What I learned at the 34th District Democrats' endorsement meeting

The 34th District Democrats (West Seattle, Vashon, Burien) held their endorsement meeting last night and I was there. It was very revealing.



First, the results. They gave a dual endorsement to Suzanne Dale Estey and Sue Peters in the District IV school board race and an endorsement to Stephan Blanford in the District V race.

The most important thing I learned is that Stephan Blanford, whose election is practically assured, supports Teach for America, opposed the MAP boycott, and opposes the litigation over I-1240. Yeah, take a moment with those. The first two positions were revealed during the "paddle" or quick answer section of the interviews. When asked "Do you support TFA?" Ms Peters and Ms Dale Estey signaled "NO" and Mr. Blanford signaled "YES". When asked "Did you support the MAP boycott?" the results were opposite, with Ms Dale Estey and Ms Peters signalling "YES" and Mr. Blanford signalling "NO". Then came a question about the litigation to find I-1240 unconstitutional and Mr. Blanford, speaking, bemoaned the "Seattle Process" of discussing and discussing a decision instead of just moving forward. He said that the charter school question has been decided and we just need to move forward now.

All of this is very troubling. I suppose the support for TFA could be explained - there are areas of the country that suffer a shortage of qualified teachers. Opposition to the MAP boycott, however, can only indicate an authoritarian perspective in which people - including professionals - are supposed to follow orders, no matter how bad those orders. The suggestion that the process for initiative 1240 is finished before the constitutional challenge reflects either support for charter schools or a naivete about the initiative process. The final stage of the process is the constitutional challenge. That's just part of the process now. Besides, if you really believed that a matter is settled after a vote, then I-1240 would never have come to the ballot since charter schools had been voted down three times in the past.

I think people should talk to Mr. Blanford and ask him some close questions to clarify his positions on these questions - and others. Not that there is anything that can be done about it. His election is, as I wrote, practically assured. He'll be on the Board and there's no realistic opportunity to prevent it. We should just get a clearer view of what to expect from him. You know, so the shock doesn't kill us.

Now, what about the District IV race? It is driven almost entirely by loyalties.

Ms Peters and Ms Dale Estey expressed essentially the same positions on all of the issues. So what's the difference between them? Two things: the nature of their experience and how you feel about Ms Dale Estey's supporters.

They both have lots of valuable experience. Ms Peters has 15 years inside the district. She knows the programs, the history, the people, and the issues. Ms Peters has endorsements from people on the inside, including three continuing board members. Ms Dale Estey has equally long experience outside the district with elected officials at the state, county, and city level and with corporations and non-profits. She has endorsements from her connections in that arena including lots of elected officials and leaders of non-profits. Some people think that the inside experience and the institutional memory are more valuable; some think the outside connections and experience is more valuable. Both perspectives have merit and can be supported and defended. Very few people based their decision on this difference in experience.

The real division is rooted in how you feel about Ms Estey's endorsements. Is it good or bad that she is endorsed by Tim Burgess, Stephanie Bowman, Michael DeBell, Peter Maier, Barb Schaad-Lamphere, Greg Wong, Juan Cotto, Matt Griffin, Heidi Bennett, Seattle Metro Chamber of Commerce, the Seattle Times and others with Education Reform connections. She told the 34th District Democrats that she refused the endorsement of Steve Sundquist, which, of course, means that he offered it. She is his choice for the job. She is not endorsed by Harium Martin-Morris but has a campaign contribution from him. She is also his choice for the job. She has endorsements from a lot of other elected officials and community leaders, but those who are sensitive to Education Reform are disturbed by these.

To what extent do you judge people by their connections? To what extent do you think that Ms Dale Estey, who has espoused positions essentially identical to Ms Peters', shares the perspectives of her Education Reform supporters, will owe them some debt of loyalty, or will grant them more access than other constituents.

The 34th District Democrats meeting was an interesting demonstration of how the lines of loyalty influence political decisions. Ms Dale Estey got endorsements from her connections. They granted these endorsements out of loyalty to her. That's how these endorsements are given. They are given to those who ask for them without much thought about the other candidates in the race. They are awarded with as little thought as most votes - not after a close review of the candidates. It's really kind of discouraging to learn how casually elected officials treat their endorsements. It is reasonable to fear that they decide their votes as capriciously. Ms Dale Estey won support at the meeting from delegates based largely on their loyalty to the elected officials who endorsed her, including King County Executive Dow Constantine (who came to the meeting to speak on her behalf) and two of the 34th District legislators. She lost support from delegates at the meeting also based on her endorsements - her endorsements from people with Education Reform connections - assuming that she will be loyal to them.

It seems to me that loyalty - in one way or another - will be the driving factor in this race.