Thayer School Board Elections

They're coming up next week. They almost sneaked up on me. I guess I was kind of assuming they'd be in the fall elections, but they're not. Mustn't do things more cost-effectively, must we?
No, we must have TWO elections so we can spend TWICE as much money!

Anyway, as a result of my misguided assumption, I'm kind of unprepared for the election. I know very little about the candidates, so let's see what we can learn from this week's SOUTH MISSOURIAN NEWS.

Here's a quote from Bill Honeycutt's ad: "I will strive to lead our school down a progressive path." Even the BEST interpretation of this is that he misuses the term "progressive" as the adjective form of "to make progress." If he means progressive like the politicians mean progressive -- social engineering by punishing success and rewarding failure -- he's the LAST person on the ballot I'd vote for. It doesn't say what he does for a living, whether he works in the private sector or has fed off the taxpayers his whole life. But either way, the possibility of putting a progressive in office is something I refuse to accept. He is disqualified from getting my vote.

So, on to Wendy Carhart. Uh-oh. Her first sentence begins with "After a 30-year teaching career...". Sucking at the teat of the government mule for thirty years probably means she doesn't have a clue what it's like to work in the real world. I can't vote for someone who has lived off of money stolen from taxpayers her whole life. Her primary allegiance would be to teachers, not to taxpayers.

Oh, this is rich. Another of Carhart's quotes: "Now, more than ever, communities and schools must step up and work together to strengthen the bonds between them. Just as parental support boosts student learning, community support and involvement directly benefits high-achieving school systems and I am committed to the task of maintaining Thayer R-II school's standard of excellence." She's one of these "It takes a village" types. Disqualified.

So next is Joe Henry. While he DOES mention taxpayers in one ad (he's the only candidate who does), in the announcement of his candidacy, he says "Our focus must always be what is best for the students." Mr. Henry, why shouldn't the focus be what is best for the taxpayers?

It says he has been active in youth and high school athletic programs for 15 years, but is unclear whether this was as a volunteer or as an employee.

In his ad, as I mentioned, he declares his desire to work for "you, the taxpayers," but in that paragraph, he lists taxpayers behind teachers, community, and students. Sounds an awful lot like taxpayers are pretty low on the totem pole of this guy's priorities. But lip service is better than no service at all, and none of the other candidates gives even a token nod to the people that pay for the schools.

For now, let's move on to Jed Underwood. Very small ad. The first six words are "Vote for and RE-ELECT Jed Underwood." Re-elect. That means he's in there now, which means he is one of those who raised my taxes to build a new elementary school. Technically, it was a very small majority of voters who raised my taxes, but his board put the question before the voters, and his board resorted to reprehensible tactics all but saying if you don't vote for the tax increase, it must be because you want the children to die.

That's not as big of an exaggeration on my part as it sounds. They called the old elementary a firetrap and said every day the children remained in that building, they were in danger. They used irrational, emotional arguments to play on the good will of voters. I overheard one elderly restaurant customer proclaim he was voting for the tax increase because "If that school ever caught on fire and kids got hurt or killed, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I had voted against it." Distasteful.

And the kicker is -- they could have GOTTEN a new school without a tax increase. Just up the road in Koshkonong, that school district got a new building with a federal (or maybe a state, I'm not sure) grant. So now we in Thayer are paying for our own school AND helping Kosh pay for theirs.

Disqualified.

That leaves one other candidate, Doyle D. Fink. Try as I might, I can't find any ads or announcements about Mr. Fink. So I have no idea what his position is on raising my taxes.

Since we have to vote for two candidates, I guess one will be Joe Henry, truly a case of the least of four evils. For the other vote, I could go with Fink, on the theory that I KNOW the rest of the candidates care so little about the taxpayer that they don't even mention us, and there is a possibility that Fink would be an advocate primarily for the taxpayers. Sort of like voting for someone who MIGHT be a Socialist instead of voting for someone you KNOW is a Socialist.

OR, I could write someone in. John Galt maybe. But that might spoil my other vote, too. Might be worth it to hear among the returns next Tuesday night "And John Galt received one vote." In my head, I would imagine people all over town asking themselves (and others) "Who is John Galt?"

I'll see what I can find out in the upcoming days about this Fink character. Then I'll decide.