In yesterday’s DDN editorial, “Maus, Gilmore, Bayless best picks for Kettering school board,” the DDN recommended, regardless that there are two good challengers, that Kettering voters stick with the three current board members who are seeking reelection
The DDN in its editorial seems to try extra hard to say nice things about the two candidates it rejected — the also-rans, the challengers — myself and Jim Brown. The DDN says, “It was fortunate that Mr. Bock and Mr. Brown chose to run. They have made the debate in this race more fruitful.” The DDN describes Mr. Brown and me as, “impressive and pushing the right issues.”
So, given the fact that all candidates to the Kettering Board are, “very good candidates,” if the names had been put in a hat, there could have been ten different combinations of three winners. But the DDN chose all current board members, the incumbents, as the “best picks.”
The DDN’s explanation for choosing all three incumbents over the two “impressive” challengers? The DDN explains in the last paragraph, “They (Mr. Bock and Mr. Brown) have not made a strong enough case that they would be better.”
Yikes. In the 90 minute group interview, one of my goals was to show my personality, show that I know the rules of manners. I tried to make a case for change and I thought the DDN would pick up on the themes that Mr. Brown and I presented, but I guess not.
I do intend on writing a letter — I will post it later today — to the DDN about this little bombshell: “He (speaking of me) rubbed some in the district the wrong way by campaigning against Kettering’s necessary renewal levy last May.” During the group interview, there was not a peep about my actions during the 6.9 mill levy. If the editor had intended on dropping this bombshell in the published article, then it seems I should have had some opportunity, during the group interview, to make some input into the matter, but I had none. So to put this accusation in an editorial as if it is a matter of fact is unfair.
If I had sought to “campaign against the levy,” I certainly would have done more than make blog posts (see here, here, and here). I would have done more than, two days before the election, deliver a note of explanation to voters in my precinct. Kettering Schools has 64 precincts. I visited voters in only one. I would have made large signs or written a letter to the DDN. My efforts cannot accurately be described as a “campaign against the levy.” Defeating the levy was not my motive. I feel the DDN owes me a little space to explain.
During the DDN group interview, I did indicate that I objected to the way that the 6.9 mill renewal levy was advertised. Part of my case for change is that the present leadership has shown policies concerning transparency and citizen education that must be changed if Kettering is to fulfill its potential. Trifling with the trust of the public is very unwise, because the foundation for school improvement must be built on public trust.
I think that Mike Bock’s pushing the “no tax increase” advertising of the Kettering school levy issue as far as he did came back to bite him here by alienating the DDN editorial board. By the scale of misstatement prevalent in modern politics, that one may have been ambiguous enough he should have given it up rather than push an unlikely to succeed complaint, when he was later going to make himself a candidate and vulnerable to this kind of judgment. The media has a lot of power in these situations, and they don’t have to express their concerns in their interviews. On the other hand, it seems the media often makes arbitrary decisions between candidates just to whittle the field. Or they might just be taking a “it’s not broken so don’t fix it” attitude favoring incumbents that may make some sense to voters in a time when so much in our national life seems broken, the economy, the financial system, the health care system, the wars, the quality of public debate on talking heads radio and tv. The Dayton area isn’t doing so great either with plant closings and headquarters moves, foreclosures, and the ongoing struggles with poverty and segregation. This can drag down our sense of what is possible or necessary.
Mike Bock, of course argues passionately on this blog that public education is broken, at least in some places, and falls short of what it should and needs to be in most places. He also argues that democracy also falls short of what it should be. The fact that the DDN didn’t rise to the challenge of his call to urgency to make things better may be evidence of this. It is often said that we get the kind of politicians we deserve. Perhaps we also get the kind of media we deserve. Still the DDN has done a good job with some things, foreclosures for instance, at a time when many small papers are becoming superfluous. So maybe if they say that when you have 5 strong candidates, you leave well enough alone, that’s another situation that you live with.
I would probably vote for Bock if I lived in Kettering in order to see what he could do to put his ideas in effect. Maybe enough people who live there will vote for him despite the DDN and give us the chance to find out.
Stan, thanks for the comment and for your hypothetically probable vote for me. You write, correctly, about my actions concerning the May 6.9 mill renewal levy, that my actions were unwise, unhelpful, as a basis for a campaign to be elected to the Kettering Board. Yes, I made myself vulnerable to the type of bombshell the DDN dropped.
The truth is, not that it matters, I didn’t seriously consider seeking election until August, close to the petition deadline, when it really came home to me that seeking election to the Kettering Board was the right thing to do. So, I will take my bumps for not thinking ahead. My actions were not politically smart, because they are so easily misrepresented. But I feel I did the right thing. Being politically smart was not my motive, so now, I will probably pay the price.
You speculate that my actions concerning the May levy succeeded in “alienating the DDN editorial board.” Maybe so. But, if the editors were alienated about my reaction to the 6.9 mill levy, I’m wondering, in light of the fact that overall the article praised me, why the editors did not take a minute to ask me about my view of the whole deal?
My own judgment is that this recommendation was not easy for the DDN. The editorial seems to go overboard to make that point and I believe it is true. It would have been a big step to reject these incumbents. The simplest choice (of the ten possible) was to simply stick with them. Had they chosen me or Mr. Brown, then which one of the incumbents would they have discarded? (And had they chosen Mr. Brown and not me, it would have been a much worse scenario for me than their choice to simply select all incumbents.) If they had chosen both me and Mr. Brown, which incumbent would they have picked, and why? If they had chosen both challengers, how could they have explained their decision? I don’t think the editors were prepared nor inclined to take the position in their article that the Kettering School system needs a lot of change.
I think the best guess of how this recommendation happened is that, for a lot of reasons, the editors decided to take the easy way out. My own feeling is that the editors wanted to endorse me, but, instead, held back. Who knows? They pleased a lot of people with their endorsement choice. Who would they have pleased had they chosen me?
Anyone who has been in sales knows when a possible sale gets away. I believe Mr. Brown and I made a strong case, but as the article says, we didn’t make “a strong enough case.” We failed to close the sale. This will be interesting to see how it all plays out. It seems likely, at this point, that unless I can explain the DDN bombshell, I will lose a big contingent of teachers and ardent school supporters.
The DDN is worthless.
An endorsement from them is a sure sign that you are failing at coming up with new ideas, engaging the community, and leaping Kettering schools into the future.