Is There a Slate Running for Seattle School Board?

Way back in 2002, there was a Seattle School Board election with the majority of seats (4) up. That majority was made up of business-types who had overseen the death of John Stanford and then, the financial scandal of his CFO who became superintendent after Stanford. That would be one Joe Olchefske.

Voters were urged to stay the course with that Board majority. Four strong but completely different women ran against them. Somehow, along the way, those four women became a slate and that slate overturned that majority. It was a pretty thrilling election and it was great to see those four women at the same place on election night.

They are: Brita Butler-Wall, Darlene Flynn, Sally Soriano, and Irene Stewart. I knew these women (and worked on two campaigns) and they did not have all the same thoughts about the district. What they did know was that change had to happen.

They did not run as a slate although it evolved to that because of the seeming determination of voters to get rid of a majority who didn't oversee the superintendent. But the people in the majority now are certainly not the same types of people who were in the majority then. I smile in thinking of the comparison.

So how do you compare situations from then to now and can you draw conclusions about the outcome?

Both Board majorities lost a superintendent.

Both had financial difficulties although today's problems dwarf that financial scandal (which was never really cleared up).

The mood of the voters does seem to lean towards change. However, the two incumbents - Sarah Clark and Joe Mizrahi - were appointed and haven't been there more than a year so I'm not sure there is a "throw the bums out" feeling about them. If Sarju or Hersey had run, I think one or both would have been defeated.

I bring this up because of this opinion piece by "two SPS dads," Ron Davis and Robert Cruickshank. Cruickshank is, among other things, an organizer with All Together for Seattle Schools. They say several interesting things.

What really caught my eye was this:

These candidates (Sarah Clark, Joe Mizrahi, and Vivian Song) are aligned and working together to fix what’s gone wrong with SPS, along with current board president Gina Topp. 

What? Are they working as slate? I'll have to ask them when I do interviews with the two candidates in each race.


They also say:
They will stop a mass closure plan from returning,....

Note that word "mass." Because the district, with the Board, is going to close at least 4 schools. I'll bet anyone money on it. How am I so sure?

Because the district has poured millions into these mega-elementaries. They HAVE to fill them. So there may not be more than 10 schools closing but yes, they will close buildings in the next 2-3 years.


And this:
They also want to scrap SOFG and replace it with a more democratic governance model. 

Hmmm, I'm not sure that's an entirely true statement. The Board has spent A LOT of money and time on SOFG. There may be some contract with the Council of Great City Schools about rollout of it in a given district. I wonder if it might just get tinkered with. I have heard these candidates say that they want to bring back two Board meetings a month plus a couple of committees. That would be good.

And just like The Stranger on Janis White (Song's main opponent), they say this:

Song’s main opponent, Janis White, is a a strong advocate for special education. That’s extremely important work and a strong reason to hear her out. But as with Clark and Mizrahi, Song has already shown she is a strong, effective ally on the school board. As with those other two elections, we don’t see any reason to pick someone else when we already have a proven champion in Vivian Song.

The Stranger said White nailed everything. And yet they, too, endorsed Song. I like Vivian but her naked ambition is worrying. Great if there is a new Board majority but I truly don't see her staying 4 years if something she else that she wants comes along.