www.ballotpedia.org
www.facebook.com/Beth-Gray
Sunday, November 4, 2018
Video: Puggy's Corner - Candidates Beth Gray and George McNaughton
The candidates challenging Alice Emmons and Bob Forguites for the two State Representative seats from Windsor District 3-2. Host: Ernest "Puggy" Lamphere. Produced by SAPA-TV
www.ballotpedia.org
www.facebook.com/Beth-Gray
www.ballotpedia.org
www.facebook.com/Beth-Gray
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
---
Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts
"Keeping it local" = Divide and conquer. "Keeping it local" is why Vermont's schools spend more on administrative costs than every other state. "Keeping it local" is why industry won't come here. "Keeping it local" is why the world has passed this town by. It's already too "local" here. When will people realize that provincialism doesn't work?
ReplyDeleteIn what way during the last 10 years have the elected State Representatives actually kept it local to Springfield? In what way have they avoided voting the party line? Do you think that getting the neighborhoods organized and speaking out was a bad idea? I disagree that "keeping it local" = "divide and conquer" -- I believe that keeping it local causes Democrats, Republicans, and Progressives to start working together to solve real actual issues rather than getting involved in national atmospherics and ideological debates.
DeleteWell, George, your response is an example of circular logic, I suppose. You're still operating under the assumption that local is better. Emmons and Forguites have probably NOT "kept it local," and that could be why things have improved here over the last ten years. Slowly, I'll grant you, but I've seen improvements in the four years I've lived here. I've heard horror stories about the 2000's. "Keeping it local" is the reason Vermont school taxes are high, and the quality of education varies wildly from town to town. Having one school board at the state level to oversee ALL of Vermont's schools would save money, and create uniformity and consistency in education. But that's not "local," so I guess it's a bad idea, right? Neighborhoods "getting organized and speaking out" is a good thing, except who are they speaking out against? The "local" slumlords, who make money renting to drug addicts and criminals, or the "outsiders," who always seem to get the blame for everything? When I hear phrases like "family values" and "keep it local," I think xenophobic, hyper-provincial, hard right politics, because that's what those things mean. My father, who grew up in a small Midwestern town, used to say; "The smaller the politician, the bigger the crook." Sorry, but having higher authorities involved in "local" issues is the only way to keep the "locals" honest.
ReplyDeleteThe improvements in the last 5 years have very little to do with Bob Forguites and Alice Emmons. They have to do with the Selectboard coming out of its comatose status and actively pursuing projects, adopting and starting to enforce ordinances, and generally becoming more active. You have never heard me use the term "family values" which is something that has been twisted by the Christian Right. Its the neighborhood associations that took up the cause against the landlords renting to drug addicts and criminals. You are confusing "focusing on local issues" with the right wing "take back Vermont" slogan during the gender orientation wars. Having a State School board is a terrible idea contrary to the everything Vermont stands for and would be highly destructive to Vermont small towns.
DeleteGlad you're not a right-winger, George. I never really thought you were, I just wanted to get your response. There are a few running for office these days as "independents" or newly-minted "moderates," and I don't trust them. Why do you think having one state school board, with superintendents representing local schools, is a bad idea? It would save money, and I'm not sure how that would hurt small towns.
ReplyDeleteSchool Boards are probably the absolute most minuscule cost of a school district, Superintendents are the expensive cost and you would generate a huge and expensive State and Regional bureaucracy. But most importantly, local school boards ensure the loyalty of the local Superintendent to the local community. In addition, local schools with strong ties to their community are an important cohesive factor to the community. If you go to what would become basically completely State run school districts, then education would become even more abstract from the community. In some education would not be improved, it would become more expensive, and you would have even less innovation within the State education system. I ran as an Independent because I did not trust either Party leadership. However, I do trust the Springfield Town Progressive Committee which adopted its own political campaign platform and published it. It was a very practical and pragmatic approach to State policies that would benefit Springfield. I consider myself a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive.
DeleteI read where Vermont spends more per pupil on administrative costs than every other state. It stands to reason that multiple school boards are a part of that expense. Perhaps there are other bureaucrats that could be eliminated, but I'd start with the school boards. Everywhere I've lived, there was a county school board. The county I grew up in had nearly one million people in it, and one school board. It also had one of the best school systems in the country. Vermont's school system is stuck in the 19th century, and it shows. My idea gets rid of the local bureaucracy, and replaces it with one person (the Superintendent) who could be elected, or simply hired, by each town. Having one school board to set overall policy creates consistency across the state. (There are probably a dozen ways to structure it, this is only one of them.) Saying that loyalty to a town is a factor in the quality of education indicates the very same provincial paranoia that I spoke of earlier. I'd really hate to think that the people of Vermont are so petty and untrustworthy in general that local control is necessary. Local boards mean the wealthiest or best connected locally being able to pressure the school system to bend to their will. Is that the kind of "loyalty" this town needs? The "good-old-boy" system? You say you don't trust the local political parties, and I couldn't agree more. I've been registered NPA for years. One board at the state level would eliminate the local political squabbling, which is probably the single greatest impediment to quality education.
DeleteLocal school boards cost about $3,500.00 total per year, Superintendents and upper level administrators cost over $100,000.00 per year. The local school board debates which you call "squabbling" is what causes schools to pay attention to what is going on locally and local needs. I have served on two school boards in two States and I have fought for changes, sometimes I won and sometimes I lost, but I think the school was better for those fights. Loyalty to the Town and specifically the community and neighborhoods is very important. When you consolidate schools in order to gain administrative efficiency, you seldom, if ever, accomplish your goal. What you do is divorce the school system and education from the community, and cause it to focus on education in the abstract. If you went with a State bureaucracy based system, you would create cookie cutter uniformity throughout the State. The opposite of what you say is about local boards meaning wealthy and connected control the boards, if you had one State level school board -- only the well connected would have any influence on the system.
DeleteAre school board members voluntary positions? If not, they certainly cost more than $3,500. If each town already has a Superintendent, then keeping them in their jobs won't cost more, they'll just have to work harder to earn that 100k! (LOL) Some of the "upper level administrators" should go, too. That's the problem with Vermont's schools; too many administrators sucking up tax dollars! I suppose there's no way to completely eliminate the influence of the wealthy and powerful. My experience is that the higher the profile of elected officials, the easier it is to hold them accountable. Entrenched local bureaucrats tend to stay there. Everywhere I've ever lived, the local politicians got away with things that put state and federal politicians behind bars, and I've personally known some of them. One thing I think everyone agrees on; Vermont's school system needs work. I'm open to new ideas, we would all be well served by keeping open minds!
DeleteThey might as well be voluntary positions. In Springfield the stipend is $500.00 per year, 7 board members, 7 x $500.00 = $3,500.00. A single State School Board would stamp out innovation in this State in favor of uniformity.
DeleteForget the school board, we need to dump our school superintendent, a huge 'Bernie Bro' (just look at the stickers on his Prius) who supports teachers that fill my kid's head with liberal mush. OUT!!!
DeleteWell, if that's all the school board members get in this state, I'd say we're getting off relatively cheap, although it would still add up. There must be some other reason why administrative costs in Vermont are so much higher than everywhere else. Something that needs to be looked at, I'd say. If every other state can do it cheaper, including those with better education systems, maybe we should find out what they're doing.
DeleteWell 3.07, it would help if people took the time to actually understand our system before they propose changes. The idea that Act 46 would save the State money by reducing the number of School Boards was pretty silly. Part of the reason why education costs are so high in Vermont is the fact that we went more mainstream with our disabled students faster and to a greater extent than any other State. The State as a result shifted some of its general fund obligations onto the schools. I suspect that we will see even greater shifts of functions that previously were handled elsewhere to the school districts. So what we have to look at is education or rather school funding as we are trying to deal with issues at the school level now that would have been unimaginable 50 years ago. They are valid issues that we have to confront, but I am not at all sure that as we keep shifting things from the general fund towards the schools that we can bear the cost in real estate property taxes. It is important that we keep our high ranking of our public school system which is nearly always in the top 5. But we need to see how we can deal with it without crushing the working middle-class -- and we can't generate the innovation needed by consolidating control at the State level.
DeleteBeing in the top 5 is nice, (we were 8th, last I checked) but one thing I DO know is that means that at least 4 of those states do a better job while spending less on administrative costs. That's pretty easy to understand. Since I have been making this suggestion on this blog for years now, and no one, (not even you) has ever corrected me, it makes me wonder just how much anyone around here really understands our school system. I still think local school boards are unneccessary, the only difference is that I now know eliminating them won't save as much money. I don't see much "innovation" at the local level; Riverside High is one of the worst schools in the state. That's also pretty easy to understand.
DeleteTomorrow get out and VOTE. Vote demo as a way to unsupport trump.
ReplyDeleteIf it's all the same to you (and even if it isn't) I'll be voting for Republicans, with the sole exception being Mr. McNaughton. Tomorrow's election is about more than national politics. It's about our towns and state.
DeleteAnonymous 7:20 this is a classic illustration of what I have been talking about in this campaign. It used to be that all politics was local, now all politics has become national. State legislative elections have little to do with whether you support or don't support Trump. They have to do primarily with State and Local issues, and in this case specifically as to what State policies help or hurt Springfielders.
DeleteI think that's more a function of polarization and tribalism than anything else. Political parties are brutally enforcing their orthodoxies, and the result is politicians that are no different at the local level than the national level. It is also the reason that 38% of registered voters are registered as No Party Affiliation (aka independents.) I've been watching it happen for years. I would LOVE to see some truly independent, common-sense moderates, and not just radical liberals and radical conservatives pretending to be!
DeleteI vote for REPUBLICAN ballot and George McNaughton.
ReplyDeleteI'll probably vote for Phil Scott and George McNaughton. The rest will be Democrats, though. The GOP as a whole doesn't even come close to representing my views these days, but I'm willing to give these two a chance.
ReplyDeleteI want to thank those that supported me in the election, and congratulate Bob Forguites and Alice Emmons on the victories. Also, wish to commend Beth Gray on her strong performance in the race.
ReplyDelete