Term limits, recall capability, a living wage for trustees, and redistricting for more compact and representative districts that
do not fragment minority populations, are all needed governance reforms that do not require "home rule!" But November elections are not a positive reform!
We need to improve the potential that the voting public actually
knows their trustee instead of increasing the potential for PACS and other
outside district money sources to control elections.
100%
of the current board started their election campaigns with the blessing of PAC
money, except for Carla Ranger! Carla Ranger remains probably
the DISD Board member who is most well known and popular in their home district on the board. Such
popularity must continue to overrule PAC's!
When it comes to being popular in your district, and having a
dedicated following who come out to vote for you, a November
election pattern will not be progress. It would only give more power in the
election to those with money, too often from outside the district, who are better able to reach the more apathetic
segments of the population with this funded outreach.
Will giving more power in an election to those with money from
outside the district be a step forward?
Look at what is
now happening in the two currently contested DISD Board races. In both
districts money from outside the district is having a major role in
the election. It is NOT the voters inside the district
controlling the information flow, the mailings, the phone banks, the paid
workers walking door to door. But, due to a relatively small pool of active voters who can be targeted by candidates and devoted volunteers, candidates without the funding have a real potential to win in these elections without such PAC funding. They have time to target those who have a history of voting in school board elections.
Power from money for sound bite
advertising will only increase exponentially with a November election and lessen the ability of non-PAC-endorsed candidates to win. November elections will have more voters
who are neither studying the issues nor aware of what is happening inside DISD. They are the most easily manipulated by such funded campaign advertising.
With the current elections, due to the low turnout, you have the most involved and knowledgeable voters from each district who are making the decision. Sound bite advertising has the least effect on these more involved voters.
With the current elections, due to the low turnout, you have the most involved and knowledgeable voters from each district who are making the decision. Sound bite advertising has the least effect on these more involved voters.
What is the true motivation of "home rule" advocates who want to give more control of the governance system in DISD to those most able to donate more money? Such methods do not indicate benign intent.
