Last night the five candidates seeking election to the Kettering Board of Education participated in a “Meet the Candidates” program sponsored by the League of Women Voters. I was disappointed that so few people attended — only 30 or so — only a couple of teachers, only a couple of students. The Interim Superintendent, Jim Shoenlein, attended, but he was the only administrator I recognized.

The poor attendance for the event, to me, says a lot. I quoted David Matthews, again, that in order to have a strong system of public education, we need a strong democracy. Matthews has an insight that needs to be hammered and hammered. In order to make improvements in our country we need to make improvement in our democracy. When we are looking for an explanation as to why so many things in our whole country are so dysfunctional — so far inferior to what they should be — the answer is found in the system itself. We are experiencing system failure. Our democracy is failing.

I’m wondering if the poor attendance on the part of the school community was an unofficial boycott. Had the powers that be encouraged more of their teachers and administrators to attend, I’m sure many more would have attended. Kettering Schools, after all, has over 1500 employees.

I find it strange that the government teacher at the high school did not include in his or her education plan a goal of understanding the issues concerning the board of education election. The event was held six blocks from the high school. Why such a lack of interest?

The lack of interest by the government teachers is an indictment of Kettering Schools. The lack of interest by Kettering citizens in general — most who are graduates of the Kettering School system — is an indictment of the Kettering Schools. When we look for reasons why are we turning out citizens who have such disinterest in wanting to participate in their own community, I think it is fair to blame the community’s system of public education.

In my concluding comments, I again bring up the fact that the incumbent board members approved an advertisement campaign for the last tax levy election that promised “ZERO Increase In Taxes,” and “Not a Penny More.” The whole point of my campaign literature is to show that these statements were misleading and were meant to be misleading. During the evening’s discussion, the incumbents defended the advertisements, saying they felt in the levy ads they had done the right thing. I found their attitude surprising. Their defense of these advertisements shows a point of view that is strikingly different from my point of view. I said that the point of view of the incumbents is to see their role as board members as being cheerleaders for the schools. In contrast, I said my point of view I believe the role board member should seek to fulfill is one that centers on the community, centers on making “local control” meaningful, centers on representing the public, centers on vitalizing democracy within the community.

I’m going to put together a longer video showing more of the evening — but this conclusion sums up a lot of what I wanted to say.

Grrr. Originally, two “Meet the Candidates” community meetings were scheduled for Kettering Board of Education Candidates. But now it looks like the second meeting will be canceled.

Yesterday, Bill Pees, from the Kettering Kiwanis Club, informed me that all three incumbent candidates have sent him word that they will not participate in the Kiwanis sponsored “Meet the Candidates Night.” Bill said that the incumbents — George Bayless, Julie Gilmore and Frank Maus — individually called him to say they would not participate. The meeting was scheduled for next Thursday, October 29, at the Christ Methodist Church. Bill said that the Kiwanis Club will cancel the meeting rather than host a meeting where only the challengers — Jim Brown and me — appear.

I asked Bill if Kiwanis would go forward with the meeting if at least one of the incumbents agreed to participate and he did not make a firm commitment to do so, but indicated that Kiwanis most likely would go forward with the scheduled meeting — if at least one incumbent agreed to participate.

So it looks like tonight’s meeting — 7:00 PM at Good Shepherd Lutheran Church at Ackerman and Stroop — will probably be the only opportunity for Kettering voters to participate in a community meeting focused on the Kettering School Board election. According to the League of Women voters — as of this morning — all five candidates seeking election to the Kettering Board of Education will participate in this evening’s community meeting.

Mike Bock

This election, in selecting their school board members, Kettering voters have a choice. The question is, should voters return current board members who are seeking re-election — or choose the challengers? The DDN in its editorial endorsement, recommended sticking with the incumbents. Of the challengers — Jim Brown and me — the DDN said, “They have not made a strong enough case that they would be better.”

At the community meeting tomorrow, I hope to make the case — it’s all about two very different points of view.

The question is: What is the leadership that has the best chance of bringing the community to a great future?

Leadership comes from different points of view and the reason why I would be better leader for the board, I feel, is because I have a better point of view concerning the role of a board member than the view held by current board members. My point of view, I feel, has a much better chance of giving the kind of direction the district needs in order to build a good future.

In my new flyer I am distributing, I focus on the May 5 election that asked Kettering voters to approve renewing the five year 6.9 mill levy. I point out that the current board members were responsible for the misleading advertisement campaign that promised “ZERO Increase In Taxes” and “Not A Penny More.”

This levy campaign, I feel, gives a window into the thinking of the current board members.

These levy ads really angered me. In my flyer, I say they “appalled” me. It was a gut reaction. But as I talked to different people, I realized that a lot of people, to my surprise, thought these ads were OK. One man told me that he was glad the levy renewal passed, because his daughter teaches in the district. Another man told me that he didn’t agree with the way the levy was advertised, but that he voted for it, because his children attend Kettering Schools.

So, in the same way as these two people, evidently, the current board members thought the levy advertisement — “Not a Penny More” — was OK. The ad campaign, after all, succeeded in assuring the district of $8.2 million revenue each year for the next five years.

The problem is, these ads trifled with the public’s trust. Losing public trust has long term consequences. In the long run, the only factor that can possibly make a strong system of public education is if the system is supported by a strong community.

The incumbents sincerely want the school district to be strong. The incumbent point of view sees the role of board member as being mostly about marketing. The incumbents see their role as cheerleaders for the district, as fundraisers, etc. I disagree.

My point of view is that a board of education should be all about exercising “local control.” In my view, strong local control must be the foundation for public education and a board member must do everything possible, therefore, to strengthen local control. This means transparency — it means inviting the public into meaningful participation.

In the short term, the leadership provided by the incumbents seems to work. But in the long term, it is doomed to fail. And if it fails, the consequence of failure for the community will be great. The point of view I offer is a much safer bet for the long term health and strength of public education in Kettering.

So at the public meeting tomorrow, I plan on contrasting two different points of view.

The first community meeting for Kettering Board candidates is Wednesday, October 21 at the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church at Stroop and Ackerman at 7:00. All five candidates are invited and will answer questions provided by public members who are present.