posted by Mike Madison at 10:07 AM /
The first candidate for the School Board to land in my mailbox is Rene Garson. She has a skeletal website at http://www.garsonforschoolboard.com. Interestingly, that site does not mention the fact that she is an incumbent member of the Board, running for reelection. But the "About Me" section of the site is empty; perhaps a bio will be forthcoming.
I have created a space to the right for websites for School Board and Commissioner candidates.
I have created a space to the right for websites for School Board and Commissioner candidates.
Labels: school board, school district
27 Comments:
I also got her brochure. It told me nothing about her. As a relatively new resident I wasn't aware that she is an incumbent. All it says is that she wants to "Focus on Education as top priority". Isn't that a priority for anyone running for school board? She won't be getting my vote based on this brochure, unless I learn more about her.
Well, she won't get my vote due to the "Sablegate" scandal, plain and simple.
Not only is the "About Us" section empty, but so are the rest of the links at the bottom of the site. I think she needs to get her webmaster to get on the ball and fix them -- unless she thinks pictures of kittens on her photo gallery will help get her elected!
The quality of Ms. Garsons brochure reflects, very accurately, her contributions and effectiveness on the board. She is as empty as her web site.
Campaign Promises
vs.
Voting Records
Rene Garson's brochure boasts that she is for ACCOUNTABLE EDUCATION.
She lists her priorities as:
"focus on education and fiscal responsibility". Then why did she vote yes for the TIF?
Also, "informed ethical decision making and open communication". Then why did she vote yes for the termination of Dr. Sable?
Accountable?
She needs to go. We need people on the board who will keep our taxes down.
Last year, during the discussions about the 2006-2007 budget Hart, Remely and Silhol attempted to get the board to do a line by line review of the proposed budget in an attempt to find areas that could provide savings. At an open meeting Mrs. Garson stated that she "would not read through the entire budget" and did not think that was "her job." Is this someone you want voting on how $70 million of our tax dollars are spent?
When Vice President Rene Garson refused to read the budget she was defending President Joe Rodella's decision not to read it either.
The School Code says;
" ARTICLE VI.
SCHOOL FINANCES
Section 601. Information to Incoming Directors for Tax Levy and Budget. - - The board of school directors of every school district shall annually, through its proper officers, furnish to the incoming board of school directors all necessary information and detailed statements as may be needed by it to provide for the annual tax levy and to prepare the annual estimate of expenditures."
How do the proper officers furnish information to incoming directors if the President and the Vice President of the board both refuse to read the budget?
Ubder board policy the Board's agenda is set by the Superintendent, the President and the Vice President.
The TIF was put on the agenda by George Wilson, Joe Rodella, and last year's Vice President, Rene Garson.
Prospective school board members held a forum last night at the Library. The event was put on by The Mt Lebanon Parent Learning Support Network. There was a meet and greet beforehand so we (the candidates) had some good conversations with residents before the event took place. I'd like to see a great turnout at the next forum coming up on May 8th. This one is being sponsored by the League of Women Voters and will be held at the Jefferson Middle School Auditorium from 7-9:30pm.
In the meantime, if anyone has questions of any candidates, I think most of us have our websites set up and this blog has linked to them on the home page. I know I have already received at least one email from a reader of this blog.
Carol Walton has finally started her re-election campaign (two weeks before the primary). We received her brochure that she used to brag about everything that she has done for the school district. Funny - it didn't address Sablegate, early bird teacher contract and the TIF. She has a website with her apology for Sablegate. Too little, too late as far as I am concerned. See www.carolwalton.info for a good laugh!
So are Sue Rose and Elaine Capucci running as a team? Sue is an endorsed Republican candidate and Elaine is a Democrat. They seem to have signs together in many locations. As a Republican, it makes me not want to vote for Sue Rose. Of course, her record on the Board also counts against her.
In re: to 5-2, 7:24...
funny, as a democrat, ...what you wrote makes me not want to vote for elaine cappucci
I hear they're both Comcast subscribers. As an avowed Verizon user, I can't vote for either of them.
Ideologues, meh.
Anonymous at 7:24 doesn't want to vote for Sue Rose because she sees her sign with Elaine Cappucci's?
People should vote for the best candidate...and I feel these two are both good choices.
What makes Sue Rose and Elaine Capucci good candidates? Elaine's website issues seem pretty weak and she spoke at a recent candidate forum and after introducing herself didn't contribute much more. Sue Rose's claim to fame is editing policies. I also don't understand why people think that serving on the PTA qualifies them for serving on the school board. Sure - you know about the school - but I think that business, finance and technology experience is what is needed to move our district forward. I just don't see it with these two.
Hmmm...with the exception of the TIF, Sue Rose seemed to vote regularly along the lines of the "old" school board. IMHO, this puts her in the same league as Carol Walton and Rene Garson...not great company. If Elaine Cappucci is presenting herself as an ally of Sue's, then I probably won't vote for either of them.
Has anonymous at 12:39 had any PTA experience?
Neither Sue nor Elaine is running on that particular experience alone.
Business and finance backgrounds are certainly helpful for this position but part of the reason there is a group of board members is so there will be diverse ideas and thoughts shared.
I read Sue Rose's website and found more than what you are writing here.
How unfortunate that your comments seem to be personal rather than objective.
I think it would be nice if we knew all nine candidates' true motives for running. Considering the bashing that current and future board members receive here and elsewhere, why would anyone want to run?
But is it fair to assume that every candidate has some secret agenda?
I would imagine that some do, but in particular, the Cappucci/Rose comments are off the mark. I'm not even affiliated with Foster school, and I know that the reason so many yards have signs for both candidates in them is because the candidates themselves are friends. They worked together for the students (gasp!) at Foster when they both had children there. They have many mutual friends, and apparently the friends are more interesting in supporting people they think would do a good job on the board than in their party affiliation.
(For the record, my yard doesn't have both of their signs. I'm not friends with either candidate, but I know the story and wanted to share it.)
Quite frankly, I would strongly prefer that the party with which I'm affiliated fielded five strong candidates whom I could support. But I don't think either party has done that. It does present a dilemma for those of us who would prefer to follow party lines.
But what's missing from this discussion (and many others I've seen here) is the children. What would be best for them?
In my opinion, that's people with diverse backgrounds, as many of the posters here have stated. Our school district needs people who truly are committed to all students and care about the welfare of the community as a whole. I hope in the next several weeks, we can all figure out who those candidates are.
Just a few thoughts.
Partly to Anon 5:38- I think the Cappucci/Rose thing is quite interesting in the fact that Rose asked for and received the Republican Committee endorsement from Mt. Lebanon. There are five endorsed Republican candidates and five open seats. Would it not make more sense for her to help her fellow endorsed Republicans rather than hold coffee and socials with a Democrat? If there were only four Republicans running, then maybe I would think differently. But as a Republican in Mt Lebanon I do find it strange to see this teamwork. If Rose did not seek the endorsement of the party then I would have no problem with what she is doing. But to seek the endorsement and then help a Democrat? Maybe Ms. Rose thinks its her way of reaching out to Dems, but at who's expense? Hers? Or the other Republican candidates? People can think whatever they want I suppose. But party affiliation does still matter, especially when you are publicly endorsed by that party.
The anxiety over party affiliation puzzles me -- and I'm a lifelong Democrat and one-time presidential campaign organizer.
Aren't school board seats supposed to be non-partisan? Does answering "Democrat or Republican" serve the "best interests of the children" and "best interests of the community" questions that are supposed to motivate the Board?
Party politics has all but crippled and bankrupted the City of Pittsburgh. Allegheny County politics aren't much better. I don't know Sue Rose or Elaine Cappucci, and I haven't made up my mind to vote for or against either of them, but I find nothing sinister in their collaborating to help each other. Is old-style party thinking getting in the way of identifying the best people to supervise our schools?
How does going to the same coffee "help" either Sue Rose or Elaine Cappucci?
School board members do have to be able to work together. I am a democrat and plan to vote for Sue Rose and Elaine Cappucci because I think they are both good choices for the board.
Anonymous at 5:38 makes a great point about voting for the best candidate.
As I said in my 5:38 post, Elaine Cappucci and Sue Rose aren't running together, and Sue Rose isn't helping Elaine Cappucci. They have many of the same supporters because they're known--and respected--by many of the same people.
Mike Madison and Anonymous 1:19: You're both correct about the points I was trying to make with respect to the quality of the candidates.
I've always thought that candidates cross file in school board races because party affiliation is supposed to be secondary to the welfare of the children. (If that's not the case, then why even allow crossfiling?)
Perhaps those who comment on party-line crossings--real or, as in this case, imagined--have another agenda. If you don't like the candidates because of their views on the high school renovation (perhaps they want a partial remodel and you want to keep it as it is) or you don't like their previous performance if they're an existing candidate, that's obviously one thing. But I think this pettiness distracts us from the real issue: which candidates are genuinely committed to doing the best for our children and for our community as a whole.
Completely agree with Mike, and all the anonymice (meeses?) who support the candidates for their positions and character and not their party affiliations.
Around here, everyone plays the whole cross-registration game anyhow, so I don't see why it's important. It seems to me that, looking at a couple of the candidate's websites, they're taking the sensible political strategy of not advertising their party affliation except through channels which reach other affiliates. Why settle for just the Tails votes when you can appeal to the unknowing Heads as well?
Which is why I find LaVerne Conley and Zachary Benkovitz' "We is what we is" approach refreshingly honest. Some might say foolish, but saying so's really just tacitly selling in to the popularity contest bit, isn't it?
Are party loyalties really indicative of a person's ability to best run an office? Or is it a weak substitute for good decision making?
Mike, I understand your point about positions like School Board not being based on party. However, when you go to your local party affiliated committee and ask for their endorsement and they give it to you, do you not have a duty to that committee to not campaign with people of the opposite political party (alright, strange double negative there but I think you get the point)? I am not saying that political party should be first, just that I believe there is a responsibility there to the party for which you were endorsed. I could be just making a mountain out of a molehill because I understand that both of those candidates were PTA moms at one time or another so I can see where they would have common suppporters. Maybe we have entered a new political realm in which republicans and democrats can work together harmoniously and I am just not completely ready for that and this post is showing my nervousness about it!
Local politics in Pittsburgh are party-based to a degree that I have always found unsettling. Here, local Democratic and Republican committees are forces to be reckoned with. I have no idea whether that means that endorsed candidates have obligations to those committees. If it were up to me alone, I would say: I sure hope not. Aren't candidates supposed to be accountable to the electorate?
Still, I am not a Pittsburgh (or even a Pennsylvania) native, so I am unsettled by a lot of local culture -- still, after almost 10 years here. Every time I vote in Mt. Lebanon, I shudder at the campaign volunteers at the door, trying to shove literature at me. Please go away, and let me vote in peace and privacy! If I were a Commissioner, I'd propose an ordinance barring campaigning on election day within 100 feet of a polling place. I have idea whether I could get it passed, but I have no doubt that it would be Constitutional, and also a good idea.
I grew up in California politics, where "local party committee" can be found in the dictionary under "irrelevant." CA politics have a lot of weaknesses, but if you want to run -- for planning commission, school board, commission, or Congress -- you file and you run. "The party" doesn't decide whether or not you are a suitable candidate, and party endorsement other than via primary election is, for all practical purposes, unimportant.
Anon 3:21 - oh, it's far from new. Everything old is new again. Bipartisanship is the new pink, or whatever.
"It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another." - the real original G Dub.
Post a Comment
<< Home