Who can we get to run for the Board in 2011?
Four Board positions will be up for election in 2011. They are the seats now held by Steve Sundquist, Sherry Carr, Harium Martin-Morris and Peter Maier.
Honestly, I think that all four of these directors should get strong opposition and three of them definitely have to go.
Peter Maier has made it very clear that he is working for the superintendent, not for the community that elected him. He has to go. I often say that I don't want people to step down, that I want them to step up. That's not the case with Director Maier.
Sherry Carr has proven a profound disappointment and does not deserve a second term. She puts more value on going along to get along than she places on representing the public. She refuses to provide the needed oversight, refuses to demand accountability, and refuses to take any sort of stand. She has proven too timid to do the job and, as she simply lacks the courage to step up, she must step down.
Steve Sundquist appears reasonable, but refuses to be skeptical. He will accept anything the staff tell him - no matter how absurd - as the gospel truth and will not consider any evidence that it is false. I cannot believe that he was EVER in the investment business where critical analysis is the name of the game. He clearly was never a buy-side analyst. Since this sort of fact-proof frame of reference isn't really open to change, we will need a change in personnel instead. Steve Sundquist has to go.
Harium Martin-Morris is the only one of the four that I'm on the fence about. I would prefer a stronger candidate. Director Martin-Morris starts so well, but he finishes so badly. He sometimes raises legitimate concerns and begins a line of inquiry, but then, at the first sign of resistance, he quits. He went nowhere with his list of commitments. He went nowhere with his opposition to the inquiry-based math. I do like his blog. He knows that he should be rocking the boat, but he lacks the courage - or the conviction - to do it. He joined Mary Bass on the losing side of more than a couple 5-2 votes, so there's reason to believe that he would do better with some company. Let's get him some. Better still, let's get somebody who is willing to go it alone if they have to.
Honestly, I think that all four of these directors should get strong opposition and three of them definitely have to go.
Peter Maier has made it very clear that he is working for the superintendent, not for the community that elected him. He has to go. I often say that I don't want people to step down, that I want them to step up. That's not the case with Director Maier.
Sherry Carr has proven a profound disappointment and does not deserve a second term. She puts more value on going along to get along than she places on representing the public. She refuses to provide the needed oversight, refuses to demand accountability, and refuses to take any sort of stand. She has proven too timid to do the job and, as she simply lacks the courage to step up, she must step down.
Steve Sundquist appears reasonable, but refuses to be skeptical. He will accept anything the staff tell him - no matter how absurd - as the gospel truth and will not consider any evidence that it is false. I cannot believe that he was EVER in the investment business where critical analysis is the name of the game. He clearly was never a buy-side analyst. Since this sort of fact-proof frame of reference isn't really open to change, we will need a change in personnel instead. Steve Sundquist has to go.
Harium Martin-Morris is the only one of the four that I'm on the fence about. I would prefer a stronger candidate. Director Martin-Morris starts so well, but he finishes so badly. He sometimes raises legitimate concerns and begins a line of inquiry, but then, at the first sign of resistance, he quits. He went nowhere with his list of commitments. He went nowhere with his opposition to the inquiry-based math. I do like his blog. He knows that he should be rocking the boat, but he lacks the courage - or the conviction - to do it. He joined Mary Bass on the losing side of more than a couple 5-2 votes, so there's reason to believe that he would do better with some company. Let's get him some. Better still, let's get somebody who is willing to go it alone if they have to.
Comments
Mel should run against him. She would have a great shot at the seat as she is knows the district and is very well spoken!
How about it Melissa, you up for it?
They will pour money to Harium and rally the press to Harium, then we will have Harium back again.
Then those same corporate movers and shakers and their reformist allies will pull a role out of Central Casting and dismiss Melissa as an outspoken failed candidate. They will cast all her great arguments in the same light. The whole build up of parents voices over the past 3 years will get a perhaps lethal blow.
District staff HATES this blog. They feel the commenters are a bunch of busybodies. They do not want anyone looking at their operations. They do not want anyone asking questions. They can get around the board. They cannot get around the blog.
Melissa is most effective, and I would say VERY effective, right where she and Charlie are. Asking questions and forcing the public to take notice. I hope this blog writes editorials pre-school board race and takes the power of the media right out of the clueless Times' hands. Can you imagine what would happen if this blog backed candidates that made it onto the board? Talk about a new powerbroker in town. The powerbroker being this blog.
Who in West Seattle would be a credible candidate to run against Steve Sundquist? Would Maria Ramirez run again? Is there someone who was a leader in the effort to save Cooper who can step forward? Is there a veteran PTA President with time to spare? Would Betty Hoagland like another shot?
The other three seats all represent north Seattle neighborhoods. There are lots of folks up that way with credibility and courage. Aren't there?
I don't really expect Darlene Flynn, Sally Soriano, or Brita Butler-Wall to come back, and I'm not sure that they would get the warm welcome they deserve if they did.
Still, there must be people. I was pretty shocked that Michael DeBell ran unopposed last year and I was pretty shocked that no one but David Blomstrom wanted to challenge Harium. There do seem to be organizations, like the Alliance for Education, SchoolsFirst, and the League of Education Voters, who get together to select and support a candidate that shares their establishment view. Surely we could do the same.
On this blog, talk about the vulnerabilities of the current candidates. Talk about potential candidates in an offline meeting.
Personally, I think Sherry is least vulnerable and Steve is most vulnerable. West Seattle is a mess and he has chosen to support the superintendent's Big Plan over solving problems for the peeps in his neck of the woods. WS deserves more.
Peter hasn't done much beyond making sure we don't spend too much. Financial solvency is important, so that's a good voice on a board of directors. Unfortunately he seems to comprehend and delve into little else.
Harium has a blog. Great, some engagement. Anyone notice that his answers are often not even readable in their jumbledness. Or that his answer is almost always around "I think" and not "I have heard from my constituents?"
And, what else has he offered? Not much. He is not good at follow through. On a number of occasions that I will not detail here he has failed to follow through on promises of follow through.
Sherry asks good questions sometimes. My main disappointment with her is that she embodies that kool aid syndrome. She should bring the voice of parents to her voting decisions far more often than she does. Annoying. But she is trying to fix the MESS that was the budgeting engagement process this year.
Regardless of what you think of any particular Board member, whoever is elected needs to be able to build a coalition in addition to holding the staff's feet to the fire.
I heard Harium on the radio say frankly that he sees the blog as a place for people to vent, to say their piece and be heard. "All people want is to be heard." The inference there is that he doesn't see it as a place for him to learn from people. His writing and grammar? Is English his first language? That it might not be is the only polite conclusion I can draw.
Like the last commenter, I also have had positive interactions with Carr and have been pleased with her attempts to rein in staff at committee meetings. Effective though? She's done some things I really disapprove of.
"Well, I hear you (but I'm not going to take any notice and I'm going to do what I want/what is my-our agenda regardless)"...
That's not good enough... the Board works for us, the Super works for the Board... its their job to manage her rather than have her managing them... there's too much of the tail wagging the dog going on here... time to challenge that and put it right...
But you'll see from the reformist literature that its part of the agenda to turn boards/take away their power, put it in the hands of the superintendent, so that they're rubber stamping the Super's actions... came across that philosophy about a year ago, and again yesterday when I was looking at documents about 'reform challenges in large urban school districts'...and that is what we have happening here...
I don't go to Audit and Finance Committee meetings. Is that where she is shining? I'm not seeing it. Is she asking tough questions about the money spent on coaches? Is she questioning the authenticity of budget cuts in the central staff? Is she asking where the money is coming from to pay for STEM?
She just has not embraced an oversight role for herself and the Board.
Has she mentioned that the Strategic Plan projects are all behind schedule? Has she noted that facilities is a tragic comedy of errors? Has she questioned program placement decisions? Has she asked after any of the things that are obviously screwed up and aren't getting any accountability such as special ed, RTI, math, waivers, alternative ed, access to programs, or Spectrum?
Not that I've noticed.
She still votes for motions that have no community engagement.
She still listens more to staff than constituents.
I don't hear her start sentences with "My constituents want..."
What has Sherry Carr done that I should like?
I'm sorry - but there's been quite a lot of that around lately - eg Janice complaining about people not sticking to the subject of the thread ...
I dont think people set out to deliberately change the subject - one thing leads to another (because a lot of its related) and/or there is no directly relevant thread to post something on, and people dont want to wait five days for Friday and the last open thread is buried at the bottom of the page...
I heard De Bell talk about the need for 'civility' on Wednesday night... as I said to my neighbour at the back of the room - so often the call for 'civility' is just another gag mechanism to stop people saying what they really think... "nice" people dont say harsh, blunt things... "nice" people dont show they are passionate about something, "nice" people are high minded - they dont get down and dirty with the realities of every day trouble and strife, "nice" people stay PS and focus on the abstract - they dont go direct and point out what is wrong with other peoples' actions... passive-aggressive twaddle...
It IS so very messy.
I stand reminded. Thank you.
Back to the topic, mightn't the citizenry demand that candiates spend no more than $1000 on their campaigns, and demand "campaign reform" so candidates aren't slipped some PR on the side by some eager corporate influencer? Can't we have a candidate of the citizenry instead of of the companies and the "non-profits"?
I'm not being rhetorical. Or venomous. If by "low" minded one means "of the people" and not "high; of the high-minded, highly paid, high-falutin' Broad or Gates Foundation," well, yes, I'm being low minded.
How can we effectively counter the big money in favor of Broad reforms? Leaflets? Campaign nights that are combined with other ballot issues, so that people who don't have school-age kids will see them and get a view other than that of the Seattle Times?
They also tried to support the Waldman Board. They thought that Nancy Waldman and Barbara Petersen should have been re-elected. Steve Brown was the only member of that board that they threw under the bus. They couldn't save them.
In the end, I'm not sure what decides school board races. Maybe it's just whoever can put out the most yard signs.
That is why, if we want candidates like Charlie to win next time, we need to start early, get a broad base of supporters, attract contributions, and run vigorous campaigns.
when I was a 10 buck an hour hotel cook in Boston in 1988, Dukakis was ELECTABLE cuz the other side wouldn't be able to lie about all those Dirty Freaking Hippies who scared the "middle" and who therefore wrecked McGovern, Carter and Mondale.
How did that work out?
Gore picking lie-sell-out-man was supposed to keep the "middle" from getting scared, so Gore was "electable"!
How did that work out?
Howard Dean was NOT electable, cuz, he wasn't a war hero like Kerry and how could the thugs lie about a war hero?
How did that work out?
The obstacles to winning President, dog catcher, school board ... are HUGE, but, some of the "analysis" I'm reading here about who is electable and who isn't - the analysis really needs a different kind of reality check.
B.M.
Sherry Carr is the best of the four. She tries hard. She always responds to email. Her heart is in the right place and I like her a lot. But she is not effective. She asks tough and thoughtful questions sometimes but isn't persistent in getting answers and rarely follows through. I had high hopes for her, but in the end she too needs to be replaced.
Steve Sundquist is a sell out. He does not advocate for his schools, isn't responsive to his constituents, and is a rubber stamper. Nothing positive to say about him. He needs to go....yesterday.
Harium is incoherent. Half the time I don't understand a word he says. I have come to believe he is all smoke and mirrors. He plays the part of the advocate very well, talking a good game, but he never, ever, gets the job done. He does not influence the other board directors, isn't persistent in getting answers to his questions from staff, and mostly goes with the flow.
We need to replace all four of these directors and hope for better.
Melissa, I sure wish you'd run. You'd be a shoe in.
One, Central Mom is right. These discussions need to not focus on potential candidates (although I am free to discuss myself) because we're not going to help the powers that be with their strategies.
Two, I've written this before but I'll say it again. School Board elections are strange animals. I tried to find out why you have run in your district in the primary and then city-wide and never got an answer. But it makes it a challenge.
The other part of the challenge is that you HAVE to have a base to start with. Honestly, if you can win your district handily, you will likely win. Betty won on her base and about $11k. Her competitor, even though backed up by Cheryl Chow and her community, didn't win. Why? Because there was no personal connection.
If you compare the election totals between say, how many people vote for Mayor and how many vote for School Board, that number is very low for School Board. People either aren't interested, have no children or have no idea who to vote for.
So, in School Board elections, EVERY VOTE COUNTS. That's why a strong base is so important both to get you past the primary AND to work your campaign throughout the city.
I believe you should run to win. (That was another undoing of Wilson Chin. He just wasn't that interested in winning and he told me so).
However, having said that, I do think there is a value to running simply to keep the incumbent honest. I agree with Charlie about Michael DeBell; he shouldn't have gotten a free pass. Everyone should have to account for their time in office.
There are personal reasons I might not run so that is an issue for me.
So what do I have going for me?
1) fairly well-known (this is both a plus and a minus but yes, many people know my name).
2) I know this district very well. I would not need the learning curve that other candidates would and I think I could prove that on the campaign trail.
3) I believe I have at least one union on my side (again, for some a plus and others a minus). But union folk work hard on campaigns so it's a nice asset to potentially have.
4) Another plus or minus is that my base is the city. I know people in all corners of this city.
5) I believe most people, whether they appreciate my work or my rhetoric, do believe I have integrity and a deep commitment to public education.
1) a long trail of words, both spoken and written, that could be used against me whether in context or not
2) the powers that be have been mostly polite to me but yes, they likely view me as a gnat/nitpicker/naysayer/troublemaker. Because of my frequent calls for more accountability and transparency (i.e. not going along to get along), I'm sure they would feel I would threaten the changes going on at the district.
3) many, many people would likely hold my public stands against different levies against me. I think some just believe I am totally wrong and others think that it was a misguided, but principled, stand. But it is a big deal and could very well hurt me. And believe me, it would be brought up.
Cascade makes some very good points about me running. One thing I think you may not understand is that the Times endorsement is NO guarantee of winning. They get it wrong a lot (ask Charlie). There is a lot of other media to speak to while campaigning.
But Cascade is right about what I am able to do via this blog without the constrictions of title or being affiliated with one organization. I get to say whatever I want. It's quite empowering and the idea of holding my tongue to be in office gives me pause. (I felt such a constriction while on the Closure and Consolidation committee although it wasn't as hard as I thought it would be but it was more trying to listen to the other members of the committee and then figure out, in a timely manner, who I thought had the best idea.)
What is funny to me is to be thought of as this firebrand or naysayer. For gosh sakes, I've been a PTA mom forever. That's pretty darn mainstream. I'm a big sap who claps the loudest and longest at the Board meetings whenever kids perform or speak. (I love kids and I like to think that helps when you run for School Board.) I know a lot of staff at the headquarters and many are bright people who work hard and yes, truly care about this district. But they, too, are constricted by the direction they are given.
I would not be busting down the doors at the Stanford Center the day after the election if I won. You wouldn't see me at the first Board meeting after the election telling the Superintendent or any staff how wrong I think they are. There are nuances to working with people, there are ways to get a message across without being unkind or bombastic.
So, there you are. I'm going to talk to some trusted friends and advisers and think about it. It's a lot to think about but I have done a lot of campaigning for other people, hoping, hoping for change only to be disappointed. So maybe the only way to not be disappointed is to just step up and do it myself.
Thanks for the encouragement and thoughts about this.
I met some months ago with a former Board member to talk about someone to run again Peter Maier. We couldn't think of anyone who lives in his district. I will make inquiries this summer.
All have disregarded overwhelming empirical evidence to vote for the Superintendent's proposals on more than one occasion.
This is particularly offensive when their reasons for voting "For" are anecdotes and they fail to acknowledge or better yet explain the empirical evidence.
These are "Our Arbitrary and Capricious" decision-makers ... yes all four are A&C and on several occasions.
From the evaluation of MGJ:
-----
. Overall, the Board believes that Seattle Public Schools is making forward progress, but that there are several areas where improvement is still needed. {too much believing not enough measuring .. fairy-tales need to collide with reality}
The performance goals set this year were very ambitious in both number and magnitude. The Board and the Superintendent as a governance team together made policy decisions through our legislative processes. In these situations we evaluate the Superintendent’s performance on the quality of the District’s restructuring and implementation.
-----
"restructuring" what does this mean?
I assume that since Joel Klein in NYC is a fellow Broad Director and NYC schools are further along the restructuring path than Seattle's that NYC might be a model...... BUT since at least 2007 NYC has been giving more autonomy to each building Principal to determine what happens in their school. {decentralization ... SPS is the opposite}
I would like to know:
#1 Where the "restructured" MGJ mega-bureaucracy model is in place?
#2 How does the board evaluate the "quality of restructuring"?
Is there some reason to believe that this thrust for restructuring is advisable?
Seems the SPS may have a broken rudder and everyone on the ship's bridge has failed to notice.
==============
For me answers to the above would facilitate a candidate search.
==============
She has been around for a long time and knows the history. One of the real deficits on the Board is experience.
The longest serving Board member is Michael DeBell with four years. There are four with only two years and two with less than a year. None of these people were much involved with the District at the District level before being elected to the Board. They have no knowledge of the history of any of the issues they are deciding.
Let's remember that the Superintendent has only been here for three years and she hired her "C" level staff, so there is absolutely no institutional memory at the top of the organization.
That's why they didn't see the problem with putting elementary APP at Thurgood Marshall. They don't remember Madrona.
The school board needs people who are know the district, ask the right questions, understand the value of transparency and accountability, and promote efficiency and efficacy in administration.
Please, both of you, consider running in 2011. The parents and children of Seattle need people like you working for them.
That would be a fantastic idea - pooling resources to build a stronger campaign.
But because the district elections are staggered, unless one of them physically moves to another district, they cannot both run at the same time.
Now, if we could all convince Charlie to move up north to District I... Bye bye Peter!
Obviously easier said than done, but had to mention it.
So without a ton of money how do you suggest this organization come about?
I find Charlie Mas to be the best candidate available. He got slightly over 10% of the vote in the primary I believe.
You don't raise money to build an organization. It's the other way around. The organization helps the candidate raise the money, among many other things.
So how does a candidate build an organization? That is Campaigning 101. The best way to learn about how it's done is to volunteer on a small, well-run campaign.
Thanks. So where was that organization that needed to be supporting Charlie Mas in 2009?
It seems that in a lot of politics I've seen: If it is not to an organization's donors financial advantage, then very little money shows up.
Exceptions are few and far between when it comes to races where more than $25,000 is needed to be a competitive candidate. There are very few school board races in the state where a candidate spends more than $10,000. In a normal year outside Seattle no more than 5 school board candidates outside Seattle spend more than $10,000 and none over $20,000.
When all four winners spend over $60,000 and three of four spend over $120,000 as in Seattle 2007, you know something is "peculiar"; especially so when these "Four" mega-buck "winners" vote as a block with little to no regard for evidence in making decisions.
Again thanks for the Excellent Observation on the political process and organizations.
Please take it one step further to how a Seattle School Board race can be won by someone like Charlie Mas or Melissa Westbrook in 2011.
Thanks again for the schoolin'
Dan
PS. Your organizational point is certainly well made in looking at the very start of the Republican race for President in 2000. GWB, despite a background of accomplishment no better than at least a handful of hopefuls, had an enormous financial advantage from square one.
PPS. Should we be contacting all 2007 donors of $500 or more to each of the winning directors with their voting records? A note requesting that each donor not donate again to that candidate should be enclosed with that voting record. The families and children of the city do not need more of those directors.
--------------
Harium says:
I will be on vacation from June 21 until July 5.
I will have no email capability during that time. During this time I will not be responding to emails. Please contact the district office at 206-252-0040 with any concerns that you have.
--------------
I can't comment on Charlie Mas' 09 campaign because I know almost nothing about it.
In Seattle, the people who know the most about building campaigns are associated with the Democratic Party. Peter Maier, for example, has been a PCO for many years in the 36th District. He's not the most well connected politician in the world, but he's connected enough.
I realize that Melissa and Charlie are busy people. However, if they really want to run for office, they should start attending (if they don't already do so) their Democratic district meetings and start making some friends who can help them.
They should reach out to former Board directors and ask for advice. They should form a steering committee with people who have experience working on campaigns. If I were running for office (perish the thought), the first two things I would do would be to meet with a former Board member I'm friends with and I'd start lining up people for a steering committee. Then I would go from there.
My name is Ken Berry, SpEd IA Van Asselt@AAA. I spoke briefly with both of you in the lobby before the start of the Wed Board Meet.
Wouldn't it be wise to start first with an organization that has clearly stated issues rather than searching for Board candidates first. Get those issues in front of voters, now. Then, choice of candidates can follow later this year, or early next, 2011.
The most cost effective way to make voters aware of issues is to get it in there hands and follow up with phone calls. Meaning lots of man/woman volunteer hours. Much like the Betty Patu campaigns and even more so, the McGinn mayoral campaign. I've had personal contact and conversations with Betty's daughter Virginia and Sol Villareal of McGinn's Youth & Families Initiative. They might be willing to advise.
What would be the organization? SaveSeattleSchools.org
Are you incorporated as a 501.c3...? If not let's do it!
I live in W Seattle and am very anxious to unseat Steve Sundquist. A nice smiling "Hello!" kind of guy, could care less about alternative points of view.
Melissa from what I read on your blog on a daily basis you should consider running against Harium next year. I'm assuming you live in his district based on comments.
However, first things first--create an organization that draws from all concerned stakeholders, who presently feel disenfranchised. Students, parents, employees...Get the issues connected with SaveSeattleSchools.org. Get them in the homes of voters. The sooner this is done, the sooner we can deflect the impact of big money from Sundquist, Meier, et al, the sooner we can marginalize The Times editorials.
I can be reached directly: ONAOKO1@comcast.net
Sincerely,
ken berry
Mr. Berry's advice about participating in Democratic party precinct meetings is also an EXCELLENT suggestion. I strongly second that advice.
Also, reach out to organized labor, including the District's local 609. Reach out to the various special interest groups in the District: Special Education PTA, APP AC, Alternative School Coalition, and others.
Honestly, it wouldn't be a bad idea to go to some PTA meetings at schools in your Director District.
In all of these places you should make sure you introduce yourself and get your name out there, but then do more listening than talking.
My thoughts on a campaign are:
#1 No more than three major ideas that you push
#2 If you can cut that to one really good idea do it.
You'll find an almost infinite number of Carville-Rove wannabees who'll deign to whisper in your ear behind the throne.
Suppose you decide to [phonebank | leaflet | door knock | whatever ]
WHO is going to do WHAT?
WHAT is WHO going to do?
HOW is WHO going to do it?
WHERE is WHO going to do it?
WHEN is WHO going to do it?
for every 5 people who SWEAR they'll help out, .5 to 2.5 will show up.
for every 1 who shows up, you'll get 10 Cathy Blair Sinderman wannabees whispering ... oops! said that already.
++++
++++
and here is something new for advice - you need some messaging help, AND, some of that help has gotta be attack dog help.
Melissa pointed out a real reality - IF you have something to offer beyond bland no one knows what you stand for, THEN certain types in politics will try to hang you out to dry for it.
(how did nixon get his start back in the RED 40's???)
It is sooooo common for aspiring world fixer to just go for it & try to pull off "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", and they end up looking like Blanche Dubois, having to rely on the kindness of strangers.
IF you can't get some reliable help for cheap until you can get some coin, IF you can't afford a bit of campaign finance help up front, IF you can't get some people to do some high level typical ineffective Democratic messaging AND get some people to go attack dog on the liars and scum,
Enjoy your summer at BBQs.
rmm.
(ummm...NOT wearing the community employee hat !! )