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 4^th (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 1^st.  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 7^th 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 7^th or 8^th 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 10^th 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 9^th or 10^th.

-       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 7^th or 8^th 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 5^th or 6^th (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.

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.

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.