In the past when there is discussion regarding RUSD board member debate, my alliances have usually been with the very vocal minority of the board. However, I cautiously approve of the referral made by Dr. Warner last night to limit the number of times a board member can debate an issue. You see, the board meetings have been a political pissing match lately; limiting the public grandstanding of board members might actually allow the board time to make some REAL decisions that might ACTUALLY benefit the children of this district.
I am NOT suggesting that the board should not allow dissenting views or public debate – but there has to be an alternative to what has become the status quo on Monday nights. Board meetings, where NOTHING is accomplished, should NOT take over 4 hours to happen! A board member should be able to make his/her point after a couple of times around the table. Mr. Nielsen is a shining example of this; last night he provided a short, but POWERFUL reason for his no vote on accepting the EL-12 Monitoring Report (Learning Environment/Treatment of Students) as compliant.
I am sure that are many that think that approving this measure are certain of the “slippery slope” scenario where there will soon be a time when all future debate/dissent is silenced. I think that argument is a baseless one – at least I hope so. The children of this district deserve better leadership than what we have been accustomed; the board cannot continue on the path they are on – if they do, NOTHING will ever be accomplished!
For those of you who think I have gone completely crazy, I double-dog-dare you – No, I triple-dog-dare you – to attend at least one board meeting in its entirety. You will then understand why such a measure is so desperately needed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Right to the triple dog dare? That is something of a breach of etiquette, isn't it?
Worked for Schwartz, didn't it?
Here's a thought! Why don't we get the school board to approve numbered school board seats that are districwide. Candidates would now choose a seat to run for and would campaign about how their plans for the district differ from their opponent. If voters were happy with a board member, perhaps s/he would not have opposition.
It certainly would be an improvement to the system where up to 6 candidates vie for 3 seats. Everyone speaks in broad platitudes about how they want to improve education, love kids, and want to hold down taxes.
Also, if you truly want representation from the village of Caledonia, voters could get behind a candidate who would actively put that on their agenda.
Think about it - - districtwide numbered seats. It works in town government, why not on the school board.
Is there a current school board member who might champion this concept?
Maybe with numbered seats, you wouldn't have to worry about limiting comments, because the voters would "weed-out" those who continually abuse the comments just to hear themselves talk.
That idea has come up for discussion every year ot two - but I guarantee you, it will NEVER happen!!
There is not overwhelming support for the idea.
The reason that there is not overwhelming support for the idea is that you are asking the incumbents to change how they are elected so that they now have to run on issues instead of platitudes.
The incumbents are comfortable with their name recognition and electability. Why, in God's name, would they every want to change that?
If there were groundswell of support for numbered seats, and it became a campaign issue, I think it might have a chance of passing.
Its worth a try!
This is the party line – not necessarily my viewpoint….
While numbered seats would insure more diversity on the board, it is feared that any decision made by a board member (elected to a numbered seat) would not benefit the district as a whole, but the part of the community they were elected to represent. In other words, EVERY decision would be a political one.
In my humble opinion, the issue of numbered seats is a valid one – but the RUSD board has WAY too much work to do (redistricting, grade configuration, block-scheduling, maintaining and building of new facilities, accountability, student achievement, etc) to even consider numbered seats at this time.
I welcome your comments/insights…
Remember, there would not be smaller districts within RUSD. These seats would be district-wide (just like town supervisors and village trustees). The important difference would be that candidates would run for a specific seat on the school board and create a platform about how they would address issues differently than their opponent.
It wouldn't guarantee diversity, in fact, it might assure that the union had representation on the SB.
But can that be all bad?
Maybe if we could hold school board members accountable by running issue-oriented campaigns that the voters could then decide the direction that they want the school board to go through the election of candidates whose platform the concur with.
I don't necessarily disagree with you - but issue-oriented campaigns COULD every issue a political one.
Take the very controversial issue of redistricting. Having one candidate from the inner-city running against a candidate from the outlying suburbs, with their very different viewpoints, will DELAY even further any decision because of all the political grandstanding that will be very much occur.
We have enough of that as it is - we do not need more.
I do, however, think that numbered seats would help in achieving diversity.
A majority of the board members reside in the outlying suburbs - there aren't ANY from the central city. This (in my opinion) is a travesty.
When you have a faceless money machine spending tens of thousands of dollars to insure certain candidates win - it is very hard for the average Joe to capture a seat on the board.
Post a Comment