The local elections are over, sort of. There’s interesting news about possible mandatory tests for advanced classes at the high schools and the city may require more background checks for childcare workers at health clubs. Do you have any observations about these or other topics of the day?
November 10, 2009
Open Session: Quiet After the Storm?
6 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think Dan G.,Brannon and Adams should all run again for a CDA City Council seat in 2011, assuming Jim doesn’t get in on the recount. I read in the paper that Dan isn’t going to run again. Why? You’re almost there, why give up now? I gave my five reasons on the thread Five-vote-Mike about why the tide will turn for the challengers to city council seats in 2011. Bill, suggested that the incumbents are grooming people to take their place after some of the older council members retire etc. Still, it won’t be the same as if the incumbent was running. So,the tide will turn, I’ve seen it before and it will happen again; change will eventually take place on the CDA City Council.
One piece of advise, I’d give to any challenger to a city council seat is:to create more bases of support for yourself, the incumbents already have solid bases of support, that’s why they’re hard to beat.
I keep thinking of Ron Rankin when I think of persistence and determination, because he must have ran for office for over 15 years or more before he won a race for elected office. Rankin, had a solid church base, from which he got alot of support from. He was also, the President of the Idaho Homeowners Association and was the champion of the 1% Intiative back in the early to mid 90’s.Soon after, Ron finally won a race for Kootenai County Commissioner in 1996;it was the first race he won at the age of 66.No doubt, being on the homeowners association and a proponet of the 1% Intiative, helped Rankin IMO.
Comment by kageman — November 10, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
Yes, Kage, but these elections are much, much more personally vengeful than any others, I’ve been told by old-timers who know. They say that when the election process changed back in 2005, the local elections became much nastier. Remember that before 2005, all the candidates who wanted to run for city council were in what they called a “horse race”. No one ran against anyone else, they all just ran for the council. It was much more positive back then; no one was blasting anyone else, they were just saying what they have to offer. So, if there were three seats up for re-election, like this last time, the top three vote getters out of all the candidates would win. If we were using that system, both Mike Kennedy and Jim Brannon would have won, and aslo Woody, but not Deanna. Even though Deanna got 29 more votes than Dan Gookin, she got 134 votes less than Woody.
(NOTE: I corrected this part, because I originally wrote that Deanna would have been on the council, under the “horse race” method, but this morning I realized she didn’t get as many overall votes as Woody. See how the horse race differs from the new system?)
The process changed because the incumbent city council realized that it was much better for incumbents to have a seat by seat contest, so they voted it in. It gives the advantage to the current councilperson. I think we should go back to the old way because then the PUBLIC has the benefit of getting the cream of the crop; the top candidates in all the races.
Comment by mary — November 10, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
kageman,
The grooming process can make a first-time candidate an incumbent in the election. For example, hypothetically assume the payback for John Bruning to run was the deal to give the old library to Bruning’s favorite project, St. Vincent DePaul. Recall that the City had promised to sell the old library for $1M to use against the cost of the new library. Bruning ran, and St. Vincent de Paul got the old library. Suppose Bruning resigns from the Council two years before his term expires. The Mayor appoints and the Council confirms the interim appointee — one of the corpus corruptus being groomed. That appointee has two years to establish his/her credentials as the “incumbent.”
Comment by Bill — November 10, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
Incumbents also fear the horse race system because they are running against their cohorts, too. I had horse race elections in my early runs for the legislature, 37 years ago, before reapportionment. I not only had to defend against challengers from the other party, but not give my running mate any particular advantage either.
Comment by Gary Ingram — November 11, 2009 @ 10:28 am
I think making tests mandatory for students taking AP and IB classes in the high schools is a good idea. I’m glad the administration and school board is considering taking this action. When I was a member of a committee that looked into the situation last year we were dismayed at the percentage of students who were taking the tests associated with advanced classes. Not taking a test meant the student would not receive any credit on their college transcript. We also found that in several instances the administration was arbitrarily placing students in advanced classes just to fill them up.
Comment by CdACanuck — November 11, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
I agree, CdACanuck. When our kids were in Advanced Placement classes (before IB was introduced) we always had to pay for their tests. But it bothered me that the school district never revealed how many kids in those classes took the tests and how many of them passed with a 3 or better, which is the score that would get some benefits from many colleges. I even asked the Advanced Learning Director, because I was on that committee but he said he didn’t have that info.
As to those who say these AP & IB students shouldn’t have to pay for the tests if the athletes don’t pay for their equipment, as I recall, the athletes do pay for some things. We had to pay for some uniforms and the parent groups were always holding fundraisers for the teams.
Comment by mary — November 12, 2009 @ 12:50 pm