Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Maier's Campaign Looking for More Money

Peter Maier's campaign has raised nearly $46,000, far ahead of the other candidates.  He has spent nearly $25,000.   Now, he sent out a notice asking for more money because:

 I'm pleased that starting October 12 and continuing until Election Day I will be running hundreds of ads on local cable TV.  Here's preview of the ad: http://www.eurocycle.com/Demo/Committed-Rev2.mpg.

These TV ads cost $30,000.  My campaign account has much less than that amount, so I need your help to keep the TV ads on the air.  

What's weird is that someone made that video and yet none of it shows up yet for expenditures.   So yes, if it's $30k, he does need the money if he's running "hundreds of ads" on cable tv.   

I think I've only seen one other tv commercial for a School Board candidate.  Raising nearly $50k to run for School Board - it is a game-changer for future candidates if that's the kind of money you need to win.

As for the video, well, you watch it. 

17 comments:

Guest said...

C4 expenditure reports for September are due to the PDC in a couple of days so if you check back next week there ought to be an expenditure reported for the ad.

Anonymous said...

The ad could have created for him pro bono.

Solvay

Anonymous said...

It is a sad thing if future candidates are limited only to those who can raise a material amount of funds to run for School Board.

A friend of Seattle

Melissa Westbrook said...

Doing it pro bono would have entailed some kind of reporting. So maybe we can see that in next week's reporting.

Meg said...

Fighting for accountability? Encouraging innovation?

Oh, dear. This is the same Peter Maier who claims that Central Administration was reduced by 1/3, when what happened was almost 1/3 of Central Administration costs were moved to teaching.

This is the same Peter Maier who appears to have deep faith that creating policies and procedures will ensure accountability, but continues to be physically incapable of doing anything but voting yes.

This is the same Peter Maier who has voted for alignment after alignment, despite all sorts of evidence that in this district, implementation of "alignment" has meant standardization. The SPS implementation of alignment has threatened some of the district's best and most innovative programs - for many reasons, but in part because the burden is on the innovative teacher to prove that their class is successful and valuable to district administrators who seem to be suspicious of anything that doesn't come in one size fits all, no matter how successful it is.

I've spoken with Peter numerous times. I find him to be deeply sincere. I truly respect the amount of effort it takes to serve on the board, and I thank him for his efforts.

But I also believe that he has provided no oversight in the past, and still does not - he still seems to trustingly believe that policies, procedures and safeguards will magically create accountability. But without vigorous enforcement and oversight by district leadership, including the board, nothing will create accountability.

I'll be voting for Sharon Peaslee.

Maureen said...

I agree 100% with what Meg says. I have met with Peter about many issues over the past four years (poor man!) and do appreciate his earnestness. But in my opinion, he has shown little to no willingness to hold the Superintendent or staff accountable and has focused too much of his attention on cutting short term dollars spent on individual line items with little to no attention to the long term/ overall budget and service consequences.

I'm voting for Sharon Peaslee.

Kathy said...

" spent on individual line items with little to no attention to the long term/ overall budget and service consequences."

I couldn't agree more. PM talks about being fiscally conservative. Yet, he supported a fiscally non-sustainable Strategic Plan during times of historic cuts to education. Parts of this plan are being dismantled after one year of implementation. Talk about short sightedness!

Early in the budget process, Peter Maier voted to keep $4M in administration while eliminating elementary school counselors and per pupil funding from our schools.

During the budget process- some directors talked about out classrooms being underfunded. I didn't hear any of that from Peter.

My daughter is in 8th grade. I've yet to see a science textbook.

PM has the lowest funded middle school in the district with FRL population of 24%. There are students within the walls of this school that don't have the ability to subtract, multiply or divide. Peter has done NOTHING to advocate putting a resource into this school.

What about distributing enrollment dollars to Ingraham's growing population? Why is it ok to have 40 kids in a class- while holding back $1.6M for Performance Management.

I don't 4 more years of this type of leadership.

suep. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hschinske said...

If I were a Peter Maier fan, I would write to him this minute and tell him he had just lost my vote. ('Course, in reality, he never had it, so I don't suppose he's worried what I think.) If there's one place we do NOT need to escalate spending, it's school board elections.

Helen Schinske

suep. said...

I don't find him particularly sincere. He says one thing and does another.

As school board director, I've never witnessed him think for himself. His votes as a board member have all been in lockstep with Goodloe-Johnson and now Enfield's agenda.

He is apparently a consumer protection lawyer. But when has he ever protected the 'consumers' of SPS? -- Our kids, our families, taxpayer money? When has he voted rationally to protect the limited resources of our children's school district?

Instead, he voted for costly and ill-advised school closures and splits, many of which had to be undone due to growing enrollment in the district and bad planning. Just 8 months later that same year (2009), the district announced it needed to reopen 5 schools at a cost of $48 million! That bad judgment and fiasco alone should be enough to give the incumbents who voted for Goodloe-Johnson's "Capacity Management Plan" their walking papers.

He has claimed that the enrollment growth in SPS only started 2 years ago -- after he voted to close schools. That's not true. I can't tell whether he is being disingenuous or just plain clueless. Neither are traits I want in a school board representative.

At the school board meeting this past March where former Supt. Goodloe Johnson and CFO Don Kennedy were fired in the wake of the 'Pottergate' scandal, Maier admitted that he had been given a copy of the Sutor report back in 2009, which found financial misdealings in the Regional Small Business Development Program (the Silas Potter fraud affair that ultimately lost the district $1.8 million). Yet he did nothing with the information. He apparently didn’t even share it with his colleagues on the board. Why not? (http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/the-superintendents-send-off/)

He voted to give Goodloe-Johnson pay raises, a bonus when she met only 4 out of 17 performance goals, and voted to extend her contract twice -- even after the state audit found the district mismanaged on her watch, and cited her for an ethics breach (for being on the board of the MAP test manufacturer, NWEA, and not revealing this conflict, as required).

He voted to sell MLK Elementary to the lowest bidder.

He voted for Discovering Math. How hypocritical of him to now criticize EDM and CMP -- the elementary and middle school versions of the high school text he voted for!

He voted for Teach for America, Inc. novices with only 5 weeks of training to teach in our schools.

He has approved the costly and unnecessary MAP test every step of the way.

His judgment has been consistently poor.

When I watch him at school board meetings, I am reminded of the Dormouse at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party -- asleep.

Sorry, but he must have some kind of intelligence somewhere, so why hasn't he applied it towards better decisions and votes for our kids and our district?

At the Stranger candidate forum, he indicated that what he HAS been doing these past 4 years is writing and lobbying for levies. Is that what we want in a a school board member?

It's utterly baffling. He has not made the case for 4 more years of him at all. No wonder he needs TV ads.

I'm not just voting against Peter Maier. I am voting for Sharon Peaslee. I am convinced she will bring engagement, intelligence, oversight and community connection to the job of school board director that has been AWOL on Maier's watch.

We definitely need new energy, new vision and a solid sense of fiscal responsibility on the board.

It's not surprising that Sharon's getting all those significant endorsements.

http://sharonpeasleeforschoolboard.com/Endorsements.html

Here's just a few:

King County Democrats
Seattle Education Association (teachers union)
36th Legislative District
43rd Legislative District
34th Legislative District
37th Legislative District

dan dempsey said...

Hey Melissa,

Like you said watch the video.....

Peter Maier has taken decisive action
(1).. replacing the Superintendent
(2).. fighting for new accountability
(3).. Encouraging innovation and
(4).. Making closing the achievement gap our top priority.

Some voters will undoubtedly believe anything. Peter will be happy to put stuff out there for the voters to believe.
------

As long as too many voters choose to:
cast their votes founded in opinions formed by myths and half-truths, rather than the facts,
we will continue to have legislative bodies filled with purveyors of half-truths.

STOP voting if you do not know the facts... It is OK to leave sections of the ballot blank. School Director is often left blank perhaps because many folks realize they are clueless on the facts.

Chris S. said...

Earnest is a good description. But ineffective. Unable to follow thru, unable to do anything but vote yes.

dan dempsey said...

Chris S.

I would take it one step further than...

Director Maier's ... unable to do anything but vote yes.

Peter is pretty good at fabricating reasons for his yes votes.

Here is exactly what I think of the Four Claims he made on the video.

Anonymous said...

"Instead, he voted for costly and ill-advised school closures and splits, many of which had to be undone due to growing enrollment in the district and bad planning. Just 8 months later that same year (2009), the district announced it needed to reopen 5 schools at a cost of $48 million! That bad judgment and fiasco alone should be enough to give the incumbents who voted for Goodloe-Johnson's "Capacity Management Plan" their walking papers."

Did ANY board member oppose this "plan"?

Wondering

none1111 said...

Meg said: I'll be voting for Sharon Peaslee.

Maureen said: I'm voting for Sharon Peaslee.

I say: I'm voting for Sharon Peaslee, and I'm asking all my friends and everyone else I talk with to do the same!

Seriously, everyone, you can't just fill out your own election ballot and call it quits. The incumbents are going to have a bunch of money coming in over the next week or two, and the general public is going to see a lot of crap like this. The challengers need our help. This blog is a great place for discussion, but we are a tiny chunk of the electorate

Start calling your friends who don't have kids. Find one of the challengers' web site URLs and pass it to your friends and ask them to pass it to their friends. When feasible, strike up conversations with cashiers, baristas, office mates.

This election is going to determine the direction of our children's eduction for the 4 years - a lifetime in the eyes of a student.

(steps off soapbox)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dan dempsey said...

none 1111,

Right on... get out the informed voters ... and inform as many as possible.

Ship them my voters guide as well.

http://www.school-truth.com/Election2011-3.html

Or send this page:
http://www.school-truth.com

Is this a Republic?

Time to either keep it or reclaim it.