If you’re like most people, you probably assume that elections for the state school board are run pretty much like other elections, minus the partisan element. Most Utahns aren’t aware of the complicated process by which state school board candidates are selected—and how easily that process can be manipulated by anti-public education activists. The events of this week are a strong reminder of the reasons that the citizens who oppose vouchers—62% of Utah voters—cannot let their guard down.MORE...
11 comments:
Great post Lisa. So many of us are pulling for you, Jay, Laura, and Trish. I'm also hoping we can elect Jean Hill as our next attorney general too!
Vouchers are dead. Move on people.
Even State school board member Kim Burningham said "this year's process has been more open and fair."
62% may not agree with vouchers but Scott Matheson lost by similar margains. Why don't the Dems pack up and go home?
This is a good post. You always do your homework! Now the grade we give you for the work done might fluctuate. :)
You know , there is democracy and then there is "democracy." I know you are a staunch supporter of the public school system, but the "system" is not an isolated, narrow interest. In other words, the argument that public schools are so important because they affect and influence everything in this state cannot be ignored when it comes to who has a say in helping set its policies. That job must be as diverse a dialogue as the interests affected by the system.
Constitutionally, the State Legislature controls public education in Utah. It created the current system we use to select, and then elect, State Board members.
I, too, really don't care for the current system...for some of the very same sentiments you argue. But the alternative cannot be a "democracy" wherein only public school system defenders, like you, become de facto eligible for the State Board.
Again, state legislators are responsible for Utah's public school system...the State Board is a constitutionally-recognized entity, but is still subordinate to the State Legislature.
All I am trying to say is, yes, it seems like the State Legislature should review this process, but I am not sure you will ever be happy with any alternative except one that puts ONLY UEA/PTA/establishment type minds in total control of the public school system, its authority, and its funding. And, of course, that will never happen because the system does affect so many aspects of life in Utah...which is why, I suppose, the nominating board is so diverse (much to your chagrin).
The simple answer is that if citizens want your kind of board make-up then they should not keep re-electing the same legislators and governor. The opposite seems true as well...because they do, they must like what they have.
Best, PTM
Annonymous,
The process was "more open and fair" this time only because concerned citizens and the press forced it to become so. Committee Chair Jeff Alexander fully intended to block public access to the interviews and the voting, and was visibly irritated (the video to the Rod Decker story caught that clearly) that the statute would not allow that kind of secrecy. Even after the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel assured him that he must open the first meeting, he still threatened to close the second meeting if he could get the Attorney General to back him up.
The fact that there was more transparency this time around was an improvement, but it's certainly not an endorsement of the process
Paul,
Are we back on the debate circuit? Just like old times, huh?
I have to smile at your assertion that a single committee of 12 people selecting candidates for races all over the state somehow represents the ultimate in diversity. The voting blocks clearly show singleness of mind among the business representatives. Do you have outside evidence that suggests there were no political connections among those six or seven people who voted against incumbents Theresa Theurer and Richard Sadler, and against former school board members Ralph Haws and Carol Murphy? The single nominating committee eliminates local influence in the selection process, and enables a single special interest to influence the entire board.
It’s interesting that you talk about wanting a “diverse dialogue.” The best way to achieve that would be to have two candidates representing different philosophies on the ballot. In fact, that is exactly what the statute calls for when it states “The nominating committee shall select a broad variety of candidates.” Instead, the majority of the committee and the governor have produced the exact opposite of that in many cases. By eliminating the public education candidates from the race, they have left voters in several districts with no real choice at all.
Finally, I never said that only people who agree with me should be eligible to run. In fact, though I personally disagreed with incumbent Bill Colbert’s pro-voucher stance, I still believe that his name should have been on the ballot and that the voters in our district should have been the ones to decide if he should retain his position on the board. Why should a handful of business lobbyists deprive us of that right?
Lisa
Lisa,
Why did you oppose Bramble's idea to change the way the board is selected? You and many Democrats opposed the idea. But NOW that the system is not being gamed by the educrats, your mad! This is hilarious!
Anonymous,
I'm not sure what you are referring to. If you'd like to describe the proposal you want to discuss, I'm sure there are readers who would be happy to comment on it. That could be a very productive discussion.
Lisa
The proposal that would make the election process for the state board the same as the election process for you. All candidates would go through the caucus or mass meeting and convention process. It has been talked about for two years, and has been blogged about on this website. To a person, the Democrats have opposed it. Now everyone is crying foul and looking for ways to change the process.
Lisa,
My assertion is only that education affects all of Utah (I assume you would agree), so why not have business people, who represent diverse interests of all Utahns (at least as much as any claimed representation by an education special interest), on the selection committee, if indeed we are going to do it this way?
And, actually, a truly diverse dialogue would remove education policy from campaign politics. In other words, education policy should be vetted publicly (and thoroughly) before elections so that the candidates are only representations of principled policies? Then we would end up with clear choices for office...and only then does it make sense to high-center on two opposing views. Instead, what we get is a "public dialogue" driven by campaign politics, not very thoughtful.
After the voucher vote, I am quite sure you are supremely confident that a general election for school board members, not limited to choice by a corrupt candidate-selection process, would yield a Board full of your folks. On the other hand, if education policy were fully vetted to the extent possible prior to the election, and NOT campaign-driven, I think the result would be a nice mix of Board members who actually would settle on doing the right thing.
And, btw, that sort of idealism evidently makes me a liberal in certain circles. :)
Best, PTM
Anonymous,
You’re saying that the way to fix a process that is way too political is to make it partisan? I respectfully disagree.
Paul,
You seem to have me confused with someone who is trying to manipulate the system. I’m sure there is no shortage of people who fit that description, but I’m not one of them. When it comes to elections, I’m opposed to a process that removes the input of voters and adds an extra layer of appointed bureaucracy.
Lisa
Lisa,
No, I didn't mean to imply (maybe I did!) that you want to manipulate the system. I do think you want your folks on the School Board...and that as long your folks are on the Board, then it is much easier to live with a corrupt process...it's human nature to procrastinate a potentially protracted and ugly political fight when we are already getting what we want. That you aren't getting what you want this go-round heightens your interest in reform.
So, while I appreciate (and commend you for) your principled stand for reform, it seems convenient...and that makes it feel politically-motivated. I take your word that it's not, but the timing of the objection (again, completely human) has that appearance or feel.
Happens to all of us.
PTM
Post a Comment