I'm glad we agree on something.
With respect to our disagreement on Baker: If his bill had brought us a good school board, honest, effective CEO, and improvements in results, I'm sure that Baker and his supporters would be crowing about their success. But that is not what happened and nobody seems willing to accept the responsibility for failure that is the other side of the coin.
Additionally, it seems to me that the failure of Baker's leglslation to produce any forward progress shows that he did not have a handle on the real problems, nor an effective solution, but charged ahead anyway. The bastard district/at-large elected board we are facing, and you are "very fearful of" further demonstrates the weakness of Baker's legislation. If he had done it right, we wouldn't be facing that problem.
That leaves me with little confidence that he can or will deal effectively with our public safety problems. I am very much afraid that he will feel a need to do something and charge blindly ahead, without really understanding what he is doing, and likely make matters worse. I do however, have slightly more confidence in Baker than in Jack Johnson, but not enough to give him another chance to screw up a vital government service.
On 8/19/05, Ed Terry <email@example.com> wrote:
While I do not share your assessment of Rushern Baker, I do think you're on target about Gloria Lawlah. The legislation she is proposing is nonsensical. At-Large members responsible for single districts? How do you then hold school board members accountable? How do you judge their efforts?
I am very fearful of at-large board members because the money it takes to mount a county-wide campaign will discourage parents and other qualified individuals from standing as candidates for the board.
While I favor single-member districts (that match council districts) and I don't care for at-large seats, Lawlah's proposal is just plain dumb. Two wrongs equal one big wrong.