Final results:
Jennifer Pickel: 1435
Peter Sobol: 2004
Susan Manning: 2161
A thank you to the voters of the the Monona Grove School District who have again placed your trust in me to do this job. I will do my best, and I pray that my best is good enough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
What is read on our latest WCKE results?
Readers may be interested in the number of "under votes" for the school board race. Of the 3699 total ballots cast 1453 or 39% were marked for only one candidate. The breakdown: Monona 980/2077 or 47%; Cottage Grove 473/1622 or 29%.
Bill,
But take a look at the township if memory serves in the townshiop of CG it was nearly 50%.
Thanks for the numbers Bill. Question: how many of the ballots had no votes for school board?
There is something else the numbers show: if CG residents don't like the results of these elections, they have no one to blame but their neighbors who didn't go to the polls.
As a CG resident, I'm quite happy with how the results turned out.
Also, I ran the numbers and, if the candidates got the same percentage of votes in Cottage Grove, but turnout was as high in CG as it was in Monona, Susan Manning still would have won, although Peter would have been the top vote-getter.
If you divide the number of votes for each candidate by the total number of votERS, rather than the total number of votes, which is pretty meaningless, 31% of Cottage Grove voters (including myself) did vote for Susan Manning. Only 21% of Monona voters voted for Jennifer Pickel.
Here is the CG split for the under votes. Village 280/932 (30%), Town 193/473 (29%). I think, but am not certain, that a ballot that was unmarked for board was included in the under vote total. These and the numbers above were certified by John Weinberger, Lionel Norton, and me yesterday at the district office.
To the anonymous blogger who is advising unhappy CG residents where to place the blame: This is not a productive conversation. It feeds the selfish, cancerous divisions that exist among the members of the board, and within and among our communities. The rancor that persists continues to cripple our school district and the ultimate losers are our children.
A last note to all the anonymous bloggers: Reach down, find some courage and inner strength, and sign your name. There are a lot of good reasons for this, but simply put it is the right thing to do.
Bill:
Jane Doe here.
Re. voter turnout: It IS a significant issue when voter turnout differs widely in the two communities. By my count, Monona turned out a third more voters Tuesday than in the town and village combined. This, despite CG (town and village combined) having more voters in the 2008 presidential election than Monona did (first time ever).
You can spend from today until whenever arguing this is one district, and that the board needs to reflect that in its decisions, and make judgements that are in the best interests of all children. But that smacks up agains the reality of how candidates get elected to the MG school board these days. What incentive is there (at all) for the likes of Sue Manning to listen to anyone in CG re. their concerns about -- let's just pick one issue: the future of Maywood, and the expense of keeping it open -- when she has been elected quite easily to two terms on the board with 75 percent of her vote coming from Monona? None, that I can tell. (Manning would've been elected to the board this week without a single CG vote.) So she panders to the politically vocal crowd in Monona, and gets away with it, because she knows there's no way it will hurt her in CG. And it didn't -- largely because CG voters don't seem nearly as interested in local school elections as Monona voters (except when it comes to a major building referendum). (Manning sent out an email on election day to several Monona residents, encouraging them to call their neighbors and turn out the vote -- wonder why?)
CG residents do need to step up; if they don't, they will continue to have a school board make decisions that even their board president acknowledges are done with politics in mind.
I would caution Jane Doe a little but I agree with her interpretation of how to get elected to the school board, at least in recent times. This seems to be a trend accross the country. On the national stage, a hot-button issue can get someone elected even when 75% of their views differ from that of the voters.
My advice is that it is voters of both Cottage Grove and Monona that need to see past single issues such as Maywood or the candidate's zip code. When both communities select the same candidate, it shows a common faith in that person for the entire district and for both communities. Plus, if Cottage Grove were to elect a "CG Manning," I don't think it would help ballance the board, it would only split the district more.
Jane Doe here:
I agree -- and Peter's a good example of what one might call bravery, because he votes for what he thinks is the best interest of the district and its kids, and is rewarded with nearly equal numbers of votes from the two communities. In fact, that's how most of the board used to be elected. But post-referendum, there seems to be a concerted effort on the part of Monona-based candidates especially to play to the vocal Monona crowd, and that predictably has been reciprocated with CG-based candidates making sure CG interestes are looked after. Lots of people may think it's a good thing the board from, say, five years ago has gone by the wayside, but there's little question the board is now more polarized than in the past. Just watch last night's meeting.
I do agree that the board has become more polarized, and that is bad for the district and the decision making process.
That is why I would like to suggest an apportioned seat system: 3 for Monona, 3 for CG and one at large. The balance of the board wouldn't change, but the candidates would. Because a candidate for each apportioned seat would be elected at large, candidates could only win by seeking out support in the other community. If two CG candidates have equal support in CG, the one with the most support in Monona wins.
I think this system would focus the elections on the real issues. There are reasons not to like apportioned seats, but I think the positives for this district are more important.
I agree, Peter. The job of a school board is to do what is best for the school district. When that becomes the main focus, everything else will follow.
I strongly disagree with your idea for an apportioned system. I think that would get 6 Board members who are even more polarized (they ONLY represent their town, as mandated by the system).
It may seem like that now with some members or on some issues, but it would probably be more frequent with voting wards or board districts.
I disagree - In an apportioned system, candidates are elected by everyone in the district, they just have to reside in the municipality corresponding to the seat. This means that the candidate who does a better job reaching out to the other community has the best chance of getting elected. It is a system that would reward candidates that reach out while at the same time eliminate the incentive for the voter to consider the candidates zip code as a factor.
The apportioned system could get candidates to campaign in both towns, but there are many ways it might not.
If in your example (2 posts ago) for one Cottage Grove seat, the candidates spent all their time in Cottage Grove and got equal support. One of them could win if they got 1 Monona vote, and the other got 0, but I wouldn't say that means the first one did a better job reaching out. The same could happen with a group of Monona candidates.
The presence of a polarized person may bring out another polarized person from the opposite community to offer "balance." These people will tend to campaign well in their home communities, and thus the tie breaker of the other community might not be needed.
Plus what if there is only one candidate running in a community? I don't think Jennifer Pickel was a polarizing force at all and am only using her as an example, but since she was the only candidate, I assume she wouldn't have needed to campaign in Monona or Cottage Grove at all in this system.
Furthermore, once elected, I think many people would be pushed to "represent ____ interests since they have the ____ seat." For example in Madison, the alder who represents the area near the MG high school hasn't been concerned with compromise on the gates, or the Monona Drive project. This is between 2 Cities, not 2 wards, but I think the thought process is established by the districts.
On the national level, polarizing forces get strong, and then tend to fracture and eat themselves. I think the same might happen on the School Board. I do think you have made a good effort to represent both communities, and applaud you for this. I also applaud you for trying to find a way to discourage zip code voting. But again, I don't think this system would help the polarization on the Board.
If a change is made, the preferable route is numbered seats, ala the Madison School Board. Candidates run for Seat #1, or Seat #2, and must be elected district-wide. Terms remain the same (three years, with rotating seats up every year). Right now, it's rare to have candidates really run against each other -- in the current format (e.g. three candidates up for two seats, with the top two vote-getters elected), everyone sounds the same and substantial issues are often left not debated. Having to run against one person, makes that person defend his/her record on the board in a way the current system really doesn't. (Notably, Jennifer Pickel for the most part dodged the question of whether she would or wouldn't favor closing Maywood, arguing she wasn't in a position to have enough information to make that decision.)
Upside: You'd get more substantial campaigns, with real issues addressed, and a clear focus on differentiating candidates and their records/stands on issues. Incumbents would have to defend their actions on the board -- arguably the most important part of any campaign.
Downside: Probably favors incumbents; might discourage some people from running; campaigns could turn personal (they have gotten that way already, but in an underground fashion).
"I disagree - In an apportioned system, candidates are elected by everyone in the district, they just have to reside in the municipality corresponding to the seat. This means that the candidate who does a better job reaching out to the other community has the best chance of getting elected. It is a system that would reward candidates that reach out while at the same time eliminate the incentive for the voter to consider the candidates zip code as a factor.
Peter, I agree with and like your idea. It would also stop making elections a parlor game in this district. For example in several wards in CG-50% voters voted for one and in MOnona abou 40% voted for one....baah to both groups.
The way to go about it is file a plan and get at least 100 signatures. The plan then has to be voted on at a annual meeting or a special annual meeting (which also takes 100 signatures).
If you are interested-we can talk more and I will get the signatures.
Post a Comment