Dear Del. Frush
I could hardly believe my eyes when I read the Laurel Leader today,
Febrary 25, 2005
The Leader quotes you as follows:
Del. Barbara Frush of Calverton said she will support
an elected board because she promised to do so, but
"maybe against my better judgment."
"Appointments present a better picture," she said,
because otherwise an elected board can become
merely "a podium for people wanting to run for higher
office."
At first I was horrified by this anti-Democratic, authoritarian sentiment coming from an elected official.
But, I got to thinking. Maybe appointments DO present a better picture. I am certain that Gov. Ehrlich and/or Pres. Bush could appoint better legislators that those of you elected by the obviouslyincompetent voters of the 21st district.
So, following your own philosophy, I am going to write to the Governor and the President and ask them to do away with elected delegates in the 21st district , substituting delegates appointed jointly by theGovernor and the President.
May I count on your support?
Also, I see that you seem to think that:
The appointed school board has brought stability to the school system, she said.
<>Gee, I thought the unelected school board had brought us extremently expensive administrators involved in procurement scandals, ethics violations, and drug-money laundering, along with rotting schools that take a backseat to luxury gyms. Your view of what is important certainly does not seem to square with that of the voters, I guessthat's why you don't trust them.
Diane C. Russell
http://dcrussell.esmartweb.com
I saw your comments on the PG Politics web posting, and feel I need to respond.
ReplyDeleteMy comments were taken out of context rather badly, and several related and pertinent comments were left out. Here is the "Rest of the Story"
I supported the legislation to return to an elected school board, with members elected from individual districts. I objected to, and still have problems with, several elements of the bill.
First, I did not agree with special elections to fill board vacancies. Special elections are extremely costly and distracting. I feel that a system of appointment by the County Executive after advice from appropriate advisory groups, with approval by the County Council, would be a more efficient and less costly way to fill vacancies.
Second, I did not agree with the provision of the bill that gives board members leaves of absence to run campaigns for other elected offices. In my view, ideal members of the Board of Elections are those who want to be 'there', not 'be there on the way to higher office'. This provision of the bill sends the wrong message.
I tried to have the bill changed, but was not successful. In the end, I voted for the bill in spite of my reservations about those elements because I agreed with the overall end the bill would achieve.
Now, all of this may be moot, because we are not sure what the Senate is going to do with the legislation. We'll have to wait and see on that score.
Barbara Frush