The Seattle School District used a wonderful campaign strategy for the Levy vote. The School Board itself selected Chris Jackins to write the "opposition statement" for the voter's pamphlet:
A "NO" vote won't take money away permanently: The District can, and will, submit another levy to the voters - hopefully with pledges to drop school closures and Charter Schools.Yes, that argument is incoherent and unpersuasive. Bart Cannon, who I worked with on an earlier voters pamphlet statement, applied to write the opposition statement for this levy, but was told that the School Board appointed Jackins to write it. What better way to improve one's odds in an election than to appoint an ineffectual to speak for the other side? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 23, 2007 10:49 AM | Email This
We need every "No" vote: Minimum turnout provisions only apply to "Yes" votes.
Send a message: Keep our neighborhood schools open and public - VOTE NO.
Come on GOP leadership, there are tons of crooked things going on in this state; expose them, run on a reform platform, and win. It is amazing stuff like this keeps happening and we hear nothing from the opposition party, that has been shut out of power in this state for decades.
Posted by: AP on January 23, 2007 10:52 AMIt is a huge freaking conflict of interest. And it gives a big leg up to the sponsors of tax and spend measures who want to stack the deck in their favor.
That is why Ron Sims (King County & ST) picked Will Knedlik to write the opposition statement to the tax measure "Transit Now." Knedlik's a whack job DISBARRED lawyer. He wrote an unpersuasive and baffling opposition statement last November. The one he drafted for the Voters Guide "opposing" Transit Now went on a mindless rant against ST in that statement that made it easy to paint him and his views as irrelevant.
ST and RTID are going to do the same thing, using Knedlik, John Niles, Eyman, or some other individual who has a proven track record of losing (as well as big public perception problems) to draft the ST2/RTID "Statement Against" next November. Those three, and there are others, are high-profile critics of ST, but they are always careful to only criticize aspects of ST that ST will win on at the end of the day.
It helps the governments around here to have such extremely convenient critics. That is why they keep them around, play them up to the press, etc.
Posted by: Maxwell Edison on January 23, 2007 11:03 AMWhat exactly was Mr. Cannon told, and does he have proof?
Posted by: Bruce on January 23, 2007 11:04 AMSorry, a weak (OK, very weak) attempt at humor in this absurd situation!
Posted by: Right said Fred on January 23, 2007 11:05 AMStefan, if you would like to read my research report on the capital bond measure, e-mail me and I'll send it to you. It's based on all district documents and conversations so it's factual and it makes interesting reading.
Posted by: school parent on January 23, 2007 11:12 AMIn the elections that are conducted by the King County Elections Office, is is rule 6.5, and it can be found here:
http://www.metrokc.gov/recelec/archives/policies/ele91pr.htm
Those are policies that will apply to the joint ballot measure in Nov. 2007.
Posted by: forensic files on January 23, 2007 11:14 AM6.5.1 states that the "legislative authority of the Jurisdiction" shall appoint the committees (pro and con) that prepare the statements to be included in the voters' pamphlet.
Can the Seattle SD be the "legislative authority of the Jurisdiction"? Shouldn't it be the Seattle City Council or the KC Council?
Section 6.5 in its entirety:
6.5 ESTABLISHMENT OF STATEMENT COMMITTEES - DEADLINE
6.5.1 For each measure from a jurisdiction that is included in the LVP, the legislative authority of the Jurisdiction shall formally appoint:
(1) A committee to prepare arguments advocating voters' approval of the measure (the proponents) and
(2) A committee to prepare arguments advocating voters' rejection of the measure (the opponents).
6.5.2 Each committee shall have no more than three members. However, a committee may seek the advice of any person or persons. Members shall be appointed from persons known to favor or oppose the measure as appropriate. Each committee should select a spokesperson for that committee.
6.5.2.1 If such persons are not immediately known, the jurisdiction should employ some formal means of notifying the public that members for the proponent or opponent committee are being sought.
6.5.2.2 Members should not be drawn from the legislative authority of the jurisdiction sponsoring the ballot measure, or from members of its staff, in order to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.
6.5.2.3 If the jurisdiction is unable to identify persons to serve on either or both statement committees, the jurisdiction shall notify the Manager no later than the deadline date for committee appointments. Such notification shall detail the efforts made to establish the committee(s). A statement to that effect will be placed in the LVP.
6.5.3 Jurisdictions responsible for establishing committees to prepare arguments in favor of or in opposition to any ballot measure shall submit the names of the committee members, the spokesperson for the committee, and how that person can be readily contacted, not later than forty-five days before the publication of the LVP, using a copy of the form displayed at Appendix 9.2.
6.5.4 If a measure is submitted to the Manager between the 45 day deadline indicated in Section 6.5.3 and the deadline specified for measures in RCW 29.13.020, then the names of the committee members must be submitted concurrently with the resolution placing the measure on the ballot.
6.5.5 The jurisdiction shall provide appointed committee members with copies of the instructions, specifications, and deadlines contained herein regarding arguments and rebuttals
What? A proven track record of losing? The vast majority of Eyman's initiatives have passed handily. Or is this some other Eyman?
Posted by: Calvin A on January 23, 2007 12:22 PMEyman plays into the hands of the entrenched politicos - in a big way. His last two initiative drives failed to garner enough signatures, establishing him as the sponsor of "unpopular" causes these days. His legal theories (advanced by attorney Klauser) in the I-776 litigation were just held meritless, and a portion of that initiative he had sponsored was found to be unconstitutional. I-695 also was held unconstitutional. So he has proven himself woefully ignorant in legal matters (it is very easy to discount whatever someone who is a multiple loser says).
The impacts of Eyman's initiatives have been terrible for everyone but Democrats in this state. "I-695" has been used by State and Local Democrats for the past eight years as a main justification for their tax increases.
Eyman's espoused goal - public votes on tax measures - directly benefits the entrenched Democrat politicos because they draft the deceptive ballots, and pick who writes the slanted opposition statements. Look at monorail for an example of the kind of deceptive ballot measure Eyman is in favor of.
Eyman is a self-aggrandizing blowhard, and the Democrats love him - for all the reasons above.
It's a celebration of diversity if it comes from the mouth of a leftist, but hateful racism when it comes from the right.
Simple solution to allowing opposing ideas? Write both sides. This is exactly why Democrats are trying to pass legislation to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine." Orwell would be proud.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 23, 2007 01:01 PMand--this is important--stop rewarding the continual failures!! the natural world does not. nature punishes the non-adaptive species. we taxpayers should be just as cruel and fair and objective.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 23, 2007 03:35 PMBruce asked if I had proof that the School Board selects the preparer of the Statement Against. I have "proof", but none is needed since this is not a secret process, though the particulars are certainly hidden from the average citizen.
Ron English, Deputy General Counsel for Seattle Public Schools told me that Chris Jackins was selected because of his well established credentials as an informed critic of the school system and his ability, in the Distict's opinion, that he was well qualified to present "cogent" Statements Against.
Now that I have seen the Statements Against, I disagree with Mr. English. I also found it confounding that Jackins doesn't use e-mail nor does he answer a personal phone, though he does have a message phone. One of three calls I placed were returned. Not including one in which I offered to set him up with an internet connection at my cost.
The apparent conflict of interest relating to the School District selecting the person writing the Statement Against is only the tip of the iceberg of obfuscation in the local voting process.
Consider that a Special Election is only allowed under emergency conditions. The School District decides what such a condition is.
Consider that Special Elections are surprise events with very low turnout among average citizens, but very high turnout among those in the education industry.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on January 24, 2007 02:07 AMIt is not the school district which determines when an "emergency" exists. It is, rather, the Superintendant of Elections.
I presume it would be the School District that would plead to the superintendant to convince him or her that an emergency exists.
I would love to see the communications and the basis for the finding of "emergency" in the current situation. Seems more like "business as usual".
Posted by: Bart Cannon on January 24, 2007 05:28 AMThank you for your comments. Elites do their cause a great disservice by attempting to manipulate the process. I don't know the outcome of this particular levy election, I do know that I probably will be voting no on every levy that comes from now on. This has forced me to the tough realization that the current institutional structure will remain in place until those in charge are forced to consider something else. The late Jesse Unrah of CA said that money is the mother's milk of politics. Cut off the funds. The optimist in me says that when public schools become untenable, then what citizens will have to do is help parochial schools take in more students, those that can, home school, and those that are able fundraise, do so to help private schools provide more scholarships and we will have to see what other solutions develop. Without competition, a quality public school system is dead anyway. At that point, I would be willing to help in a lawsuit on behalf of those stuck in public school, like some in New Jersey who are suing on behalf of students in failing schools to force school choice. My two cents.
Posted by: WVH on January 24, 2007 09:00 AMI agree that this rule should be changed. There is no magic formula for choosing the best opposition writer, but the choice should be made by the most objective party possible (such as the superintendent of elections -- I know Stefan would question his objectivity, but at least he's charged with being objective), using a process and criteria that attempt to lead to the most qualified person.
I say this as someone who supports both levies, but still believes in fairness.
Posted by: Bruce on January 24, 2007 07:54 PM