Friday, April 16, 2010

BOE ELECTION POTPOURRI 4/17/10

Since I am anticipating the visit of my daughter and son-in-law Saturday,Sunday,and Monday I had no intention of writing a perceptive blog today or anything in depth the next two pre-election days. My original intention was to pirate from the commentaries by Estevez and Logan-Leach posted on Plaintalker, however all would be better served reading them as posted along with the other 32 comments.

This election has a total of 14 candidates; 11 for the 3 year term and 3 for the 1 year unexpired vacancy.For the 3 year term there are two unaffiliated candidates and three slates of three each.

I for one have a problem with the concepts of slates in a supposedly apolitical type election. A slate suggests that the members will act cohesively if elected. That can not be in the best interests of the community. Fortunately and advisably one votes for individuals and not slates so it would be possible to elected an individual from each of the slates or include one both of the "independents" rounding out your vote with a "committed" slate member.

Therefore one should selected the three out of the eleven that one considers would make the most effective members of our dysfunctional board.

Regarding the three slates; the first question posed to them at the LWV forum asked them if the slate or any of its individual members had received support from any union or political organization or leadership personnel.

Coalition for Better Schools; Mr Estevez as spokesman denied any such support. Ms Burgwinkle, a lawyer, made a modifying statement to the effect that they had received support from "friends" which I interpreted to be a coded "yes". Out of the blue Thursday's mail had a flier from I believe the Service Workers of America supporting this specific slate. I understand that "Sodexo" the food purveyor for the district is on SWA's roles.

Change our Schools-Change our City: Its spokesperson Ms. Fletcher fielded that question by noting that among their general source of supporters were individuals who could fall into such a classification. Part of the impetus for the query was a rumor that Assemblyman and Chairman of the City Democrat Committee Green, had as is his right as a citizen made a substantial monetary gift to their campaign.

ELECT A GRAND S.L.A.M.:The spokespeople for this group denied any such support. Friday on PEPTalk:REVISITED, the blog of one its members, there is posted a letter of endorsement from the Plainfield Education Association, the teacher's union. It is possible that on Wednesday night this slate's membership had no knowledge of such a powerful endorsement.

Of the three seeking the unexpired term one Mr.Tucker on Grand S.L.A.M. submitted no information and I gleamed very little in his one minute opening statement. I regret the error I did know that Mr. Tucker sat between Ms. Callands and Ms. Hendricks at the forum. Never the less what ever his tag, there is a gross sparcity po persdonal information. (10:15AM)


I will not announce my choices although all slate members have baggage either by their slate association or membership at present or prior on the BOE. Out of the later group, since so much of their deliberations are done in executive session we will never know the truth. Unless proven otherwise they must accept responsibility for the present mess.

I have tried to present factors that have influenced my thought process on this election, how you vote should be determined by a similar process. I have focused on "slates" not the membership. Every one of the slates as at least one member whom I would consider quality. That is why I suggest selectivity. This election could be a turning point if 30% if the electorate turns out.

15 comments:

  1. Mr. Tucker is not on A Grand SLAM. He is running with Mss. Fletcher, Hendricks and Callands. The candidate running for the 1 year term on A Grand SLAM is Keisha Edwards.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Amazing I am not boner proof. Of Course Mr Tucker is a member of CHANGE OUR SCHOOLS. My apology to Ms. Edwards.

    However, he could be on Olympus and I still could not evaluate him with out some sort of a CV.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello,

    Notification of PEA endorsement was announced on Friday, April 16, 2010. There was a meeting to discuss possible endorsements on Thursday, April 15, 2010. If you could provide me with your email I would be happy to forward you the email.

    Thank you,
    Charisse Parker

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think you owe the Grand SLAM slate an apology for the insinuation that improprieties had occurred.

    It's disheartening to see such obvious biases in your writing this morning.

    The schools really are just a reflection of the disfunction in this community and that includes Old Docs, New Dems, and up-and-coming Board Members.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ms. Parker, It is impossible to reply directly to any comment which are filtered before they reach us. thus I do not have your address'

    I am not releasing my email over a public network for obvious reasons.

    There is a secondary box where much of my spam material as a result of forays into the web goes to. I check that periodically when I rememb er. it is "olddoc3@ verizon.net.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 11:22;Anon. No apology needed. I stated a fact and remarked that due to the timing of the endorsement GRAND S.L.A.M ignorant of the endorsement.

    For your edification, I think there are m,embers of that group that could be Board assets just as there are in the other slates.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Respectfully Sir -- you did not state a fact you implied impropriety. Reread that section o your post.

    But I agree there are members of that slate that would prove valueable to the Board.

    Correction however -- it would not be for my edification but for the Children of this city.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow ignorant! What an aweful use of the word in this application. You are really losing my respect daily. That is a very offensive word and someone your age should certainly no better.

    I guess I was ignorant in believing you were a fair minded individual who wanted to better this city.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 11:51; Obviously one of us has a different concept of the written word.I stated (wrote) exactly two facts; (1) he (Estevez) denied any union support, (2) Posted on a member's blog two day's later wa a letter of endorsement form PEA. If those are no facts what are facts? My next sentence was to accept the fact that they could have been ignorant that they were going to receive that endorsement. Certainly that is not an endorsement. How you wish to interpretate it is your option but don't charge me for writing something I did not. And don't be anonymous when you are critical of others. End of discussion.
    April 17, 2010 12:37 PM

    April 18, 2010 7:39 AM

    ReplyDelete
  12. Correction of typo.
    11:51; Obviously one of us has a different concept of the written word.I stated (wrote) exactly two facts; (1) he (Estevez) denied any union support, (2) Posted on a member's blog two day's later wa a letter of endorsement form PEA. If those are no facts what are facts? My next sentence was to accept the fact that they could have been ignorant that they were going to receive that endorsement. Certainly that is giving Grand S.L.A.M. the benefit of doubt. How you wish to interpretate it is your option but don't charge me for writing something I did not. And don't be anonymous when you are critical of others. End of discussion.
    April 17, 2010 12:37 PM

    ReplyDelete
  13. To Anonymous Since I san not know who you are, what value could your respect be to me? Your last comment was not posted since I do not understand your point.Come out of the closet and I would be willing to have a dialog with you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here's my voting strategy: take some time Monday night to sit back, close your eyes for a few minutes, and meditate on which four among the anointed 14 are the most independently-thoughtful and level-headed.

    ReplyDelete
  15. To he who hides his identity: It is I who must have no respect for you. The term I used for you is based on the fact that you find false fault with me and my blog hiding behind anonymity. My identity is public. You who wishes to dis me has not the courtesy to identify yourself. If you are afraid to expose yourself to others just request that I not post your comments or remove any identifying characteristics. That would be honored. AS is there can be no discourse
    Please read again my original post and follow ups “. It is possible that on Wednesday night this slate's membership had no knowledge of such a powerful endorsement.” And my reply to your first post “. I stated a fact and remarked that due to the timing of the endorsement GRAND S.L.A.M (could have been) ignorant of the endorsement. The words in bracket were accidentally left out when posted but the meaning should have been clear and a repeat of my initial comments.
    Nowhere did I infer that the SLAM slate were ignoramuses which would be an insult. I have high respect for at least several members of that group who could be on my short list. One of the definitions of “ignorant “is "may apply to a lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing” There is nothing disrespectful in that usage.

    ReplyDelete