Vote Today! See the post below for details. There seems to be a campaign sign fiasco between the incumbent chairperson of the school board, Edie Brooks and a gentleman helping with the campaigns of the two challengers. I think it’s unfortunate that this silly issue is getting attention because it distracts from the important focus on the poor management of the district during the last number of years. That’s the big concern for me.
Any comments, ideas or questions?
I just got back from voting at Ramsey. Boy, I sure hope the election consolidation bill gets signed by the Governor, because the school district’s way of running these elections is confusing. At Ramsey, they were all crammed into a little entryway area, about 12′ x 12′, with three tables and four little voting table-top set ups.
First they asked me to show them where my house is on their map! It’s a little map and it was hard to see in there. I am not terribly old, but I had trouble, so senior citizens might have even more difficulty. Then the poll person announced, “yes, she lives in the zone”, so then they looked me up in the voter book and checked me off the list. I was directed to fill out the affidavit form with my name and address. Then they finally gave me a ballot, which had one choice on it.
There were no other voters when I was there about 2pm, but my husband and son voted about a an hour before and they said there were about a dozen people in the very slow line.
Comment by mary — May 19, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
I was really shocked to see this make front page news on the day of the election. It was my understanding that the CdA press avoided such things on the day of the election. I truly believe it was very poor judgement of the editors in charge to print this story. I wonder who called the Press to get this story printed? The lead section of the story could have read “illegally placed signs removed by unknown person and placed at a school site. Brooks files police report while Purty does not file on his stolen signs.
Comment by citizen — May 19, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
citizen,
Your comment is consistent with Mary’s observation, and you would certainly be justified asking Press editor Mike Patrick exactly what made this story particularly newsworthy. There was a substantial amount of information missing from the story if it was, in fact, newsworthy. The story failed to cite the city ordinance allegedly violated. Was it
If so, when did the Sign Board convene in a public meeting and approve the proposed signs? Why hadn’t Brooks checked ahead of time to determine what was required to erect their signs? How does the City intend to pursue the allegations against Brooks as well as the allegation of theft? My guess is that this is the last we’ll hear of this particular incident. If the Press believed this story was newsworthy, it should have done a much more thorough story. Maybe the Press should comment editorially that if Trustee Chairman Brooks chose to claim ignorance of the sign ordinances, if she is allowed to evade penalty because she chose to ignore the law (that’s a common defense among public officials in Idaho), then maybe she doesn’t even belong on the School Board.
I do have sympathy for candidates whose signs are stolen and vandalized in any campaign. They and their financial supporters pay for those signs, and I see little difference between someone who steals a campaign sign and a shoplifter who enters a store and steals something of comparable value. A thief is a thief, and a vandal is a vandal.
Comment by Bill — May 19, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
I also consider the removing of signs to be theft. However, it gets tricky when signs are posted in or on your yard or property without permission. I have had to remove move signs illegal placed on my property (even one’s next to no trespassing signs.) Eddie Brooks should have known better. She and the Press obviously turned the story to her favor. There is nothing so newsworthy about this story that it couldn’t have waited a day….I think it was further manipulation of elections by our local paper. Shame on them, again.
Comment by citizen — May 19, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
citizen,
I should have been clearer, because you are correct. If someone sticks a sign in my yard without my permission, they have trespassed and littered, and I will remove it and dispose of it as litter.
However, properly approved and permitted signs in the public right-of-way are there by permission. Their unauthorized removal is theft. The people who placed the sign have not abandoned it, because they are required to return after the election and remove their signs. If they fail to remove the signs in the required time, the sign can and should be removed by the City.
Comment by Bill — May 20, 2009 @ 6:42 am