Sen. Bramble is not telling the whole story when he stated that his interest in turning state and local school board elections into partisan contests (SB194) is to encourage the recruitment of more candidates and to create “more visible campaigns.” Deseret News, January 27, A-1.
He tipped his hand when he further stated that getting Parents for Choice and other pro-voucher groups more involved in school board races would be “a very positive outcome. That’s what we’re hoping for.”
Parents for Choice in Education was heavily involved in two of the four contested 2006 races for the state school board. Both of them were races against incumbents who are opposed to vouchers and tuition tax credits.
What is scary about Richard Moss’s defeat of Ed Dalton was the funding of Moss’s campaign. Moss spent over $38,000 and outspent Dalton over 26-to-1. More troubling is that fact that 87% of Moss’s funds came from Parents for Choice, almost $34,000.
Only two groups contributed to Moss’s campaign: Parents for Choice and Moss himself. Was this a broad based campaign for a seat on the State School Board?
Parents for Choice also took on the State School Board President, Kim Burningham. His opponent, Christopher Barden, is a wealthy individual who put over $10,000 of his own money into his campaign. Nonetheless, Parents for Choice donated over $36,000 to Barden, whose total campaign spent almost $62,000.
Barden’s campaign was very visible. In a first for a school board race Barden ran ads on TV. All of Parents for Choice’s money was given to Barden in the last ten days of the race, fueling a fury of mailings and ads unprecedented in a campaign for the State School Board. On September 15, Barden reported receiving $2,700 in donations and spending $7,500. Perhaps this is the type of “visible” campaign with involvement by tuition-tax credit supporters that Bramble wants to see more of.
Together, Moss and Barden raised over $100,000, and almost $70,000 of that tremendous sum came from Parents for Choice in Education. Would someone in the Legislature please take up the cause of campaign finance reform in Utah, and reign in these obscene amounts of money? Perhaps legislators have been cowed by Parents for Choice in Education.
Joel Briscoe
He tipped his hand when he further stated that getting Parents for Choice and other pro-voucher groups more involved in school board races would be “a very positive outcome. That’s what we’re hoping for.”
Parents for Choice in Education was heavily involved in two of the four contested 2006 races for the state school board. Both of them were races against incumbents who are opposed to vouchers and tuition tax credits.
What is scary about Richard Moss’s defeat of Ed Dalton was the funding of Moss’s campaign. Moss spent over $38,000 and outspent Dalton over 26-to-1. More troubling is that fact that 87% of Moss’s funds came from Parents for Choice, almost $34,000.
Only two groups contributed to Moss’s campaign: Parents for Choice and Moss himself. Was this a broad based campaign for a seat on the State School Board?
Parents for Choice also took on the State School Board President, Kim Burningham. His opponent, Christopher Barden, is a wealthy individual who put over $10,000 of his own money into his campaign. Nonetheless, Parents for Choice donated over $36,000 to Barden, whose total campaign spent almost $62,000.
Barden’s campaign was very visible. In a first for a school board race Barden ran ads on TV. All of Parents for Choice’s money was given to Barden in the last ten days of the race, fueling a fury of mailings and ads unprecedented in a campaign for the State School Board. On September 15, Barden reported receiving $2,700 in donations and spending $7,500. Perhaps this is the type of “visible” campaign with involvement by tuition-tax credit supporters that Bramble wants to see more of.
Together, Moss and Barden raised over $100,000, and almost $70,000 of that tremendous sum came from Parents for Choice in Education. Would someone in the Legislature please take up the cause of campaign finance reform in Utah, and reign in these obscene amounts of money? Perhaps legislators have been cowed by Parents for Choice in Education.
Joel Briscoe
13 comments:
Under NO circumstances should a voucher person be on a school board. They can be on their private little private and charter school boards. This is among the lowest of tactics one could resort to. As a Republican and as an LDS church member, it makes me wonder sometimes how someone can do and say things like this with a straight face and still go to church on Sunday.
What is wrong with pro-voucher parents getting poltically involved?
Saying that a pro-vocuher can't sit on a school board is like saying someone of a certain race can't run for office.
That is hypercritical, just as bad as the caucuses nights where democrats run loyalty tests on one vegitarism and republicans ask questions about home teaching.
Sooner or later reform and change will come to Utah. Nationally we became fed up with the 'climate of corruption' in Washington. It could happen here but it may take 20 years. Wasn't there some joke about being welcomed to Utah and steping back in time twenty years?
The Democratic Party is the key to change for the future of Utah. The Mormon leadership has warned the faithful about domination by any one political (the Republican) party.
Equating pro-voucher people on a school board with racism? Oh my!
That's almost too funny to comment on.
School boards exist to strengthen and determine policy for a local school district. If someone comes in with a one-issue agenda that is against public education that could potentially harm it, it makes it harder to get work done that is beneficial and harder to work together.
Answer this then: Would someone want a UEA rep on a charter school board or helping to administer vouchers?
The voucher liberals have been putting forth a wide agenda. It isn't about "helping" children. It's about furthering a political agenda and vendetta.
We don't need more politics in education by ANY special interest group.
Making school distric elections partisan is designed to further the voucher liberals' aims at the expense of others.
Why should the legislature determine the format of what should be a local issue anyways? Why can't they stop being the super school board and leave local control where it belongs? Why do we need more big government welfare programs like vouchers? If we REALLY cared about helping out the needy, why then do we not offer more housing vouchers and assistance programs to them along with the vouchers?
I think we even need to get more local than the
Let's work together for REAL reform and REAL solutions, not as part of a political agenda by the teacher union liberals or the voucher liberals.
I wonder if the legislature would ever want vouchers applied to them.
Do you know what's really scary?? The fact that only 4 out of the 7 or 8 school board races were even competitive! Nothing is more detrimental to democracy than only having ONE PERSON ON THE BALLOT TO VOTE FOR!!
Of course you don't care as long as the only candidate in a race is your candidate.
There is nothing wrong with voucher folks sitting on the school board ; I am greatful some actually cares about students and if its voucher folks that run unopposed, well so be it.
anon-
Having a voucher person on the school board is like having Rocky Anderson as party leadership for the Republicans.
Or Chris Buttars on the board of a wiccan community group.
Or Richard Simmons as spokesperson for Twinkees.
There's plenty wrong with voucher folks sitting on a school board if they're going to use it as a personal tool to further a political agenda against education.
So anonymous says if they run opposed it's okay, but not other candidates? Maybe we should apply the "making it more competitive" game to the state elections. It's hard when often there is either no choice at all (unopposed) or it's between some token Democrat and a Republican who's in bed with special interests.
Again, let's apply vouchers to elections and maybe WE can have real choice here.
Dave--apply that notion to Utah elections.
LOCAL school board and municipal elections (at least in cities smaller than Salt Lake) should be non-partisan. I'd like to move for that in county elections too.
Frankly, I want someone who will serve the public and be the best candidate possible with a lot of integrity. I don't want party hacks that bring in political vendettas and such (and yes, I know that happens in non-party elections sometimes too).
It'd be nice to have ALL special interest money go away for at least some year. Give each candidate a certain amount and see how he or she spends it. Then we could see how they would do under a budget.
I think maybe we need some average Joe's trying to get elected. The extremes have been dictating policy too much lately.
I'm surprised at the undemocratic nature of many of the statements made by people who are mostly members of the Democratic Party on this comment thread of a blog run by a Democratic Party official
There is no constitutional or statutory requirement that people who run for school board seats have to be supporters of the current way education is handled in our state. We live in a republic where democratic elections are held which allow people to elect representatives who agree with them about how we should be governed. If most voters want a representative on their school board who supports vouchers than we need to work to educate voters on the folly of this decision, not gripe about how the representative isn’t ideologically pure enough to serve in office. For us to argue that, "Under NO circumstances should a voucher person be on a school board..." seems the height of ignorance.
Let's not give parents any choice. We need to keep all children in government schools so that they can be good little socialists and worship the state.
Anyone in America who wants to run for office should.
If a pro-voucher advocate wants to run for a school board position it is their right to do so. I would only hope that their true intent would be to help build up the system they would possibly be overseeing.
It then becomes the responsibilty of the voters to decide who they feel is the best candidate, and this is how it should be.
At this time I see vouchers as an entitlement; not as an avenue to improve public education. This is my personal opinion.
I also believe that we can disagree respectfully with those whom we disagree with.
My grandmother, the late Helen Romney, a former vice chair of the Utah Republican Party, was respected by both Democrats and Republicans; a reality I became aware of after attending a gala that was held in her honor.
When I asked her how this was so, she explained to me her simple formula.
If someone came to her with an opinion, or point of view that she disagreed with she would say, "I don't agree with your opinion, but I understand and respect you. Lets find a way to work together".
Can you imagine what we could accomplish if we would all take this attitude.
Let's work together to provide every child the opportunity for the best education possible. When we have achieved this goal, we can all sleep well knowing that we have done our best for our posterity, for each other, with each other.
With every best wish,
Jeremy, HOW do you know if most of us are Democrats? Some might happen to be Republicans too.
If a person who supports vouchers can serve in a manner with integrity and work for the good of education in that area rather than further a political agenda, fine, but it shouldn't be through a partisan election. It's pretty easy to see between the lines here. If it's one thing we don't need, it's MORE politics in education.
Jeremy, the "height of ignorance" is some saying making school board elections partisan would make them "more competitive" and then saying that he or she wouldn't mind if a voucher candidate was the only candidate.
I think Mr. Anonymous' comments speak for itself. That attitude and type of remarks are why I'd be real hesitant to want to put someone who supports vouchers on a school board.
As for his "little socialists" remarks, I guess Utah is the one of the MOST liberal states then since 97% or so go to public schools. Maybe those "terrible" teachers aren't doing the job you think they should. As for "socialists," that person hasn't been around education in Utah much for sure.
Jeremy, I happen to be a Republican, but I get so tired of all the politics played here. I realize that such is done in many places, but I expected different for Utah.
I really think we CAN improve education in Utah--it'll take a change of attitude and more effort, but we CAN do it. Vouchers aren't the way to go. However, I think other elements of the voucher activists' plans might be such as paying those who work in underprivileged schools more.
Post a Comment