Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can 100000000% assure you that the school board did not delay his swearing in because parents complained about it.
I dunno. Becky Lew seemed out for blood and like she has an agenda, and the timeline of events reported in the article and the chairperson's statement seemed to indicate that that is why. I really don't see how you can honestly assure anyone otherwise without offering proof.
Look, I'm not just trying to pick on you, and you're certainly free to have whatever opinion and suspicions you want. But you've posted publicly that there's something "extremely shady" going on and at very least insinuated wrongdoing on one or both parts, but at least so far, you haven't backed up any of your claims. I think that's worth pointing out given that this is a public board. That is all. Carry on.
I dunno. Becky Lew seemed out for blood and like she has an agenda, and the timeline of events reported in the article and the chairperson's statement seemed to indicate that that is why. I really don't see how you can honestly assure anyone otherwise without offering proof.
Look, I'm not just trying to pick on you, and you're certainly free to have whatever opinion and suspicions you want. But you've posted publicly that there's something "extremely shady" going on and at very least insinuated wrongdoing, but you haven't backed any of your claims up. I think that's worth pointing out given that this is a public board. That is all. Carry on.
Becky Lew is just the person that spoke up about it at the board meeting. If you're running for public office (especially one that has as much attention as school board does these days), you can be sure that some citizens will confirm that you are legit, capable, and honest. This is not an elected official, this is someone who was assigned by the current board, so I would think extra scrutiny would be expected. Whether he lives in the district or not, it was an incredibly shortsighted move by Artis to not have proof of residence taken care of prior to applying. There was plenty of time.
Quote:
The whole thing is extremely shady if you ask me
You see the part that says "if you ask me"? That means it's my opinion. Everything I have said is available in articles by our trusted media. The only thing I clearly stated was a rumor, was that he did not provide a lease. I got that info from a media source, but it's not a mainstream media source so I labeled it as a rumor to be safe.
Becky Lew is just the person that spoke up about it at the school meeting. If you're running for public office (especially one that has as much attention as school board does these days), you can be sure that some citizens will confirm that you are legit, capable, and honest. This is not an elected official, this is someone who was assigned by the current board. Whether he lives in the district or not, it was an incredibly shortsighted move by Artis to not have proof of residence taken care of prior to applying. There was plenty of time
This isn't entirely accurate m378.
School Board members are an elected position. People in a given district vote for the person they want on the board from their district.
The fact that the process, when a board members vacates their position mid term, isn't to hold an immediate special election to fill it, doesn't mean it isn't an "elected official". The same thing exists in some state and federal politics. People elect a Governor and two Senators for instance. Then one of those Senators gets nominated to and wins a different role (say VP). The Governor, then, through the previously established rules, gets to put someone into the vacated role, which allows said person to finish out the previous holder's position before facing the will of the voters at the end of the term.
This exists in places all over the the country. It literally just happened in CA (Harris going from Senator to VP; Padilla appointed by Newsome to replace Harris) and there were concerns something like it would happen if Biden had tagged Warren for a Cabinet position (which would have given Baker the right to appoint anyone he wanted to Warren's now vacant Senate seat)
I don't think anyone would argue that "Senators are not elected officials" even when there are instances when a given role (be it Senator, or in this case, School Board member) opts to/cannot finish their term, in which case and elected head or board retains the right to fill said vacancy. People elected the person who wields the power to replace...and people should understand just what powers said elected person has through virtue of their office.
Now was "Padilla elected"? Was Artis elected? Fundamentally no. But if the system doesn't have special elections as the resolution to mid term vacancies, and instead has "appointed or voted by board into" as the remedy....that doesn't change the fact that the position is an elected position.
If you want more say in the "what do we do when people leave mid term" situ, vote in people who will change the rule to "Immediate Special Election by the district residents".
Your post reads like you think this was some sort of dictatorial overreach because "This is not an elected official, this is someone who was assigned by the current board." This isn't that. This is the system working as it is apparently designed (ignoring their lack of due diligence) to work and almost certainly is codified in some state law. And if you can prove that the board somehow went outside of the agreed upon process here, I'll retract everything I am saying and agree with you. But sure as **** if they did that (and this wasn't just them being lazy on resident requirements) that would be the story. Not some lady seemingly trying to play gotcha because she apparently doesn't like the replacement's views on things (assumption on my part)
You see the part that says "if you ask me"? That means it's my opinion. Everything I have said is available in articles by our trusted media. The only thing I clearly stated was a rumor, was that he did not provide a lease. I got that info from a media source, but it's not a mainstream media source so I labeled it as a rumor to be safe.
I'm sorry but you are way off base.
Yes, I did see that and knew when I was typing my post you'd be like but I said "if you ask me" which is why I also said "you've at very least insinuated wrongdoing." You can couch it all day long with things like "if you ask me," but that doesn't change what you're trying to sell.
And I may be off base which is why I've said things like "It's certainly possible more information could come out though." But the burden of proof is on those making accusations, and you haven't been particularly convincing.
With that, I'll leave you to it so we don't enter into round 35 of nuh huh, uh huh that lasts 14 pages.
School Board members are an elected position. People in a given district vote for the person they want on the board from their district.
The fact that that process, when a board members vacates their position mid term, isn't to hold an immediate special election to fill it, doesn't mean it isn't an "elected official". The same thing exists in some state and federal politics. People elect a Governor and two Senators for instance. Then one of those Senators gets nominated to and wins a different role (say VP). The Governor, then, through the previously established rules, gets to put someone into the vacated role, which allows said person to finish out the previous holder's position before facing the will of the voters at the end of the term.
This exists in places all over the the country. It literally just happened in CA (Harris going from Senator to VP; Padilla appointed by Newsome to replace Harris) and there were concerns something like it would happen if Biden had tagged Warren for a Cabinet position (which would have given Baker the right to appoint anyone he wanted to Warren's now vacant Senate seat)
I don't think anyone would argue that "Senators are not elected officials" even when there are instances when a given role (be it Senator, or in this case, School Board member) opts to not finish their term, in which case and elected head or board retains the right to fill said vacancy. People elected the person who wields the power to replace...and people should understand just what powers said elected person has through virtue of their office.
Now was "Padilla elected"? Was Artis elected? Fundamentally no. But if the system doesn't have special elections as the resolution to mid term vacancies, and instead has "appointed or voted by board into" as the remedy....that doesn't change the fact that the position is an elected position.
If you want more say in the "what do we do when people leave mid term" situ, vote in people who will change the rule to "Immediate Special Election by the district residents".
Your post reads like you think this was some sort of dictatorial overreach because "This is not an elected official, this is someone who was assigned by the current board." This isn't that. This is the system working as it is apparently designed (ignoring their lack of due diligence) to work and almost certainly is codified in some state law. And if you can prove that the board somehow went outside of the agreed upon process here, I'll retract everything I am saying and agree with you. But sure as **** if they did that (and this wasn't just them being lazy on resident requirements) that would be the story. Not some lady seemingly trying to play gotcha because she apparently doesn't like the replacement's views on things (assumption on my part)
That’s not what I meant at all. I meant that of course the board members are going to choose the applicant that aligns best with their views, not necessarily the views of the public majority, as would take place in a typical election. And of course those that don’t agree with those views are going to scrutinize the candidate for legitimacy. Much has changed since the last election. This would happen regardless of the majority party of the board.
I’m glad they don’t hold an election in a situation like this - it would be a huge waste of time and money. But just because it’s not an election doesn’t mean they can just throw away the rules.
Yes, I did see that and knew when I was typing my post you'd be like but I said "if you ask me" which is why I also said "you've at very least insinuated wrongdoing." You can couch it all day long with things like "if you ask me," but that doesn't change what you're trying to sell.
And I may be off base which is why I've said things like "It's certainly possible more information could come out though." But the burden of proof is on those making accusations, and you haven't been particularly convincing.
With that, I'll leave you to it so we don't enter into round 35 of nuh huh, uh huh that lasts 14 pages.
You love the "I knew you'd type that" move. If you knew it was stated as an opinion, why'd you accuse me of otherwise?
You clearly have an opinion on the subject, and I have an opinion on the subject. Imagine that? That's what makes message boards like this great.
I can read through the lines and see what you're trying to say. I can assure you if the tables were turned and the board was majority republican, the same scrutiny would be occurring.
That’s not what I meant at all. I meant that of course the board members are going to choose the applicant that aligns best with their views, not necessarily the views of the public majority, as would take place in a typical election. And of course those that don’t agree with those views are going to scrutinize the candidate for legitimacy. Much has changed since the last election. This would happen regardless of the majority party of the board.
I’m glad they don’t hold an election in a situation like this - it would be a huge waste of time and money. But just because it’s not an election doesn’t mean they can just throw away the rules.
1. I agree a million % that the rules (on residential requirements) must be followed.
2. Elections have consequences. Snarky but true. In a hypothetical where Artis is confirmed residency compliant...Ms. Becky should spend her time grass rooting around the county to get the more blue areas (again, assumption on my part) to vote in "redder" candidates so they can appoint more aligned candidates when mid term vacancies happen.
District 4 in the 2020 election voted for Keith Sutton 97% - 2%. Keith Sutton is a Democratic candidate correct?
Wouldn't a district who votes 97-2 "Blue" in the last election, having someone, presumably of Ms. Becky's political persuasion, be appointed to the board, be the exact situation you say want avoided "....not necessary the views of the public majority".
It seems to this reader, this potential member's persuasion is directly in line with the "public majority' of the district in question.
1. I agree a million % that the rules (on residential requirements) must be followed.
2. Elections have consequences. Snarky but true. In a hypothetical where Artis is confirmed residency compliant...Ms. Becky should spend her time grass rooting around the county to get the more blue areas (again, assumption on my part) to vote in "redder" candidates so they can appoint more aligned candidates when mid term vacancies happen.
District 4 in the 2020 election voted for Keith Sutton 97% - 2%. Keith Sutton is a Democratic candidate correct?
Wouldn't a district who votes 97-2 "Blue" in the last election, having someone, presumably of Ms. Becky's political persuasion, be appointed to the board, be the exact situation you say want avoided "....not necessary the views of the public majority".
It seems to this reader, this potential member's persuasion is directly in line with the "public majority' of the district in question.
Sutton ran unopposed in 2020. But yes, that district is most likely majority blue.
You're making the assumption that some random person that spoke at the board meeting did so because she wants a republican in office. That very well may be true. That doesn't mean that a candidates legitimacy and honesty shouldn't be questioned when there's been inconsistencies, and that others don't have the right to do so.
By the way there has still been no statement or confirmation from the board or WCPSS as far as I know. He was chosen a week ago.
Sutton ran unopposed in 2020. But yes, that district is most likely majority blue.
You're making the assumption that some random person that spoke at the board meeting did so because she wants a republican in office. That very well may be true. That doesn't mean that a candidates legitimacy and honesty shouldn't be questioned when there's been inconsistencies, and that others don't have the right to do so.
By the way there has still been no statement or confirmation from the board or WCPSS as far as I know. He was chosen a week ago.
I am quite clearly assuming both Ms. Becky's positions and Artis' positions. One, because publicly available information isn't exactly chapter and verse for either. And two, it wouldn't logically (in a human experience context) make a ton of sense for a person, with similar persuasions, to challenge something like that.
Is it possible Ms. Becky is a Bernie-bro?? Sure. Likely? Nope. not with what is known.
Is it possible Artis is a huge fan of Youngkin's train of thought that brought him victory? Sure. Likely? Nope.
I made no such claim she doesn't have the right to challenge. Of course she does. But I have an equal right to wonder if there are motivations that go beyond the shallow end of the pool; and this goes precisely back to my original point. Why does one party get minimal benefit of the doubt in their good faith (or lack thereof) while the other is assumed to be something close to as pure as the driven snow in their intentions/motivations? This is the beauty of our system. You have a right to step into the public square and express a grievance. And I have an equal right to dig into said grievance, once you step into that square. That's literally how this all works. If you want "private anonymity".....umm don't step into the square.
I have at no point disagreed that the rules should be followed, regardless of outcome.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
