Picture via Anil Dash. Link in post.
Over this past weekend, I was mentally composing an anti-Ann Delacy (De Lacy? deLacy? DeLacy? Incorrectness wholly my fault.) post that complemented (and sharpened) this week’s bit on the Patch. This morning, I saw that by doing so I would be joining an online pile-on. So pile-on, briefly, I shall. (A special hat-tip to Kirsty for drawing my attention to candidates and online commenting.)
To recap: in the next few years, negotiations between the Board of Education and county teacher’s unions are more likely to be contentious than in the past, as the Board will (finally) be footing a more significant portion of the overall bill, and dollars will be scarcer. Although “inmates running the prison” is perhaps too harsh a metaphor, we need to ensure that the seated Board can weigh all needs and parties equally.
No candidate should be judged solely on who endorses them, just as no candidate should be judged on who didn’t. However, all six candidates need to face more vigorous questioning from the electorate, and we need to hear more specifics on how they intend to handle millions of dollars in new liabilities. De Lacy, in particular, will need to address how she will balance her former allegiance to the HCEA and the needs of her new, expanded constituency.
De Lacy, for her part, seems regrettably combative even before actually reaching the Board. In response to her primary victory, De Lacy was quoted as saying “I don’t mind throwing rocks,” when we all know full well rocks thrown break windows, and as a behavior is (hopefully) banned in our schools. Shouldn’t we ban it on our Board as well? The primary election removed one major obstruction from the Board of Education, and given the murky financial and fiduciary waters ahead, the time for platitudes and polemics has passed. The surviving Six have seven months in which to convince us they are up to the coming challenge.
I, for one, already chose not to vote for a candidate with at least fifty percent of that decision based on the tone and implications of their Patch commenting. De Lacy will now make two. To candidates: yes, in an online, wired world, it can be tempting to directly engage your critics, no matter how…crazy they are. In doing so, though, in engaging directly in the hurly-burly no-man’s-land of online commenting, you’re just reducing your own credibility. (If you’re interested in tracing the problems of online commenting, I would investigate Gawker’s changes throughout the years. [“The tragedy of the comments.”])
(End note: I feel the need to stress that my wife is a teacher, a member of the teacher’s union, and a strong supporter thereof- as, in fact, am I. [Most of the time.] However, in this instance, I think the election of Delacy to the board throws off the balance of groups that essentially should act as checks and balances on each other. So please don’t misconstrue my position or post as unthinkingly anti-union.)
TJ,
I am disappointed to hear that you based your vote for one candidate “at least 50 percent” on a comment that the person made on the Patch website. Did you attend the plethora of candidate forums, or watch the League of Women voters’ forum online? Did you check out the candidate’s website? Did you reach out to the candidate by e-mail or phone or some way that might have led to a conversation in which you could truly get to know the person? Basing a vote, even a little, on an online comment without really getting to know the person amounts to not knowing the candidate at all.
Leslie,
Respectfully, I think you are asking way too much of voters. There were 14 candidates, and that’s just for Board of Ed. Was TJ to seek out the Libertarian Candidate for President as well?
It would be impossible to meet your standard for evaluating each candidate and candidates should be acutely aware of the fact that a single impression, whether first or last, may be a basis for one’s vote.
I assure you that you had many uninformed people vote for you and many informed voters vote against you. But I don’t think you get tell people the proper investigative duty expected of them before a given vote. We all may want more, but there are no entrance tests to the voting both.
Leslie,
While I didn’t attend any forums IRL, I did view the online forum, follow the “digital debate” on HocoPolitico, visit EVERY candidates’ website, read news articles, blogs, blog comments, et cetera, et cetera…I think, particularly given the perspective Tom offered below, I was among the most informed voters to cast a BOE vote- especially since I’m registered unaffiliated, and didn’t get any of the “fun” votes.
With all that, I think most (if not all) of the environments you mentioned are controlled by the candidates. At the least, the candidates remember they’re “on the dais” and, in general, act accordingly, speaking in platitudes. I found your Patch comments, as well as Ann’s, to be more unguarded and, thus, perhaps more reflective of the character beyond the one you wished to portray in forums/websites/et al.
I’m reminded now of your Facebook status recently lamenting school closure on Easter Monday. It, in a few sentences, contained one egregious factual error (you claimed Catholic schools were open; not true); a sentence written in all caps; a woeful disregard for the calendar published well before the beginning of the school year, which outlined days off; and certainly didn’t reflect an attitude or sentiment I would ever vote for.
That stuff matters, and is remembered.
I commend you for running (twice), and for putting yourself out there. The excuses you and Doug are selling for your loss, though, ring hollow to me. I hope you run again, and always put your best foot forward, no matter what the venue.
After years of being upset over the structure of the HCPSS calendar with its multitude of days off and half-days, this past fall I put my money where my mouth is and served on the HCPSS calendar committee in the hopes of contributing to making some changes. We had lively discussions and plenty of out-of-the-box suggestions, not a single one of which appears in next year’s calendar. I realize that Easter Monday is a state-mandated holiday. In the comments on that post, I corrected myself about the Catholic schools, and a lively discussion ensued. Isn’t that what we should all be having? Lively discussions?
While I have been a candidate, I am also a human being and a parent of children in HCPSS. I have worked tirelessly to change what I consider to be areas of inequity and disservice to many students. If I express frustration now and then with a system I see as having no interest in change, I hope not to have it held against me should I run again.
Tom,
Your post just made my case for districted Board of Ed elections — a more informed electorate.
So long as we’re looking at ideas in a vacuum, my comment may also support an all appointed Board by a supremely informed Executive or County Council. My experience-based-on-presumption is that even in districted elections, the informed voter makes up 25-30% of those who cast ballots. The rest do so off of impressions, whether those may be presumptions about party affiliation (one of the near certainties of a narrowed field) or presumptions about support for parochial interests (one of the near certainties of districted Board seats).
TJ -
I’m glad you addressed this in more than 140 characters as we were doing last week!
I’m also glad that I attended last night’s party, where I had the chance to learn even more about the BOE candidates.
Given the mess that the Board is in right now, I think it behooves us to have some turnover. Since we managed to get rid of Dyer (although I’m sure we’re not, he just doesn’t have a seat at the same table), do we want to strive for professionalism in our Board members? My answer would be yes. From my perspective, it’s not about who the union recommends or doesn’t.
To Leslie – the unfortunate truth is that yes, people are going to read candidate comments on Patch & other online forums and they will use them in their decision making process. I read comments, stories & talked to teachers around the county. I looked at the League of Women Voters’ guide as well. In one case, I used personal experiences with a candidate as well.
Try to get an interview with a Patch writer instead. Replying to every naysayer on Patch makes one seem less professional and honestly, somewhat thin-skinned & defensive. We need candidates to rise above the fray.
An extreme example would be Rick Santorum – everybody knows about the inappropriate joke. (I’m not a fan of his, btw.) But Santorum doesn’t lower himself to talk about it. He had some staff try to get Google to change their search engines, which didn’t work. But in general, he ignores it. Yes, the mockery still happens on comedy shows, but acknowledging it would be giving in to his detractors.