Just get Along
Liberals in Colorado Springs like to complain about the lack of representation for their viewpoint at the state capitol. They say that it is healthy to have diversity in representative government so that all sides are heard.
When it comes to school boards, liberals suddenly feel threatened by diversity. Traditional school boards are made up of unambitious individuals who are serving on the boards strictly at the pleasure of the teacher's unions. Union money has always determined the makeup of the D11 board until 2003. The entire slate was elected without any of the four new board members receiving either union money or the union endorsement. Trouble could not be far behind.
Opponents of the four of us who were elected in 2003 claim that we don't know how to get along, and that we don't have the best interests of the District in mind. They say that we don't work well with others and that we will only vote for our "personal agendas." Because we actually engage in debate and because we stand up for the principles for which we were elected, we are labeled as "dysfunctional" and ineffective. Traditional school boards are expected to sit quietly and to vote however they are instructed to vote by either the administration or their handlers. The fact that there are board members on the D11 board who do not follow those unwritten rules has caused heartache since 2003.
The board members who were elected in 2005 campaigned on claims that the 2003 board members were disruptive and unwilling to work with their colleagues. To this date, they continue to make those claims and they use these statements to justify their support for the recall effort against Sandy Shakes and Eric Christen. Do their claims have validity? Are the board members who were elected in 2003 really unwilling to work with others? Let's look at the record.
The voting figures below are totals from D11 Board votes since the 2005 election. These are votes on main motions (as opposed to amendments, which simply change main motions).
Since the new board was seated in November 2005, there were 101 votes on main motions through June 2006 (motions which direct policy or procedure or adopt resolutions).
Vote analysis:
Unanimous votes: 65
6-1 votes: 15
5-2 votes: 16
4-3 votes: 5
(64% of all votes were unanimous. Votes of 5-2 or greater = a “supermajority.” 95% of all votes were by a supermajority).
Read that again: 95% of all votes were carried by a supermajority. Just because board members actually argue and debate issues, it does not mean that policy is not being created and progress is not being made. The claim that certain board members won't work with others is simply wrong.
What about the vote totals prior to 2005? How did the totals stack up from the 2003 elections to the seating of the 2005 board members?
Total votes taken from the seating of the 2003 board through the end of the 2003-2004 school year: 85 votes on main motions.
Unanimous: 62
6-1 votes: 9
5-2 votes: 5
4-3 votes: 9
72% of all votes on main motions were unanimous; 89% of all votes were by a supermajority. The fact that only 10% of the total votes were carried by a 4-3 margin does not scream "discord." Let's move on to the 2004-2005 school year.
Total votes on main motions in 04-05: 135
Unanimous: 93
6-1 votes: 16
5-2 votes: 10
4-3 votes: 16
68% of all votes taken during the 04-05 school year were unanimous. 88% of all votes taken were by a supermajority. Only 12% of all votes were carried by a 4-3 vote.
If any board of any type voted together on every issue 100% of the time, the public should be worried. Our form of government was designed to allow the arguments and fights to occur in the board rooms and legislative chambers around the country instead of the streets. It is called a representative republic. Despite the claims of the detractors, the D11 boards moved things along just fine over the past 3 years.
Of special note is the fact that Tami Hasling has voted against most of the main platforms of her campaign. She voted against an administrative hiring freeze, even though she promised to cap administrative spending. She voted against site based management, even though she campaigned for it. John Gudvangen also voted against putting more money in the classroom, even though he ran on that platform.
It makes quite a difference when the facts on board votes are compared to the rhetoric. It hardly appears "dysfunctional" when 88% or more of all votes are carried by supermajorities each year.
When it comes to school boards, liberals suddenly feel threatened by diversity. Traditional school boards are made up of unambitious individuals who are serving on the boards strictly at the pleasure of the teacher's unions. Union money has always determined the makeup of the D11 board until 2003. The entire slate was elected without any of the four new board members receiving either union money or the union endorsement. Trouble could not be far behind.
Opponents of the four of us who were elected in 2003 claim that we don't know how to get along, and that we don't have the best interests of the District in mind. They say that we don't work well with others and that we will only vote for our "personal agendas." Because we actually engage in debate and because we stand up for the principles for which we were elected, we are labeled as "dysfunctional" and ineffective. Traditional school boards are expected to sit quietly and to vote however they are instructed to vote by either the administration or their handlers. The fact that there are board members on the D11 board who do not follow those unwritten rules has caused heartache since 2003.
The board members who were elected in 2005 campaigned on claims that the 2003 board members were disruptive and unwilling to work with their colleagues. To this date, they continue to make those claims and they use these statements to justify their support for the recall effort against Sandy Shakes and Eric Christen. Do their claims have validity? Are the board members who were elected in 2003 really unwilling to work with others? Let's look at the record.
The voting figures below are totals from D11 Board votes since the 2005 election. These are votes on main motions (as opposed to amendments, which simply change main motions).
Since the new board was seated in November 2005, there were 101 votes on main motions through June 2006 (motions which direct policy or procedure or adopt resolutions).
Vote analysis:
Unanimous votes: 65
6-1 votes: 15
5-2 votes: 16
4-3 votes: 5
(64% of all votes were unanimous. Votes of 5-2 or greater = a “supermajority.” 95% of all votes were by a supermajority).
Read that again: 95% of all votes were carried by a supermajority. Just because board members actually argue and debate issues, it does not mean that policy is not being created and progress is not being made. The claim that certain board members won't work with others is simply wrong.
What about the vote totals prior to 2005? How did the totals stack up from the 2003 elections to the seating of the 2005 board members?
Total votes taken from the seating of the 2003 board through the end of the 2003-2004 school year: 85 votes on main motions.
Unanimous: 62
6-1 votes: 9
5-2 votes: 5
4-3 votes: 9
72% of all votes on main motions were unanimous; 89% of all votes were by a supermajority. The fact that only 10% of the total votes were carried by a 4-3 margin does not scream "discord." Let's move on to the 2004-2005 school year.
Total votes on main motions in 04-05: 135
Unanimous: 93
6-1 votes: 16
5-2 votes: 10
4-3 votes: 16
68% of all votes taken during the 04-05 school year were unanimous. 88% of all votes taken were by a supermajority. Only 12% of all votes were carried by a 4-3 vote.
If any board of any type voted together on every issue 100% of the time, the public should be worried. Our form of government was designed to allow the arguments and fights to occur in the board rooms and legislative chambers around the country instead of the streets. It is called a representative republic. Despite the claims of the detractors, the D11 boards moved things along just fine over the past 3 years.
Of special note is the fact that Tami Hasling has voted against most of the main platforms of her campaign. She voted against an administrative hiring freeze, even though she promised to cap administrative spending. She voted against site based management, even though she campaigned for it. John Gudvangen also voted against putting more money in the classroom, even though he ran on that platform.
It makes quite a difference when the facts on board votes are compared to the rhetoric. It hardly appears "dysfunctional" when 88% or more of all votes are carried by supermajorities each year.
posted by Craig Cox | 9:19 AM
2 Comments:
Once again, thank you for the facts. It is hard not to wonder if many of the petition signers would have signed if they knew this sort of information.
As someone who has paid pretty close attention to D-11 and the boards over the past decade plus, this sort of proof of individuality is encouraging. Would it be too much to ask you to compare it to pre-2003 voting records? Thank you.
Good question. That is something that I intend to do in the near future.
Post a Comment
<< Home