Should the school board elect or appoint its new member?
Original post made by Emily Atwood on Mar 15, 2007
The school board is looking for someone to fill the school board seat left by president Juanita Haugen, who died March 5. At their regular meeting March 13, the board discussed the possibilities of appointing or electing its new member.
Clerk Pat Kernan was first appointed to the board in September 1996 and elected in November 1997. Member Jim Ott was appointed in May 2006 when Gloria Fredette resigned in April 2006. No one chose to run when the terms of Kernan and Ott were coming to an end, so the two regained their seats without an election.
Yet there was a lot of interest in the board when Steve Pulido resigned to take on an Alameda County Supreme Court judgeship. Nine board hopefuls applied, and Chris Grant was appointed in February after two weeks of interviews by a community panel and the board.
With Haugen's replacement, the board would have two of its members appointed and two re-elected by default.
Trustee Kris Weaver, re-elected in 2003, thought the $150,000 spent on a special election would be better used in the classroom. With Haugen's, Weaver's and Grant's terms all ending November 2008, the board wondered if the process was worth it.
They put off the decision until the March 27 meeting, saying they wanted feedback from the public regarding this issue.
Which would you support, a special election or an appointment?
on Mar 16, 2007 at 2:53 pm
A special election is a tremendous waste of money, and an appointment would probably end up being the public's choice anyway, so spare us all the pretend "politics" of Pleasanton. Just because Pleasanton is boring doesn't mean we need to get all excited about the school board, which few of us are involved in anyway; just let the people who know what they're doing choose a colleague.
on Mar 19, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I respectfully disagree. It is not a waste of money to have the democratic process followed. The men and women in our armed forces are risking their lives everyday to ensure that people around the world have the opportunity to experience democracy in action, yet we at home all too often take the process for granted.
A special election would at least ensure that the public's voice was heard and the result was not simply a partisan polital decision.
on Mar 21, 2007 at 3:14 pm
1) Why give everyone a voice if a third or less of the people will vote? How about we first get the school board to improve education about voting. Then, a generation later, when the kids are actually voting, let the school board have elections because the students they taught will now actually vote for them.
2)How partisan can a school board election get?
3)The war is the most irrelevant topic to bring up. Anytime someone wants to make a point they argue about our troops and that is sad. Why should we fight pollution? Because our troops fight for us. Why should we improve education? Because our troops fight for us. Why should we support people's rights? Because our troops fight for us.
Wrong. There are so many LOGICAL ways to answer a question but we turn to what some might call a fallacy. Everyone always arguing about the troops, and I myself am now on a tangent, but you people disrespect the troops so much by using their effort to fit whatever cause you want.
I now cordially invite you to fight me with logos, not pathos. (For explanation, see Mrs. J Smith, (Amador Valley High School) and her junior English class.