Editor's Note: Apparently this post was taken down a while back (when the count was around 195 days). Perhaps because it had a clip episode feel to it. In light of the appalling conduct of this illegitimate president, it is being re-posted. And yes, the nation remains in captivity to the whims of a...what was the word that Tillerson used again? Anyway, more on that later.
Lest we forget that the Executive Branch is in the hands of a thugocracy, supported by feckless minions and lick-spittles who, once upon a time, would not have been entrusted to place the bagel orders for Grover Norquist's Wednesday gatherings, here are some useful reminders:
Trump's Igor, the neo-Roy Cohn:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/03/the-ugly-history-of-stephen-millers-cosmopolitan-epithet-215454
Ladies and Gentlemen, our "Commander-in-Chief:"
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/australias-pm-slowly-realizes-trump-is-a-complete-idiot.html
When last was an American President simultaneously so divisive, so self-pitying, and so prone to spouting untruths?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/03/fact-checking-donald-trumps-rally-west-virginia/
Stay tuned, as more will follow.
Showing posts with label Miller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miller. Show all posts
Friday, August 4, 2017
Sunday, January 8, 2017
Board of Education – Blackjack +1
The rest of January is going to be challenging in terms of writing for fun. With that in mind, here is a
quick initial run-down of potential 2018 BoE candidates. Bear in mind there are 4 seats up, which
means that the field will be winnowed down to 8 after the Primary.
Incumbents (4)
-
Bess Altwerger, Vice Chair. Elected in 2014. As of this writing, the only mortal lock to
seek re-election. Likely to win another
term if she does.
-
Cynthia “Cindy” Vaillancourt, Chairperson. Serving her second term on the BoE. Top vote-getter in the 2014 General Election
for the Board. A near sure-bet to win a
third term. I am hearing speculation in certain circles that she may not want
to run for the Board again, but wants to be certain that the new Reform
majority is solid before making a final decision.
-
Sandra “Sandie” French. A long-time BoE Member (21 years and
counting), the current buzz is that she is disinclined to run for another term.
Aggregating the wisdom from the Echo Chamber, I would estimate a 1-in-3 chance
of her running for the BoE in 2018. If
she does, she probably finishes in the top 8 in the Primary but I believe she
would finish no higher than fourth in the General, and could lose depending on
the composition of the field.
-
Christine O’Connor. Still in her tumultuous first, and perhaps
only, term, I am hearing that she is dissatisfied with Board life…and being in
the minority is unlikely to change that.
One in four chance of running for the BoE again and even if she does,
she might not get past the primary.
From the BoE to the Council (and Back Again?)(2)
-
Mary Kay Sigaty.
Last served on the BoE in 2006.
Current Council person in the 4th (term-limited out). Retains
strong Name ID in Columbia. Probably a
better bet for MKS than running for County Exec. Would finish in the top 8, decent bet to win
one of the 4 seat in the general.
-
Courtney Watson.
Last served on the BoE in 2006.
Former Council Member from the 1st. Democratic nominee for County Executive in
2014. Solid County-wide Name ID. Odds of winning a BoE seat? High assuming two open seats, extremely high
assuming three.
Former BoE Members (non-Council Members)(3)
-
Ellen Flynn Giles. Of the incumbents who lost in 2016, EFG is
the one most likely to try to win a seat back.
Likely to finish in the top 8, would be a challenge to place in the top
4 in November, but her odds would increase if Sigaty and Watson did not run and
there were three open seats.
-
Ann De Lacy.
Who knows what ADL might decide.
She has torched many bridges. I
doubt she would finish higher than tenth, assuming a full field with several
well-known (and less controversial) candidates.
-
Janet Siddiqui.
Another incumbent who failed to secure re-election in 2016. It is challenging to ascertain what steps
House Siddiqui may take to reacquire a public office. A stronger candidate than ADL, I nonetheless
think she would have a tough time winning a seat back, in light of her higher
unfavorable numbers throughout the County.
We aren’t even half-way through yet.
2016 Candidates (4)
-
Corey Andrews (also a 2014 candidate…and 2012). He posted a good showing in ’16, finishing 7th
ahead of two incumbents and almost garnering enough votes to appear on the
General Election ballot. I don’t know
Mr. Andrews well. I hear good things and
what I am about to say should not be taken as a criticism. If I were advising him, I would ask how badly
he wanted to serve on the BoE. A young
man, he has run for office unsuccessfully a couple of times now. He is on the borderline of entering perennial
candidate status. How much has he
changed since 2012? 2014? Since 2016?
Perhaps he should do some other things professionally and run again in
another decade. I also hear his name
attached to other possibilities but I think some serious self-reflection is in
order (in order to maintain his long-term political viability).
-
Robert Miller.
Disclosure: pretty sure I voted for him in both the Primary and General
Election in the last cycle. Finished sixth in both. This is where we start
talking about the power of the HCEA endorsement, the lack of which hurt Miller
in ’16. If he can get on the Apple
Ballot, perhaps he has a better shot of winning a seat. Without it, in a crowded field, he might
finish 7th or 8th in the primary…and most likely around
the same place in the General. I hear he
is all but certain to run in 2018, so it will be interesting to see how his
strategy evolves and how he applies the lessons learned to another campaign.
-
Pravin Ponnuri.
Decently connected, he placed 10th of 11 candidates in the ’16
primary. In absolute numbers, he wasn’t that far behind the sixth place
finisher, but I think he needs a small field to have a chance to get through a
primary. I think he would have a very
challenging time winning a seat in November.
-
Vicky Cutroneo.
Placed fourth in November, about 14,000+ votes behind the third-place
finisher, Mavis Ellis. Ran an
interesting slate campaign with Christina Delmont-Small, which I believe helped
her in the Primary (I think she caught a bit of the Apple Ballot halo effect
even though CDS was the only one of the two with the HCEA endorsement). A decent bet to finish in the top 8 in the
Primary, I think she has a tough road to a final four showing in the General.
2014 Candidates (4)
-
Dr. Zaneb Beams.
Finished sixth in the General Election.
Had the HCEA endorsement, which was a decided plus. I have already written about her regarding
District 5. If she ran for BoE and
secured a spot on the Apple Ballot, she probably gets through another primary. She would most likely need a field with fewer
Big Names and multiple open seats to place third or fourth in November.
-
Dan Furman.
Placed fifth in the General Election in ’14, not too far behind
Christine O’Connor. I hear he is likely
to run for the Board in ’18. Assuming he
is on the Apple Ballot, I believe he finishes in the top 8 and has a decent
shot of winning (finishing fourth) in the General.
-
Olga Butler. One of several candidates who
placed around 1,000 votes behind Mike Smith, I am inclined to believe she is
more likely to run for the BoE again as opposed to running in the Second County
Council race (a rumor I heard recently), given the focus of her community
activism.
-
Maureen Evans Arthurs. I am high on her upside potential for a race
for a partisan office (a future County Council run, or the General
Assembly). Her deep involvement in
Democratic politics plus her Annapolis experience positions her well for such
posts. The challenge is waiting for those
opportunities to open up. I think she
would be an excellent BoE candidate if she were to give it another go in ’18,
and I believe she could finish in the top 8 in the Primary…it would take
excellent execution and good fortune for her to land in the top 4 in the
General.
Wait, there is more…
Other Potentials (5)
-
Lisa Markovitz.
I am not seeing it, given her issue focus…which deals with schools to a
certain extent but only as a part of a larger concern re: growth and
development. I doubt he runs for the
BoE in ’18. If she does, her base might
allow her to finish in the top 8 in the primary, but I am thinking more like 9th
or 10th.
-
Barb Krupiarz.
An intriguing possibility with some clout amongst the Reform
constituency. An education activist with a significant digital presence, I don’t
know how that might translate into a nuts-and-bolts campaign (or how strong her
candidate skill-set is). Either way, if
she runs, it will be something to watch.
I don’t see her as a back-of-the-pack finisher, she could surprise and
place 7th or 8th in the Primary and then it is off to the
races.
-
Alice Giles.
What if, instead of EFG running for the Board, her daughter runs
instead? At this point, Alice isn’t
carrying the electoral baggage of her mother, with the benefit of having a
solid political name that is known County-wide.
Ms. Giles, Alice that is, has a broad issue portfolio, so perhaps the
County Council is a better fit for her background and interests. That said, if Alice ran for the Board, I
believe she has a very good chance of finishing 5th or 6th
(or better) in the Primary and a good chance of winning in November.
-
Deb Jung.
Heard about her as a possible candidate for County Council. I could see her either going that route or
the BoE, given her interest in education.
Regarding her ability to put together an infrastructure and her skills
as a candidate, those are question marks at this time.
- Daniel "Danny" Mackey. Engineer and education activist is also pondering a run for the Board of Education.
- Daniel "Danny" Mackey. Engineer and education activist is also pondering a run for the Board of Education.
Well, after this series, I may need to take a little
break. There might be an odds-and-ends
wrap up, but we shall see.
Stay tuned, as more will follow.
Labels:
Altwerger,
Andrews,
Beams,
Board of Education,
Butler,
DeLacy,
Evans Arthurs,
French,
Furman,
Giles,
Jung,
Krupiarz,
Markovitz,
Miller,
O'Connor,
Ponnuri,
Siddiqui,
Sigaty,
Vaillancourt,
Watson
Saturday, March 19, 2016
The Road to Ellicott City (2016): Part Three
I set fire to three earlier iterations of this post. Then the Middle Tennessee State 24-hour Dysgraphia hit. I shall never visit Murfreesboro
again.
Let me go straight to the headline: I
am undecided on my third vote. As of
this writing, I have four serious contenders for the third choice. I have ruled none of the challengers out, but
there are four tiers:
Tier Four [Definite No]
Dump DeLacy/Dump Siddiqui (sung to the
tune of Allan Sherman’s “Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh (A Letter from Camp).”
Also Bedolla. No response = an automatic no vote.
Tier One [Definite Yes]
Coombs and Ellis. Awesome Squared.
Tier Three [Maybe, but not terribly likely at the moment]
Ponnuri: Tech
guy. His questionnaire focuses on
several broad themes, including “independent thinking,” “accountability,” and “empathy.”
Not much in the way of specifics.
Would he be a good member of the Board of Education?
Probably. Am I buying into his campaign’s value proposition yet? No, not right now.
Andrews: Definitely a
stronger candidate compared to his 2014 bid.
He believes we “must address the discipline gap if we want to close to
achievement gap.” This writer strongly
agrees with this sentiment. He re-visits
the importance of “respect” in his questionnaire, this writer also agrees with
that line of thinking.
I am not convinced that he is the right person for the job
in 2016, but I respect his growth as a candidate for the Board of Education
over the past two years. He deserves
serious consideration.
Tier Two [Perhaps]
Giles: Yes, I am considering
voting to re-elect one incumbent. I
think she is smart, capable, and has an impressive record when it comes to
public service, most notably as it pertains to education issues.
Her responses to the questionnaire were thoughtful. Her stated “first year” priority to “restore
public trust in our school system by engaging our staff and community to better
inform us as we make decisions” indicates an awareness of the larger
institutional challenges facing the Board of Education. In terms of policy, I am in agreement with
her when it comes to “expand[ing] elementary world language so that all
students can graduate proficient in a second language.”
I found it interesting that while multiple candidates
mentioned the Glenwood Middle mold issue as an example of the failure to follow
certain HCPSS Guiding Principles, Giles defended the approach to that problem,
citing the “quality of the report and the inclusive nature of the plan.” She did note that “we (presumably the Board
of Education) must improve our processes for fulfilling public information
requests so that the responses people get answer their questions fully and
promptly.” I don’t believe I am with her
on the former point, but I concur with Giles on the latter.
The concept of “right association” is a big thing in my
corner of the world. If I thought that
the Board, and the County, would get the Best Giles along with the election of
two reform-minded candidates, I would probably vote for her. Pound for pound, her credentials compare
favorably to almost every other possibility.
But elections are more than just resume evaluations. There are other well-qualified alternatives,
and perhaps we need three new reform-minded voices on the Board. This brings us to the other candidates.
Miller: Great
background as an educator. Very detailed
responses. Talks about needing to
develop an “atmosphere of trust” and an “atmosphere of openness.” I agree. Beyond that, he says we should
“develop/re-start a budget oversight committee.” Yes, indeed.
He wrote that we should “enable the public to be assured that the
students are attending ‘healthy schools.’”
He says we should “cultivate a partner-like atmosphere with parents of
special education students.” He wants to
“reduce the amount of instructional time lost to standardized over-testing and
a poorly-conceived teacher (and administrator) evaluation system.” He indicates that we should “resist unproven
fads and the tendency to ‘fly planes while building them.’” No disagreement there.
I am not sure about his concerns about the “World Language
component of the Elementary School Model” where he says that “with the
knowledge I presently have, I would not continue the program as it presently
exists.” Assuming my interpretation of
his statement is accurate, I believe I am more aligned with Giles on that
particular issue. That said, I am not a
subject matter expert on this topic…perhaps I need to read more on this
specific debate.
His passion for education is evident in his responses.
His belief that the “single biggest dysfunction impacting
the Board is a lack of commitment to complete integrity.” Strong words, ones that (I believe) represent
the opinions of many of our neighbors.
So why not Miller as a lock for the third choice? I don’t
know. His mastery of detail is
impressive. Perhaps he could have
articulated those elements as the supporting points of an overarching Plan or
Vision.
He is in the running, but I am still considering two other
challengers.
Cutroneo: “Building
back trust is the number one priority.”
She recommends “education town halls throughout the county.” She is calling for, “with each new initiative
policy, a more formal process in decision making…” It is clear that she wants to open
decision-making processes up, so the widest possible array of community members
can have a voice, as well as access to
the data used to inform policies.
She indicates that she “would reinstate a BOE auditor or
ombudsman type position.” Sounds good to
me.
She notes that “instead of jumping on the bandwagon for the
latest, greatest, and glossy curriculum, we need to look at best practices
throughout the country and grow from within.”
I appreciate this perspective.
On the Guiding Principles question, she reflected upon “the
case of a special ed parent [name known but redacted] trying to obtain [a]
special education audit.” She believes,
in this case, “that the Board acted in a manner that ran counter to the
principle of collaboration, trust, and shared responsibility.” I agree with her
on this point.
So why not Cutroneo for the third vote? As of this moment, it is because she is running on a slate with Christina
Delmont-Small…and I believe that while both have impressive advocacy
credentials, Delmont-Small’s are slightly stronger. That said, I haven’t made up my mind…yet.
Delmont-Small. Right
now, at this very minute, she is my third vote.
First, her PTA and PTACHC experience is great, as is her
work on the Operating Budget Review Committee.
Her backing by the HCEA is important in my household.
She pulled the old Kobayashi Maru on me on the
questionnaire. Basically, for non-Star
Trek fans, she refused to accept the premise of my clones question. Importantly, she did so cleverly. Essentially, she used the question as an
opportunity to reflect on the necessity of “different opinions and ideas on the
BOE and a BOE that will embrace respectful discussion of opinions and thoughts
that are contrary to their own and be able to disagree in a respectful manner.” Well played.
Beyond that, she hit the high notes regarding the need to
“increase transparency and accountability,” calling for a “student/school
focused approach,” and the need to “change/improve relationships.” As part of that third platform element, she
correctly noted that “the superintendent is accountable to the BOE on all
matters related to the operation of the school system. The superintendent is not an elected member
of the BOE, she is an employee of the BOE.” Obvious to many? Yes. Needed to be said? Absolutely yes.
She talks about the importance of “electing individuals to
the BOE who will bring the voices of parents, teachers, and administrators to
the BOE and will ask the hard questions and ensure that the school system
operates in a manner that is accountable and transparent.”
So why not Delmont-Small for the third vote? Honestly, I would have loved to have seen a
bit more policy in her responses. A bit
more detail. She had the “vision thing”
down cold. I believe she gets the
nitty-gritty, but she kept her responses focused on broader, bigger
themes. That said, I think she would
make a great Board of Education member.
That is why she leads the Tier Two pack.
Of course nothing is a lock until I vote.
Stay tuned, as more will follow.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)