One, and Discover Financial Services, revealed before Congress that they are passing their losses in the mortgage sub-prime loans on to credit card holders by increasing their interest rates on balances. Even people who have paid more than the minimum payment and on time are being hit with dramatic rate increases. According to recent testimony for the US Senate Committee on Bankruptcy Reform, Professor Elizabeth Warren stated “Sub-prime mortgage companies … have unlawfully taken millions of dollars from homeowners, then fled to the bankruptcy courts to protect their insiders and bank lenders.” This is more than a legal issue, it is a moral issue of greed, manipulation, and deception of people who could ill-afford high risk mortgages. Do you think such predatory lending was focused on the poor and economically disadvantaged? With Metro Atlanta having a large minority population, were they victims of cunning mortgage brokers? What ethical responsibilities do major financial institutions have? Tell me what you think.

Dr. Tom Creely is assistant professor of Leadership and Ethics at the Siegel Institute, Kennesaw State University.

Voter Shock Therapy for America

By Tom Creely, Ph.D.

Many Democratic and Republican voters in Iowa stated that they voted for Barak Obama and Mike Huckabee because they want a change that will shock America. As anti-establishment, they want a changed America. Hillary Clinton, an expected winner, came in third. Where were the women voters for her? Iowa women who love and support Hillary Clinton stated that they abandoned her because their vote was to shock change the future of America – Obama’s hope. Nonetheless, evangelical voters propelled Huckabee far ahead of his Republican competitors. Mitt Romney out spent, out marketed, and out visited the other Republicans for a distant second place. Obama and Huckabee are unknown on the national and international scene, yet there is a phenomenon of the power of the unknown. Is there a moral impetus for this phenomenon of a shocking change in America? Is it ethical to vote for the future leadership of America just for shock effect? Does the voter have a moral obligation to reason and work through who is best qualified to lead and serve Americans?

Dr. Tom Creely is assistant professor of Leadership and Ethics at the Siegel Institute, Kennesaw State University.