Election. Ballot. Vote. MAIL IT IN.

Uh kids, King County elections is reporting that for Seattle, just a shade under 20% of you have returned your ballots. For the entire county, it's just over 20%. Let's get with the system and get this done.

Comments

SolvayGirl said…
All I can say is I hope the 80% were listening to Dorothy voice her opposition to the school levy on KUOW today. She was wonderful, so full of facts and knowledge. Her debate opponent from SchoolFirst could only sputter variations of "It's for the kids," and "the state has cut funding."

All I can say is...
"DON'T Surrender Dorothy!"
10/27/10, 1:05 PM
Maureen said…
"DON'T Surrender Dorothy!"


:)
10/27/10, 1:21 PM
Dorothy Neville said…
Thank you! I promise not to surrender. The goal of the anti-levy movement is to reform the district at the TOP, to ensure school budgets are created and protected first.

The November 2 is just one time point. I've attended most of the audit and finance committee meetings since August and I plan to continue all year. I hope to be a presence and a witness to the board following through on their promises and finally addressing the culture of entitlement.

(but immediately after the election
I am going on a knitting retreat. Not Disneyland, not OZ, just some wool, two sticks and the camaraderie of other knitters.)
10/27/10, 1:42 PM
Central Mom said…
Here is one link for streaming the KUOW interview.
http://kuow.org/program.php?id=21714

It includes guest call ins on the topic. Unfortunately many voters, like the enthusiastic "YES all the WAY" mom from Phinney Ridge, believe that they won't suffer cuts to classroom services by passing the levy.

That is simply not the case. I hope voters, on whichever side they land on this issue, understand: THIS LEVY AS PRESENTED WILL NOT RESTORE PAST CUTS to teachers, IAs, and other classroom service providers. In addition, IT MAKES ZERO PROMISE THAT IT WILL BE USED TO PREVENT FUTURE CUTS. And by future, I mean basically now. Coming within this school year and hitting next fall.
10/27/10, 1:50 PM
Dorothy Neville said…
My worry is that parents who are hoping against hope that this levy will restore such items as art and music teachers will be so disappointed in the levy (assuming it passes) that they will not believe the SCPTSA and SchoolsFirst! in 2013 regarding the regular operating levy. If I were in their shoes, I would be more honest about how they want the new spending, how there's nothing in the levy to address the things PTAs are paying for now.

But it is always easier to believe the person telling you it just might help rather than the grinch telling you there's no santa claus.
10/27/10, 2:25 PM
The First Arnold said…
Go, Dorothy! My husband heard you this am. Felt you did a great job!

The Establisment has Bill Gates, Alliance for Ed., LEV, Schools First etc...Yet, your voice is definately out there!

I am impressed. You've got the District on the run.
10/27/10, 2:34 PM
Anonymous said…
very good interview, dorothy you did a wonderful job of discussing why the PTSA at Roosevelt is against this levy.
I have two kids in SPS and my wife is an SPS teacher, we are both voting No on this levy. for the very reasons you pointed out. this levy, save for the textbooks, is not putting money in the classroom. Had the district not spent their $ on closing schools only to reopen them costing more $$ than it cost to close, they could have a bit of a leg to stand on. How about the 1m they had to take from the general fund to cover the missappropriated $ they used to train contractors in how to submit a bid on a contract proposal to the district. that 1m$ could have been used to purchase books.....We all need to stand up and call a halt to this..

JPR/Seattle
10/27/10, 3:52 PM
Clean ClutterFree Simple said…
I hate mail-in voting. Hate it. So, I kick and scream and wait 'til the last minute.
10/27/10, 3:54 PM
Dorothy Neville said…
Thank you JPR, but I do have to clarify. I have been a PTSA member and I was (until last week) the treasurer of the RHS PTSA. I was treasurer for more than two years even though my son left high school for early college entrance over a year ago. As of last week, I am no longer active in the PTA except as an advisor to the incoming treasurer (and filled out the 990EZ for her). I am actually quite disgusted with the way the SCPTSA has pitched the supplemental levy as a means to offset cuts to classroom and basic education. Privately Ramona agreed that it wasn't going to do much for that, but that she (and presumably the rest of the SCPTSA the voted to endorse) like the ed-reform ideas in the teachers contract.

But I do not speak for the PTSA or the PTA. Guy Nelson got that bio information and made assumptions. The RHS PTSA actually voted to endorse the levy. There were only about 20 people in attendance, but sure, why not, it's for the kids.
10/27/10, 4:08 PM
Maureen said…
Aaack, I wish the RHS PTSA would post their agenda before the meetings. I asked last year and the secretary said they would, but I've never seen it if they do.
10/27/10, 4:24 PM
Dorothy Neville said…
Word of mouth can be Extremely Powerful in voting. Especially something like a school levy. Many people who are inclined to vote yes without thinking will listen to their neighbors with school age kids (or who are teachers) who are voting no. Seriously. The one to one conversation about how the supplemental levy supplements headquarters and hurts kids is useful.
10/27/10, 11:10 PM
mirmac1 said…
West Seattleites! Vote for Joe Fitzgibbon! His opponent Mike Heavey is a patsy of the ed reform movement. Joe will listen to parents and teachers on how BEST to improve our public education system.
10/28/10, 8:59 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more