HB 117 Passes the House
Vote on this hotly debated bill really did happen this afternoon and the results just got posted. Vote was 23 YES, 17 NO and 1 Absent. Follow after the jump for the vote detail. Apologies in advance for the formatting.
Atkins N
Barbieri Y
Bennett Y
Blakey N
Booth N
Brady Y
Carey N
Carson N
Cathcart N
Hocker N
Hudson Y
Jaques Y
J. Johnson Y
Q. Johnson Y
Keeley N
Kovach Y
Kowalko N
Lavelle N
Lee N
Longhurst Y
Manolakos Y
M. Marshall Y
Miro Y
Mitchell Y
Mulrooney Y
Oberle N
Outten N
Plant A
Ramone Y
Schooley Y
Schwartzkopf Y
Scott Y
B. Short Y
D. Short N
Thornburg Y
Viola N
Walls N
D.E. Williams Y
D.P. Williams Y
Wilson N
Gilligan Y
Tags: HB Vote
Hmm…not a party-line vote, either. For my area, I’d like to thank Cathcart and give an eff you to Quinn Johnson. Freaking terrible idea. Can’t wait for the logistics for this to be unveiled with the already over-extended workers on election day.
Now…I’m waiting for the exact opposite from Geek…
A horrible bill. If passd by senate in current form, it will completely politicize education. A disaster on every level.
No fiscal note, poor logic, and alternatives were on the table.
I want to thank my Rep., William Oberle, for doing the right thing.
Let’s see if the Senate has any common sense.
Not well thought out. Maybe a courtesy to sponsor Longhurst.
What’s the give? Sponsors don’t like committed insurgents taking over school boards, as happened in Red Clay?
and now am I still a douche for asking what political party School District Board Members affiliate with….
DV, Education should not be a political party issue.
JY,
You live in my district!
It shouldn’t but it is already.
It should also be more participatory — even if you don’t have kids, these are candidates spending your tax money and fooling around with your property values. A separate election day is about continuing to hide the process from the many.
“A separate election day is about continuing to hide the process from the many.”
Which people are allowed to vote on Election Day and not in a May school board election?
cassandra, nothing is hidden at all under current rules.
The informed can vote in any election, the informed do vote. Unfortunately, the extrememly partisan general election will draw Dems and Repubs and issues and tensions that are non-education centric into the voting booth…..and way down at the ottom will be these people running for school board with no party affiliation…..let me suggest the folowing possibility:
the stauch republican is running for school board in your district, he/she has no party designation, but the whim of luck has his/her name lined up directly beneath the slate of DEMOCRATS while the liberal has his/her name lined under the elephants….do you trust that the voters would be discerning enought to vote the candidate in the other column who best espoused their views?
Answer honestly…..
UI, I hope I can do right by you and all of Christina.
do you trust that the voters would be discerning enough to vote the candidate in the other column who best espoused their views?
Do they do this now? For all of the other candidates? And what do you think about the Independent voters?
I am unmoved by arguments that somehow school board elections are more informed and more pure than other elections. That somehow these “more informed” voters can best tell how to spend the money they tax me for schools or to add to my property value. As far as I can tell, none of that is true. Especially on the spending and accountability sides.
As I am unmoved by agruments that politicizing school board elections by forcing candidates spend more money to attract votes in a highly partisan election adds value to the school board member selection process. The comprimise, to me, was to move it to the PRIMARY date, saving the dollars ,but saving it from the gross politicization of the general.
Longhurst has won the bill, but DE will lose the law. It is part of the cabal featuring Rodel, Broad, Markell, Lowery, et al.
I know I don’t count for much in this process, but I will give this thing my all for 5 years, and as of right now, will likely be unwilling or unable to run in 2014 under this law.
Cassandra is so often a good voice for the righteous but is way off here.
Arguments such as Cassandra’s lead to such idiocies as California-style initiative and referendum, Pennsylvania-style elected judges, Louisiana-style elected tax assessors. Why not elect DelState’s and UD’s boards of trustees, the Court of Chancery, the banking commissioner, etc.?
Those who care deeply about education, largely consisting of the committed stakeholders, vote in school board elections. It’s fair to say that in most parts of the state, the school board reps are superior to the legislators. One major reason is that the elections are open to all who care, and are not colored by partisanship. Folks who happen to be Democrats can be elected in GOP areas, and vice versa. School board is like a board of church elders, or vestry or parish council, in that quality and good thinking have little or no connection to how one votes for Senator.
I cringe to imagine the Seaford School Board should Longhurst’s bill become law.
Those who care deeply about education, largely consisting of the committed stakeholders, vote in school board elections.
I don’t believe this. Especially when you can see those running for School Board who won’t even speak to places where “they don’t need their votes”. That counts as politicized. And you can characterize these Boards any which way you want — as long as they are managing a river of money for not so hot outcomes, there isn’t much reason for all of the hothousing folks want to give them. If school boards want a special status, them perhaps they can deliver performance that may warrant that.
I agre with everything you just wrote, but fail to see how HB 117 makes any of your concerns better. Boards manage rivers of money for NO PAY. I am not here to say that Boards should be paid, but what kind of performance do Delawareans expect from “unpaid porfessionals”?…our “paid” legislators can’t get it right well more than half the time.
I’d still like to know how this is a net-save of money considering the logistics to be involved. Overlapping districts, rearchitecture of the voting grid (maybe), possibly new voting machines to accommodate the two different styles of elections, or to accommodate the extra categories on the same machine? Lastly, as someone who has been very involved these last few cycles, I simply can’t imagine the overtaxing of the poll workers who are already in short supply.
but what kind of performance do Delawareans expect from “unpaid porfessionals”?…our “paid” legislators can’t get it right well more than half the time.
This makes no sense. The fact that you are unpaid doesn’t obviate the fact that you stepped up and asked people to give you this job. If this is a thing with doing it is worth doing well. And in terms of performance — schools that gradulated more kids would be good, as would schools that produce kids who can demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the subjects they are supposed to be in (currently tested by the DSTP), schools with great teachers, spending more money for instruction than for administration, schools that kids compete to get in rather than having their parents move to PA to get a better educational deal, etcetcetc.
I have no doubt that being on a school board can be a tough job and my Dad was a education administrator so I know the challenges. But none of that is reason to draw the curtain around the process. And I just don’t see how much worse this school board election business can get, frankly.
BTW, I agree with this:
The comprimise, to me, was to move it to the PRIMARY date, saving the dollars
I still don’t think that this gets any less political, tho.
And I have no idea about how much money gets saved.
Doesn’t it cost just as much to run a low turnout election as a high turnout one? You still have to open polling places, have workers in place, etc. Having one less election would save some money, but probably not a lot.
School Board Elections are pure and not politicized? Bwhahahahaha!
But, maybe I feel that way because I live in Red Clay – which for a decade had board members hand-picking candidates who agreed with promoting and creating charter schools over the public schools they were responsible for. Big on creating (and not funding) high poverty schools as well. Guess which party has been in charge of Red Clay?
These May elections are a numbers game designed to maintain fiefdoms by completely ignoring certain parts of their districts while pandering to others. Geez, in RC you needed less than 1300 votes to win – the other districts were even more embarrassing.
And while HB117 may very well be flawed… anything would be better than the prom king and queen May contest we have now.
Also, please lose the “informed” voter line. It’s extremely insulting… and given the state of our schools obviously not true.
Equally insulting is the notion that these candidates won’t be voted on based on party affiliation. As I always said, I will be much less inclined to vote for someone running for the School Board that feels it necessary to tell me his/her party affiliation.
But they are being voted on by party affiliation. Mike Matthews had the low-down on the behind the scenes action here.
Maybe things truly are different in RC vs here, then. Of course, RC, at least publicly, was a colossal eff up. My additional concern is that very apt and willing people get dismissed out of hand because of a freaking letter that has nothing to do with what they’d do on a school board. I have one huge example in mind, too, whom I think you may be aware of.
“The fact that you are unpaid doesn’t obviate the fact that you stepped up and asked people to give you this job”
Of course it doesn’t. I am merely commenting on the expectations of the voters.
As for making no sense: “But none of that is reason to draw the curtain around the process”
There is no curtain except the one you imagine. The current process is just as accessible as running it in the General. AS for saving money, Longhurst povided NO FISCAL NOTE. For that alone, I just call bullshit, 117 is total bullshit.
Results of recent Red Clay overthrow confirm that Longhurst’s bill not needed for grass roots change to occur. What we don’t need is more uninformed voters and the other byproducts of mixing political parties with the process of picking school boards.
As Aristotle pointed out, all interactions are political, especially including governance. That doesn’t mean that political parties belong in that process. Hockessin’s dominance of Red Clay could have been addressed by legislation that permitted people only to vote for the SB rep in their own districts, but that has proven not to be necessary. The good guys won without this silly proposal.
And maybe I’m offering a big heads up of what could happen. Right now a lot of districts outside North Wilmington are homogenized, ever wonder what might happen if, and when, they weren’t?
For instance, school boards decide which neighborhood schools will house the alternative program? Ever think how having your neighborhood school turn into an alternative or high poverty school might effect your property values?
I am just getting word of this, as myself and many school board members were in our monthly meetings this pm, tied up with our respective district’s business. Ed Czerwinski will now be replaced after ten years of high-paced, sweat of his brow, honest, engaged, advocacy for education in Delaware, and specifically in Appoquinimink. He did not hesitate to go toe to toe w/ any legislator at any level to advance public education in this state. He
was feted tonite, by those who are well aware of his drive and push for funding, and fundamentals of 21st century skills needed for our students today. He brought his case, and made his case to anyone in position to act–because of the unafilliated position in education that can trump any risk of political fall-out, or suspicion of political pay-off. I am real sorry you folks in RC or Christina claim to have a hard time with politics, but do we really need to dial down education to the least common denominator of decision, and service–POLITICS? Spare the “it’s already there” speech..if it is….YOU let it in…and didn’t have the strength of conviction to go against a machine. Five individuals ran for our board seat, and I did not see one mention or connection to any party or idealogy. Looking around I would say 300 hundred bucks MAY have been the top dollar spent. Well, this bill has now cleared the path for some of us other districts to become just like you. If what you say is true–no thanks–I prefer my local citizens, not my local party running the local school board.. It is a sad day when you applaud what you have done for your state government, by going against the machine and sending Markell to Dover, but no hesitancy in usurping a volunteer, local position, and condemning it to party play. Regardless of the untagged candidate–broke and vulnerable have a certain appeal to both parties and prostitutes. What a shame the school board goes the way of the brothel.
I will be in mourning, until our good Senators can see the folly of the House decision, and keep the boards as boards–local policy makers–and not their personal bedmakers.
great post Joanne.
My total spending was in the $600 range. Very reasonable to try and let people know who I was to try and win their vote. GOt me some signs, pamphlets and website.
This legislation is good on paper, but hasn’t been thought out. This will disenfranchise people who aren’t registered to vote since you don’t need to be registered to vote in a school board election. Different RD’s and SD’s may be in different school districts – multiple different ballots will need to be developed and election workers need to make sure that the voting machines are set correctly for each person. While this isn’t a problem in primaries (when we have a much lower turn-out), general elections with higher turn-outs will mean longer lines at the polling place.
And you will now have school board members taking office in the middle of a fiscal year, when adjustments might have to be made and many newly elected board members are not going to be up to speed on what changes may need to take place.
Good idea – bad legislation.
I listened to the debate from the floor, and between Kowalko, Lavelle and Booth, it was made plainly obvious how bad the bill was. That’s how scary it is that the thing passed.
What we don’t need is more uninformed voters and the other byproducts of mixing political parties with the process of picking school boards.
This is what I mean by drawing the curtain.
But tell you what — figure out a way to make sure that the “uninformed voters” get exempt from paying the school portion of their taxes and I’m delighted to concede on this thing.
Here is a copy of a post I made to Al Loudell’s Blog at WDEL back in April… :
For the last twenty years, in some Districts, the process has been completely POLITICAL under the disguise of being “a political”.
In the Red Clay S.D., amongst the staunch conservative Republican activists and Board members, they have always taken an active and politically structured approach to the election process. They have done heavy mailings based on demographic studies and databases, as well as utilization of booster records and parent groups when available. And if the data can’t be connected to the candidate for one reason or another, endorsement literature for that candidate is develop, printed, mailed and paid for through PAC’s or non-profit groups.
Without ANY doubt, in some Districts in this State the process has been VERY POLITICAL and has insisted on separate election seasons to allow affluent minority interests in public education to manipulate the process.
Quite often, people who participate in this approach can’t publically argue their position on an issue based on democratic principles, data or merits, so they choose to circumvent the structures that inhibit their philosophic goals.
To them, the end ALWAYS justifies the means.
MOVE SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS TO NOVEMBER.
Cassandra–Please let me help with your concession. You are far too wise, and reasoned to allow cynicism to erode this model, when our legislators should be tackling bigger budget implications(if you remember the “original” need for the bill).
The “uninformed voter” seems to stick in “yer craw”, as the target for increased school taxes. Let me be clear on the way I see it. “Uninformed” may be a misnomer for “uninterested”. Sure turn-out may be low, but folks I speak to who haven’t voted never really feel slighted. They offer the dismissing, or leveled reasoning of not having kids in the school anymore, or no opinion to place a vote in regards to school policy. No DISTINCT reason at that time to vote. Now moving on to the “river of money” you describe. Referenda brings out the voters–quadruple. It is something locally, and DISTINCTLY they can have a say in. The nearly 25% of a district’s budget will be reflected in the local will of priority of collecting and spending. Plain and simple-what the state won’t cover. Your districts’ values will be evidenced by where they place that money. Some districts choose athletic fields, others pick musical instruments. We have chosen an educator inservice area for large groups, and 100K emergency staffing funding to our K center, when faced with overcrowding–but again, all local funds. It is knowing that community, and having them underwrite what you hope you have perceived as the community’s priority the key to this local piece. That type of trust is devoid of any implication of “horse trading”–it is citizen outreach. Again, I cannot emphasize enough–just because (I don’t know what district you are in) RC and Christina have disappointed those folks, don’t mess up what has worked elsewhere–every year in the current system, you have the chance to throw a bum out. In the words of your very own Rebecca Young–not more Democrats…better Democrats….well amongst the general citizenry it has to be, Not more politicians….better board members. Please rethink this, and leave legislating to the state, and local policy making to the locals.
What I’m starting to get from this argument, Joanne’s VERY VALID points aside, is that one group of people felt they couldn’t crack the ice, so they want to create an upheaval and change how things are done, to honestly better the chances for their side. On the other hand, others who have had little complaints about their board and enjoy their representation realize what little chance they’d have in a polarized environment, due to straight-ticketing; therefore, don’t want it changed.
That about sums it up. I will admit of being guilty of the latter. In Appoquinimink, we enjoy our board’s efforts over the years. Thanks to Christina and RC (especially RC over the last handful of years), Appo is about to take a hard one up the rear. All’s fair in politics, eh? Except…it’s a freaking school board!
“What I’m starting to get from this argument, Joanne’s VERY VALID points aside, is that one group of people felt they couldn’t crack the ice, so they want to create an upheaval and change how things are done, to honestly better the chances for their side.”
Bingo. Next, all you have to do is figure out the who.
My eyes are trained on RC, FSP. Thing is, though, it’s not just Democrats looking for this change. It’s those who were more or less disenfranchised by the machine that made it that way. I totally blame what used to be the forceful method up there. Thing is, while they finally made leeway this year, rather than mark the progress and work with it, everyone must feel their wrath of revenge…e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e.
I think you’re right about it being RC, Smitty. Just take a look at all the amendments to the Charter School law, among others. Our school board and politicians have quite the relationship.