Candidate forums are like funerals. They're kind of a necessary evil that people attend and they hear the nice stuff.
Tuesday night's forum featuring the candidates for the District 125 School Board was no different for the most part.
Thanks to a stellar effort by Stevenson's Political Action Committee, the gang of seven presented themselves, responded to 10 questions developed by the PAC and even had a chance for brief rebuttals.
The students who moderated and provided questions kept responses to 60 seconds and challenges to 30 seconds. This lead to a smooth forum without any interruptions (the Village Board could have used them last year).
What the students were not able to do was control the quality of the candidate answers. Panelists included 125for125 -- Kathy Powell, Kim Brady and Charles Cardella and the United4Stevenson slate that includes incumbents Bruce Rubin, Merv Roberts, and Terry Moons along with newcomer David Weisberg.
The 125for125 maintained that its platform was centered on the tax rates and the need for fiscal prudence by the current board. Powell, Brady and Cardella held fast that it was the opposition that was labeling them as right-wing extremists and that the 125for125 group just wants to be the taxpayers' friends and do what's best for kids.
In fact, in his response to a question about helping marginalized kids and groups fit in, Cardella said he supports all students and groups because they have "worth and we protect them." His posture seemed to abhor any sense of bullying and discrimination. In fact, Cardella said he and his fellow slate members have suffered discrimination and bullying.
Oh, come on, Charlie -- your memory must be fading.
Let's set the way-back machine, Sherman.
More than a few times during the forum Cardella, Brady and Powell stated that they became interested in Board activities two years ago in an effort to ensure that there would be options for students -- especially if there was a book being read that might be ::gasp:: offensive.
Really?
How quickly they forget.
What brought them to the Board was an article -- oops -- articles in the once-proud school newspaper, The Statesman, about hooking up -- which is what kids do today when they are interested in doing things that teens have been doing for decades -- and I don't mean listen to Dick Clark.
The right to open and responsible venues of student expression was not among the topics discussed, which is probably a good thing for a couple of reasons. First of all, it would have narrowed the focus of the forum to a specific topic. Secondly, it would have been a challenge to keep answers to 60 seconds.
For Charlie and his angels, it was a good thing because they would have had to explain the sudden lapse in memory.
I chatted for Charlie after the meeting (before I saw him at a nearby watering hole) to discuss open forums for student expression. He was vague (do you think?) about student expression until I asked him about prior review of The Statesman.
He first told me that "we don't have prior review anymore." The first thing that struck me is that, yes, they do. Cardella said it was up to the adviser to review The Statesman and that prior review was only needed in some cases. Huh? Either you have prior review or you don't.
Cardella said in the case of the now infamous hooking up article, it was necessary because it was "poor journalism." Poor, he said, because it was once sided and merely told kids how to become sexual predators. He told me he had a daughter who was a Stevenson senior at the time and he was offended by the article. He did not say she was offended or upset by the article.
So he presumably started the crusade to place The Statesman under prior review which lead to an award-winning adviser resign and some outstanding scholastic journalists give up their passion.
What concerns me was his comment that "we" no longer have prior review. Hello, Charlie, you're not on the board. Does the use of "we' indicate that it was your organization, or its connection to the Illinois Family Institute, carry enough clout to mandate policy for District 125? Is there a possibility that Cardella and his "slate" are already fostering connections inside the school? Discussions of this nature need to be open, and not resolved by inside connections, which is why voters elect board members.
Oh, and by the way, there was another article that infuriated Cardella and his group -- the one about the GSA -- the Gay-Straight Alliance. That article was clearly singled out at the March 2009 Board meeting and challenged by Cardella.
By whom? The same folks who vowed to make sure all kids and groups fit in.
But that was probably less than two years ago.
Selective campaigning is deceitful. Selective campaigning in a school board race not only deceits the voters -- but the students as well.
And that's more annoying than high taxes.
No comments:
Post a Comment