Richard Painter and Norman Eisen were ethics lawyers for George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
In this article, they call attention to serious ethical lapses and violations in Betsy DeVos’ case.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/317975-the-ethics-case-against-betsy-DeVos
“As former ethics counsels to Presidents Obama and George W. Bush, we’ve reviewed more than our share of ethics filings for cabinet nominees. Seldom have we seen a worse cabinet-level ethics mess than that presented by Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s choice for education secretary.
“Her extensive financial holdings present significant—and unresolved—conflict of interest issues. She also failed to provide the Senate with accurate information about her involvement with outside organizations. We have regretfully come to the conclusion that these concerns disqualify DeVos for that cabinet position.
“This is not a claim that we make reflexively. We supported the nomination of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who took extensive steps to avoid conflicts with his former employer, ExxonMobil. Likewise, we have welcomed the plan that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has announced to address his ethics issues, although we await final details and implementation. By contrast, DeVos’ failure to meet even minimum standards leaves us with no choice but to speak out.
“For example, DeVos intends to maintain the $5 million to $25 million she and her husband have invested in Neurocore, a biotech company that claims to have “helped thousands of children” with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Neurocore is listed with its logo and a link to its website along with several other investments on a website operated by Windquest Group, an investment company owned by DeVos and her husband.
“DeVos retaining her interest in Windquest Group raises significant concerns about how her and her spouse’s investments in the company, and her affiliation with it, will be managed so as to avoid potential conflicts of interest now and in the future. Having the Secretary of Education continue to hold an investment in “a science and research brain-based program” that produces “life-changing results” targeted towards children is a departure from precedent and common sense.
“As owners of the Windquest Group, Betsy and Dick DeVos are the primary backers of Neurocare. The fact that Neurocare will continue to be held and promoted by her and her spouse’s investment management company on its website is startling, since doing so effectively acts as an endorsement by the Secretary of Education once she takes office. Nor does recusal solve the problem. After all, much of what she does as Secretary will target “life-changing results” for children. Both of us would have advised such a nominee (and the president) that this tie had to be severed.
“DeVos reportedly has not provided the detailed supplemental information requested in the Senate questionnaire for some of her holdings, including holdings associated with two of the three trusts for which she will continue to serve as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary with her spouse. If true, her failure to do so is a significant break from past practice and means she has not been fully vetted—a disqualifier in itself.
“In her hearing, DeVos also made claims than strain credulity. For example, she was asked under oath about tax filings that listed her as vice president of the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation. The Prince Foundation, established by her parents in 1989, reportedly made significant contributions to anti-LGBT groups over the years, including at least $5 million to conservative religious groups that support conversion therapy.
“DeVos denied that she had that role at the Prince Foundation, and when confronted in her hearing by Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) with actual forms indicating she was an officer, DeVos attributed it to a “clerical error”—one that persisted for 17 years.
While this foundation position does not present a legally disqualifying conflict, it appears the Senate was not given the truthful information it needs to perform its advise and consent function under the Constitution. This failure raises questions about the accuracy of information she provided across the board.”
DeVos’ refusal to divest and remove any financial conflict of interest and her inability to explain her relationship to her mother’s foundation present serious ethical issues. These actions show a disrespect for the Senate and for federal ethics laws.
“We oppose her nomination on ethics grounds.”
“Norman Eisen is chairman and co-founder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. He served as chief ethics lawyer for President Obama and later as U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic. Richard Painter is vice chairman of CREW and a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. He served as chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
They have every reason to reject her from lack of qualifications to ethical lapses. But will they?
Lack of qualifications
Ethical failings
Ignorance of federal programs, policies, law
Outrageous policy positions on special education, civil rights, vouchers, separation of church/ state
Joel, it’s just like a great anonymous philosopher once said, “Ethics, schmethics.”
Watching this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBWKKsGmNQU is small change compared to the conflict of interest posed by DeVos.
The stench of corruption
Associated Press- Mitch McConnell’s wife, the new Secretary of Transportation, gave a 5-min. speech to a cult-like terrorist group of Iranian exiles, for $50,000 in 2015. The Dept. of Transportation claimed that she didn’t give the speech. She, then, confirmed that she did. It reminds me of the U.S. Dept. of Ed.’s deception that charter school contractors are “public” entities.
It is outrageous to acknowledge the lack of integrity, honesty, and working experiences in the post that official head presides over, from current President of America to his cabinet.
What will altruistic American People do about this? Back2basic
I see no evidence that ethics or integrity matter for these Republican Senators. What can Mitch McConnell do to them? Is it worse than constituents withholding their voter?
Mitch McConnell wouldn’t do anything to thwart corruption.
But what can he do if one of his senators votes ethically against DeVos?
Revenge seems like Trump’s game. If there was a way for McConnell and his wife to make a buck, from, or off of, a dissenting Republican senator, that’s where focus would shift. The amount would have to be greater, than the amount that DC players make from Wall Street, discount retailers and tech industry billionaires.
Give the position to me. I will be United States Secretary of Education LeftCoast Teacher. I promise to build on the precedent of DeVos’ nomination and fulfill my duties by investing in Viagra and selling the drug to schools as a standardized test performance enhancing miracle. Students learn best when they’re excited. (Pardon my sarcastic jocularity, but Betsy DeVos, with her investments and yet likely confirmation, is a brutal joke, so I think vulgar humor strikes the appropriate tone when discussing her.)
Can someone, e.g. the ACLU, sue her with standing if, as appears likely, she becomes Secretary?
Check C-SPAN 2 now for live coverage of Senate Dems speaking on DeVos.
With the charter school industry that’s favored by nominee for U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos bleeding vital funds from the public’s schools, the thoughtful person will ask: “Why are hedge fund people the main backers of the private charter school industry? After all, hedge funds are not known for a selfless interest in educating children.”
Well, the answer, of course, is MONEY.
For example, look at DeVos’ home state of Michigan: There are 1.5 million children attending public elementary and secondary schools and the state annually spends about $11,000 per student which adds up to pot of about $17 billion that private charter school operators have their eyes on. If these private operators succeed in getting what DeVos wants to give them — the power to run all the schools — these private profiteers could make almost $6 billion in profit just by firing veteran teachers and replacing them with low-paid inexperienced teachers, which is what the real objective of so-called “Value-Added” evaluations of veteran teachers is all about.
But wait! There’s more!
In fact, there are many more ways that big profits are being made every day right now by the private charter school industry. Here are just some:
The Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education has issued a warning that charter schools posed a risk to the Department of Education’s own goals. The report says: “Charter schools and their management organizations pose a potential risk to federal funds even as they threaten to fall short of meeting the goals” because of the financial fraud, the skimming of tax money into private pockets that is the reason why hedge funds are the main backers of charter schools.
The Washington State Supreme Court, the New York State Supreme Courts, and the National Labor Relations Board have ruled that charter schools are not public schools because they aren’t accountable to the public since they aren’t governed by publicly-elected boards and aren’t subdivisions of public government entities, in spite of the fact that some state laws enabling charter schools say they are government subdivisions. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A “PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL” because no charter school fulfills the basic public accountability requirement of being responsible to and directed by a school board that is elected by We the People. Charter schools are clearly private schools, owned and operated by private entities. Nevertheless, they get public tax money.
Even the staunchly pro-charter school Los Angeles Times (which acknowledges that its “reporting” on charter schools is paid for by a billionaire charter school advocate) complained in an editorial that “the only serious scrutiny that charter operators typically get is when they are issued their right to operate, and then five years later when they apply for renewal.” Without needed oversight of what charter schools are actually doing with the public’s tax dollars, hundreds of millions of tax money that is supposed to be spent on educating the public’s children is being siphoned away into private pockets.
Charter schools should (1) be required by law to be governed by school boards elected by the voters so that they are accountable to the public; (2) a charter school entity must legally be a subdivision of a publicly-elected governmental body; (3) charter schools should be required to file the same detailed public-domain audited annual financial reports under penalty of perjury that genuine public schools file; and, (4) anything a charter school buys with the public’s money should be the public’s property.
NO PUBLIC TAX MONEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO TO CHARTER SCHOOLS THAT FAIL TO MEET THESE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC.
I love this powerful comment.
Portman also fails: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2017/02/5_things_to_know_about_sen_rob.html
My biggest problem with DeVos in particular and ed reform more generally is simply that they don’t value public schools.
They assign no value to them. I think this belief allows them to act recklessly- opening 25 charters in a smaller city like Toledo, for example, and just “watching what happens!”
Because they don’t value public schools they see no downside risk to pitching the whole idea in the trash. There IS downside risk. They could do, have done, real damage.
If privatization fails then what do we do? Get public schools back? How? They can’t get them back in Chile and millions of people flooded the streets demanding them back.
The truth is that once they’re gone, they’re gone,and there will be only ONE choice- a privatized school.
Also, I AM starting to believe it makes a difference if policy leaders attended public schools. I never believed that before but maybe it DOES make a difference.
Read Obama or Duncan on public education and compare to John King.
Obama and Duncan have no broader idea or concept of public education. They treat schools like contract service providers. I think this comes (partly) from attending private schools. John King, for all his faults,”gets” the basic public education idea- that this is a public good, not a consumer contract relationship. King is world’s closer to my idea of public schools than either Obama or Duncan. He gets it in a way they don’t.
Obama and Duncan’s vision is so narrow, so small. They may as well be selling a cell phone plan. They’ve stripped all the “public” out.
Senate vote scheduled at Noon EST, Feb 7th
I watch morning joe each day on msnbc. It is a good show. But 1 hour, 1 minute into the show today, they began talking about education. I already knew how clueless Joe was, but there were five people on the panel, and it was the most disgraceful so-called discussion of education I have ever seen on a non propaganda network television show. It is indescribable, and must be viewed to be believed. (it lasts only 4 or 5 minutes). Harold Ford of the University of Michigan wound it up praising the heroism of Arne Duncan. He has someone on the faculty at U.M. capable whose style would not be to slice his head off and present it on a plate—-lucky for him. I hope you watch it, and present it. I will continue to watch Morning Joe…..I have learned to live with the reality of how stupid Joe is regarding public education , a subject they seldom discuss. Good production decision.