Thursday, October 19, 2006

She abstainied!

The surprise is not that Pedro Garcia got three more years to be superintendent of Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools but that District 5 voters were represented by an abstention. Gracie Porter who won support from the District 5 voters thanks to her close connections to the MNEA, the SEIU, AFL-CIO, 'Democracy in Tennessee', the Chamber of Commerce, along their manpower and money got very little representation last evening when push came to shove. Instead of voting no on the 3 year contract extension she abstained. She got 2709 votes and we got none on this issue.

Since there is no explanation on her website I've e-mailed her for one.

Gracie needs to remember that her contract with the people of District 5 lasts only until August of 2008 and 2,197 people chose someone else to represent our District. Votes like this aren't going to be helpful if she intends to stay around at least as long as Garcia.

SCHOOL BOARD DISTRICT 5

CandidateABSEVFSVEDTOTAL
K. BROOKS 4 200 0 612 816
L. H. HART 4 183 0 582 769
G. PORTER 11 649 0 2049 2709
C. L. TOWNSEND, SR 14 172 0 426 612
WRITE-IN NP 0 5 0 3 8

TOTALS

331209036724914
21 of 21 Precincts Reporting
Totals from Metro Election Commission

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Do you think she may have won due to the "quality" of her opponents.
Is this how it's gonna be,Kay,Gracie doesn't do your bidding,and you take her to the woodshed.Perhaps she did what was right for the district,or at least what she believed to be best.I mean,that is who she is responsible to,not some political mini-machine or a councilman.D'ya think?

Anonymous said...

Not the choice I would have made, but Gracie Porter made no promises to those groups about how she'd vote on Garcia. Believe me, I asked and she knew what I wanted to hear. People, especially the groups above, are very divided on Pedro Garcia. Five people voted yes- a no vote would have only upset Garcia supporters and wouldn't have changed the outcome. She's put herself in a less controversial position. Right now groups may be upset she wasn't their advocate, but two years from now, she won't be hated by either. She may be in the best position to bridge the divide between the sides on the board. That's going to be needed for sure.

And, as many of us know, going against Pedro Garcia doesn't put you in the best bargaining position. There's a time for guts and a time for prudence. She'll need Garcia's help getting good personnel and resources to district 5 schools.

Kay Brooks said...

I'm not demanding that she do 'my' bidding. I do expect that she take a position on the votes in front of her. I may have disagreed with a yes or no vote but no yes or not vote at all is, imo, inexcusable. She has stated she would have voted yes for one year. So why not vote NO on the three year commitment while saying that is why?

She is responsible, as I tried to point out, to the voters.

And yes, I'm going to be here voicing my opinion about the whole system and process.

And Anonymous #2 I agree that having Garcia's help would be good. I'm not sure we're actually going to get it though and giving him three more years and a hefty pay raise doesn't hold him accountable enough.

Anonymous #2 said...

I'm not sure we're actually going to get it though and giving him three more years and a hefty pay raise doesn't hold him accountable enough.

We agree on that.