On Jan. 26, the state Department of Education released guidelines for moving the annual school board election from April to November. Click here for the full FAQ release from the DOE.
Although the new law states that either the governing body or the school board can pass a resolution to change the election, the opportunity seems to have set off a contest between the two bodies, with Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Green urging the governing body to take action.
A special meeting of the City Council has been called for Monday with one item:
1. COUNCILMANIC
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE PLAINFIELD BOARD OF
EDUCATION AS THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER.
Green, also a state Assemblyman who sponsored the bill, claimed the school board was "not moving" on the issue in a blog post the same day the guidelines were issued. It was sort of like the guy who honks as soon as the light turns green.
The school board is meeting Tuesday and has this item on the agenda:
X. RESOLUTION TO
ELIMINATE THE VOTE ON THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND
TO MOVE THE ELECTION OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS TO THE GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER – DISCUSSION
TO MOVE THE ELECTION OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS TO THE GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER – DISCUSSION
Obviously, it will be moot if the council takes action Monday. But why the lack of collegiality, if that's what we are seeing? There are school board-council liaisons to foster joint decision-making on items of mutual interest to the two bodies. Is this really a decision that needs to be "branded" by one or the other? Or are politicians using the occasion to signify some sort of control?
Thank heavens for things like "Morning Dew" on WBAI (now playing) to take my mind off such difficult topics.
--Bernice
Bridget Rivers is the council liason for the board of education. She never attends a meeting and doesnt even talk to the board members. How come she didnt bring the two bodies together? Rivers and Reid are on the agenda to try and get over $2600 to go to a national convention on cities in Washington DC. These two are the ones talking about the council not wasting money on expensive trips the way the PMUA do. They are just out for their self.
ReplyDeleteAt anon 10:43: Interesting, Bridget Rivers is also liaison to the PMUA. She has never been to one meeting, yet she talks as if she knows what goes on there. Green, Reid, Rivers, and Briggs are part of the old regime. They know the corrupt aspects and because they too are getting handouts they allow it to happen. They are truly only in it for themselves and what they can get for their friends. That's why Plainfield will never see its full potential. If we could amass enough people to take back the city, the true crooks would run somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteTo 2:26pm - Wise words. The people in Plainfield are in three camps
ReplyDelete1 - Those who are currently in power - want to stay in power, and will do anything to remain in power. They are self serving and could care less about Plainfield. They want to make sure that things stay the same so they can continue to work the system and get their free ride. They stay in power because they bribe people with jobs and instill fear in them that they will be out of a job, or on the street if others get in power. They are self serving and continue to ruin Plainfield.
2 - Those who want to make a difference. These are educated people (and I do not mean degreed - but rather people who care about Plainfield and are smart enough to know right from wrong, good from bad, and being lied to or not)who are involved in the community and want to make a difference, but cannot because of group 3
3 - These people whine and complain. They call upon their local council people only when they need something, if they call upon them at all. They want things to change, but shirk their responsibility by making excuses and taking no responsibility. They don't vote because it doesn't do any good (excuse for not getting off the couch and miss American idol), they don't get involved because it won't make any difference (excuse for why they quit instead of working until the goal is met).
Group #3 is the most dangerous, and most culpable of all. Until citizens start realizing their power, and taking an interest, group #1 will always be in power. Remember, Hitler led Germany with 1/3 of the people supporting him. What happened to the other 2/3?