Original post made
on Jul 23, 2012
This story contains 578 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
to get your online account activated.
Good news. Now we need one more person who will actually ask questions like these two and that will give us a majority of the board that will represent the residents, not the staff.
It's free to put your name on the ballot. To mount a campaign costs time and money. $1700 just to have a candidate statement published in the voter information guide. Time to knock on doors, participate in the LWV/PTAC debate/forum, meet with people who want to know more about your reviews.
I encourage anyone with a strong independent voice to consider running, and I do understand why people with strong opinions might not take on a full campaign.
Sandy, do you plan to run again? I would vote for you.
Chris Grant is a solid School Board member. He thinks for himself and is committed to making our schools better and more accountable. I hope he stays for awhile.
Chris Grant has never replied to any message I have send to him. I have never seem him vote independently or bring up parent concerns at meetings.
Valerie Arkin and Jamie Hintzke always make time to reply / talk about issues.
"Mark", you must be an administrator for the district. I don't think I have ever seen Chris ask an question or vote against anything the staff has recommended. He is a nice guy but all he does is say how great staff is in producing the report for the meeting (i.e., he is an administrator cheerleader). A bunch of "yes" people are not going to make our district strong.
Sandy is right on the cost to put a candidate statement in. I think the price might have even gone up this year. It is all due to the languages you MUST translate your candidate statement to. As the candidate, if you want a published statement, it has to be in EVERY language offered on the ballot for the county, whether you care about that language or not. This has been a total rip off. First, I thought you had to speak English to become a citizen and you have to be a citizen to vote. But lets say you don't mind the tax dollars going into producing ballots in all these languages, if a candidate does not want to pay for a translation of their own message into any of the other languages, why do we have to force them? Some candidates will want to pay for the translations because they think they will get enough votes from that voting group. Let them pay for the translation. For those who do not want to spend that extraordinary amount to translate, they should be able to opt-out. After all, not having their statement in the other language(s) only affects themselves. The candidate statement is not a legal document. It is a personal note from the candidate. Let them decide what languages they want.
Vote for Arkin and Hintzke! If you are an avid watcher of the school board meetings, you know that these two have the best interests of our community, students, and parents when they vote.
Their words and actions match, which is refreshing to see in politics these days! They study the financial reports, proposals, and board packets and ask the types of questions all of us parents want to know. They listen to their consituents and represent us at the board meetings and actually bring up OUR concerns. Watch the last board meeting at which the new staggered reading program announcement tried to get swept under the carpet and Arkin insisted that the school district have a meeting to address parent concerns (since the announcement went out the last day of school)! These two trustees are doing the job the way it is suppose to be done and providing a source of checks and balances (and oversight) for the administration. I hope they both garner an avalanche of votes!
Valerie and Jamie have done a great job in difficult positions. They have been the lone voices on the School Board for reason and common sense. Chris has shown himself as aligning with the "status quo". Nice guy, but his votes with the "other 2", whoever they were, have left a bad taste in my mouth. It was his vote that made Larson the President this year, instead of giving Jamie Hintzke her turn. If he gets back in, I wonder what the "board's" next excuse will be to not let Jamie have her turn...probably that it is Bowser's turn.
Chris Grant is a nice guy but a yes man and poor trustee. He would do the community a favor to give up his seat, if there is a vacant seat more will step up.
Chris has a finance background but has not been of value as a board finance watchdog.
I wish someone with vision would run for the board.
Arkin and Hintzke are nice people but lack the ability to have a long term vision and to think out side the box. This is a flat board with no energy we need someone who can lead.
Larson is no the solution she is the same problem out of touch with a world passing them by. We need people on the board looking at what's next and what impact our kids 5 and 10 year's down the road.
The focus of the board should be building programs that make great 30 year old's that have and impacted on the world.
Are their suggestions for people we could encourage to step forward? Don't have to post names here, but maybe their is someone who would take this on if they knew they had support.
I'm 100% behind "Stacey" stepping forward!
And why would that be, Nurse Shark?
Because I'm supportive and nice?
I would love to see Stacey run for SB. She is intelligent, an independent thinker and does her homework. Go for it Stacey!
Thanks, Diana. I'm not ready for that role.
Yes, I won't be ready to make my move until Kathleen has recovered the Sorcerer's Stone. Then I can move out from under her turban and have my own physical body! Naturally, running for office would come next.
I think steven from stoneridge would make an excellent candidate. He's sincere, intellagint,and angers well.
(My name really isnt Sherman, its steven. But just as others have, I figured I needed a secondary poser's name in order to ellicit a nomination.)