Two weeks ago I posted about the emergence of a slate of three candidates among the seven vying for the three open seats in the upcoming Grosse Pointe Public Schools Board of Education election.
The partnership of Margaret Weertz, Jake Howlett, and Brian Summerfield was further cemented this week when each announced they had been endorsed by the Grosse Pointe Education Association (GPEA), which is the local teachers union.
In the past when the GPEA has endorsed candidates, they have shared a questionnaire or some other rationale for their decision. Without that or really any other substantial announcement for the affiliation of this slate, we remain left wondering why.
This void has created more space for the silliest of public bickering between both sides of the non-party aisles on the school board as the unofficial spokespeople for each argued via the media about the presence or lack of “divisiveness” on the board.
That is an article for another day, but for now the issue facing the electorate remains the same: On what basis will we ever know why these three chose one another and what was it about the other candidates (Tara Burdick, Guy Gehlert, Ahmed Ismail and Cynthia Sohn) that they weren’t part of their team? If it is only that they like each other, I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it.
The lack of an answer to this is giving rise to speculation, a flicker that was stoked further by the GPEA endorsement, that the slate of three is “hand picked” by the district and administration. That is a far-fetched theory, but there is enough evidence to support that the district establishment likes what it sees out of the slate of three. Controversy is also rising because so many district employees, including at least three highly placed district administrators, have the trio of Howlett, Summerfield, and Weertz signs on their lawns.
As citizens of course these employees have every right to voice an opinion, but being that they are insiders, you have to wonder why.
Meanwhile in a letter to the Grosse Pointe News, candidate Burdick fired some strong shots across the bow of the establishment. She took dead aim on the failed tech bond calling it “flawed.” She protested against the employee contract formula clause by saying that district staff “should not be expected to bail out our district and restore its financial health.” She took the incumbent board to task, without naming Summerfield, for giving Superintendent Harwood a bonus when others took pay cuts. (I wrote about that back in June, 2013.)
The letter was filled with a slew of positions and promises that will be hard to reconcile as a practical matter, but at least it was substantive. The voters need more of that. The issues she raised really are the three key issues in this election: the Harwood issue, the tech bond issue, and the teacher contract index clause issue.
As of this writing the only positions known on these are Burdick’s from above and that Summerfield was a tech bond advocate and has voted to retain and bonus Harwood. Beyond that we know the GPEA and tech bond committee leadership all endorse Howlett, Weertz and Summerfield. And even in that we have only innuendo. Where do the other candidates stand on these issues?
Perhaps the October 7th League of Women Voters forum is one option, but with seven candidates the answers will be short and the risk of ambiguity is high. In the social media era, we shouldn’t have this problem. As of right now, however, we do. It would be refreshing to see any of the candidates host their own Google Hangout style Q and A session.
I’ll be publishing what has become an ambitious ten year history of the GPPSS Board of Education sometime over the next couple of weeks. I started to give background on the key issues in this election and found that the history is so relevant and necessary to understanding that I felt I needed to get this done. So stay tuned. It’s been a wild ten years!
Until then, I encourage everyone to really press the candidates for answers to these positional issues. They matter far more than personalities and personal politics.
4 responses to “School board election 2014 update”
Nice expose Mr. Walsh! Anybody who is supported by the school board and the school administration or teachers union should be summarily rejected by the voters. Cast your ballot wisely to insure that we maintain enough independent board members to insure proper checks and balances over the current regime, one that was brazen enough to try and con the taxpayers with their outrageous tech bond initiative.
Mr. Lee should realize we all have biases. It’s those that aren’t aware of their biases that are dangerous. And how can an endorsement from the GPEA be so awful? Are teachers not partners in the educational process? After all we entrust our children to them 5 days a week? Let’s have a balanced perspective here.
I don’t think the failed tech bond was an attempt to dupe the taxpayers. As we know the voters are never wrong. But I expect another iteration of the tech bond will pass if it’s scaled to the level of business and presented and communicated properly to GP residents.
Brendan,
If the 3 candidates on the slate are asked what prompted their alignment I’m willing to bet they’ll provide a candid response.
Thanks for reading and for the reply, Tom. I don’t think this slate is bound to do the GPEA’s bidding nor do I think the GPEA is an enemy to the community. It would be naive of anyone, regardless of bias, to not think the GPEA endorsement – on top of the slate itself – would not raise a lot of questions.
The GPEA and the Board have had their disagreements – serious ones. The pickets and demonstrations of 2009 and 2010 are still vivid memories for me. The relationship between the Board and the GPEA matters. We should all respect one another, but maintain balance. Things can get stressed between the two, as you well know and as do I.
None of this means to say I am judging the slate in relation to the GPEA endorsement. I just find the whole arrangement odd and poorly explained. Voters shouldn’t be left to wonder like this and writing about this IS me asking for a candid response, as I’ve encouraged others to ask.
The three slate candidates are asking voters to make a lot of assumptions or to simply take the slate’s word for it that electing them together is just a good idea. Neither position bodes well for how these three would need to communicate as board members, where trustees don’t get the benefit of the doubt and where most residents bias is skeptical – even more in light of the tech bond and other major controversial issues.
Yes, everyone has a bias and those more steeped in school board and district politics and finances will have a more pronounced bias (which isn’t inherently bad). Many others don’t have as strong a bias and are simply curious what the candidates stand for. Still more are skeptical.
In this case these three have chosen to stand and run together. That is an oddity and the candidates ought to be able to explain more clearly why they made that choice and why voters should support them as a result.
Again thanks for reading. More to come.
Relative to the GPEA endorsement, I like Reagan’s “trust but verify” approach. But I try to not to lead with suspicion. A reasonable person would assume that the GPEA is simply saying “of the candidates running, these 3 candidates provide our best shot of a more cooperative spirit from the Board.” And rightfully so! I truly believe if GP Residents were more informed and aware of the hit teachers have taken in total compensation, they’d be outraged. I want GP to be a top destination for the very best teachers and, as of today, that is not the case.
I’d like to see some innovative thinking coming out the board, rather than using the same levers we’ve had at our disposal since Proposal A was passed. We all know most of budget is in buildings and salaries but let’s get out of the box with new ideas to provide the best education that our tax dollars can buy.