What is at stake in Tuesday's school board election?

What is at stake in Tuesday's Plainfield school board election? A lot, but not everything.

The Plainfield public schools are under a state mandate to correct some of the abuses that have plagued its personnel decisions in recent years, and that -- limited as it is -- is a very good thing.

The Board of Ed will also be conducting its evaluation of Dr. Gallon's performance, which must surely be impacted by the protracted revelations of personnel shenanigans and the spotlight cast on the situation by the state's OFAC report.

So, no matter who is elected in tomorrow's Board of Education elections, positive changes will be coming to the District. Sadly, they will not be because the Superintendent or the Board took the initiative.

What to make of some of the issues swirling round this year's campaigning?

ENDORSEMENT POISON?

There has been something of a flap over the weekend concerning UNION ENDORSEMENTS of two of the slates subsequent to the League of Women Voters forum last Wednesday (for candidate answers to the LWV's questions and their self-submitted profiles, see the LWV website here).

On Friday, Renata Hernandez (one of the Elect a Grand S.L.A.M.) candidates reported the team's endorsement by the teachers union, the Plainfield Education Association (see here).

Over the weekend, potential voters received mailers from two other unions. Service Workers United (SWU) endorsed the Coalition for Better Schools slate. SWU represents cafeteria workers in Plainfield who are employed by Sodexo, an outsourced service. Their contract is between Sodexo and the union, and does not involve the school district.

The state AFL-CIO also send out an endorsement of incumbent Christian Estevez. The AFL-CIO does not have any contracts before the Plainfield school board. Those endorsements are discussed on the team's campaign blog (see here).

Endorsements are a longstanding practice that is entirely legal.

Some have raised the question of whether they might involve recipients of the endorsements in an ethical tangle that could lead to 'sweetheart' contracts.

The ONLY endorsement that could possibly go in this direction is that by the Plainfield Education Association's endorsement of incumbent Wilma Campbell and teammates Rasheed Abdul-Haqq, Renata Hernandez and Keisha Edwards.

Bear ALL OF THE ABOVE in mind when weighing endorsements as a factor in your decision.

SHOULD THE INCUMBENTS GO?

Whenever there is controversy, incumbents often take the hit for it, whether blameless or not.

Three Plainfield Board of Ed incumbents are running for re-election: Martin Cox, Wilma Campbell and Christian Estevez. (Cox and Estevez are running on the 'Coalition' slate and Campbell is on the 'S.L.A.M.' team.)

Each incumbent can point to District achievements during their time of service, particularly adopting a K-8 configuration that will eliminate the Middle Schools; a district-wide school uniform policy; and removal of PHS from the state's 'persistently dangerous' list.

That being said, each incumbent is embroiled in some of the issues churning this election --

CURRICULUM: Wilma Campbell has chaired the Curriculum committee for years, yet there is no district-wide curriculum in place and the public only learned at the LWV forum that she has had problem with cooperation from District administrative leadership since last October. Why was she not bringing this up at each and every public Board meeting, instead of waiting until it came up in the campaign. (Incidentally, Campbell -- who was one of the 3-member team to visit Gallon in Florida and positively gushed in favor of his appointment -- has never really explained how and why she became his antagonist.)

PERSONNEL: With regard to the flim-flammery of Dr. Gallon's three ill-fated appointments, the best that can be said of Cox's and Estevez's initial support in 2008 for the appointments is that they took the Superintendent's word when we now know they should have probed further. But to rehire two of the uncertified administrators in late 2009 the same night as their contracts were rescinded as a result of the County Superintendent's intervention looks like boneheadedly poor judgment.

While Estevez has said he was not one of the four Board members who were briefed on the personnel mess by HR head Dr. Garnell Bailey, Renata Hernandez deduces that Cox must have been among the four who knew and did nothing about it (see her post here).

As I mentioned previously, a candidate's husband remarked to me that 'there were mistakes made all around'. Mistakes can be forgiven. Mistakes can be learned from. Each voter will have to decide for themselves whether any of the incumbents deserve a second chance.

Come Wednesday, the voters will have chosen four Board of Ed members.

Besides the immediate issues of correcting personnel practices as demanded by the state's OFAC report, and considering Dr. Gallon's performance (and possibly his continued presence as Superintendent), the newly constituted nine-member Board will have the continued policy challenges of improving student performance and outcomes; dealing with reduced state funding and increasing the local tax levy; and -- to my mind at least -- being more open, less secretive and less defensive about public scrutiny of Board and District affairs.

To paraphrase Dottie Gutenkauf's remark to the Board at last Tuesday's meeting, we should not forget who works for who here.

---

BOARD OF EDUCATION ELECTION

Tuesday, April 20
2 - 9 PM
At your regular polling location

---

• League of Women Voters: "2010 BOE Candidates: Bios and Answers to Questions"
• Renata's Blog: "PEA endorses Grand S.L.A.M. slate"
• Coalition for Better Schools: "Union Endorsements"
• Renata's Blog: "Brilliant Deduction" -- Concerning the identities of the 4 who were briefed on personnel matters.
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.