Bingo. Next, all you have to do is figure out the who.

That about sums it up. I will admit of being guilty of the latter. In Appoquinimink, we enjoy our board’s efforts over the years. Thanks to Christina and RC (especially RC over the last handful of years), Appo is about to take a hard one up the rear. All’s fair in politics, eh? Except…it’s a freaking school board!

The “uninformed voter” seems to stick in “yer craw”, as the target for increased school taxes. Let me be clear on the way I see it. “Uninformed” may be a misnomer for “uninterested”. Sure turn-out may be low, but folks I speak to who haven’t voted never really feel slighted. They offer the dismissing, or leveled reasoning of not having kids in the school anymore, or no opinion to place a vote in regards to school policy. No DISTINCT reason at that time to vote. Now moving on to the “river of money” you describe. Referenda brings out the voters–quadruple. It is something locally, and DISTINCTLY they can have a say in. The nearly 25% of a district’s budget will be reflected in the local will of priority of collecting and spending. Plain and simple-what the state won’t cover. Your districts’ values will be evidenced by where they place that money. Some districts choose athletic fields, others pick musical instruments. We have chosen an educator inservice area for large groups, and 100K emergency staffing funding to our K center, when faced with overcrowding–but again, all local funds. It is knowing that community, and having them underwrite what you hope you have perceived as the community’s priority the key to this local piece. That type of trust is devoid of any implication of “horse trading”–it is citizen outreach. Again, I cannot emphasize enough–just because (I don’t know what district you are in) RC and Christina have disappointed those folks, don’t mess up what has worked elsewhere–every year in the current system, you have the chance to throw a bum out. In the words of your very own Rebecca Young–not more Democrats…better Democrats….well amongst the general citizenry it has to be, Not more politicians….better board members. Please rethink this, and leave legislating to the state, and local policy making to the locals.

For the last twenty years, in some Districts, the process has been completely POLITICAL under the disguise of being “a political”.
In the Red Clay S.D., amongst the staunch conservative Republican activists and Board members, they have always taken an active and politically structured approach to the election process. They have done heavy mailings based on demographic studies and databases, as well as utilization of booster records and parent groups when available. And if the data can’t be connected to the candidate for one reason or another, endorsement literature for that candidate is develop, printed, mailed and paid for through PAC’s or non-profit groups.
Without ANY doubt, in some Districts in this State the process has been VERY POLITICAL and has insisted on separate election seasons to allow affluent minority interests in public education to manipulate the process.

Quite often, people who participate in this approach can’t publically argue their position on an issue based on democratic principles, data or merits, so they choose to circumvent the structures that inhibit their philosophic goals.
To them, the end ALWAYS justifies the means.

MOVE SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS TO NOVEMBER.

This is what I mean by drawing the curtain.

But tell you what — figure out a way to make sure that the “uninformed voters” get exempt from paying the school portion of their taxes and I’m delighted to concede on this thing.

And you will now have school board members taking office in the middle of a fiscal year, when adjustments might have to be made and many newly elected board members are not going to be up to speed on what changes may need to take place.

Good idea – bad legislation.

was feted tonite, by those who are well aware of his drive and push for funding, and fundamentals of 21st century skills needed for our students today. He brought his case, and made his case to anyone in position to act–because of the unafilliated position in education that can trump any risk of political fall-out, or suspicion of political pay-off. I am real sorry you folks in RC or Christina claim to have a hard time with politics, but do we really need to dial down education to the least common denominator of decision, and service–POLITICS? Spare the “it’s already there” speech..if it is….YOU let it in…and didn’t have the strength of conviction to go against a machine. Five individuals ran for our board seat, and I did not see one mention or connection to any party or idealogy. Looking around I would say 300 hundred bucks MAY have been the top dollar spent. Well, this bill has now cleared the path for some of us other districts to become just like you. If what you say is true–no thanks–I prefer my local citizens, not my local party running the local school board.. It is a sad day when you applaud what you have done for your state government, by going against the machine and sending Markell to Dover, but no hesitancy in usurping a volunteer, local position, and condemning it to party play. Regardless of the untagged candidate–broke and vulnerable have a certain appeal to both parties and prostitutes. What a shame the school board goes the way of the brothel.
I will be in mourning, until our good Senators can see the folly of the House decision, and keep the boards as boards–local policy makers–and not their personal bedmakers.

For instance, school boards decide which neighborhood schools will house the alternative program? Ever think how having your neighborhood school turn into an alternative or high poverty school might effect your property values?

As Aristotle pointed out, all interactions are political, especially including governance. That doesn’t mean that political parties belong in that process. Hockessin’s dominance of Red Clay could have been addressed by legislation that permitted people only to vote for the SB rep in their own districts, but that has proven not to be necessary. The good guys won without this silly proposal.

Of course it doesn’t. I am merely commenting on the expectations of the voters.

As for making no sense: “But none of that is reason to draw the curtain around the process”

There is no curtain except the one you imagine. The current process is just as accessible as running it in the General. AS for saving money, Longhurst povided NO FISCAL NOTE. For that alone, I just call bullshit, 117 is total bullshit.