Bill Lewis Reveals He's the Jonathan Gruber of CCSD

Those stupid Charleston County voters! We shouldn't allow them to elect school board members! That is the basic underpinning of retired CCSD operating officer Bill Lewis's proposal in Sunday's op-ed.

Of all horrors, democratically-elected board members don't always toe the line thrown out by the Chamber of Commerce. They're too stupid. Imagine having "community activists" or "disgruntled former teachers" on the board! It's a nightmare! Only such "highly-qualified" candidates as Chris Fraser, Brian Moody, and Gregg Meyers will fulfill that mission.

Lewis apparently believes that the school district should be run as a private-sector organization. Those private-sector boards he praises for not micromanaging their CEOs really did a good job preventing the excesses that caused the last recession, right?

We wonder why Lewis could not name any of the cities where mayors have made the difference in improving schools, since he seems to believe that mayoral control is the solution to CCSD's problems. His solution would give Charleston three seats, Mt. Pleasant three seats, and North Charleston five seats, since Mayor Summey will control the County Council's choices through Teddie Pryor, a North Charleston employee, and his son Elliott.

Politicians selecting school board members instead of voters? Gee, that sounds great.

There are two major ways in which the school board elections can be improved, neither of which is on Lewis's radar screen, or, should I say, the radar screen of the Chamber of Commerce member who vetted Lewis's op-ed.

It's an open secret that these supposedly non-partisan seats are as partisan as they can be, just flying under the radar. Our local paper chooses to ignore that slates are regularly supported by the county's Democrat and Republican organizations. These seats are non-partisan for the same reason that the mayoralty of Charleston is nonpartisan: so that white Democrats can fool Republicans into voting for them. Mayor Riley not a Democrat? Please.

If races were designated partisan, political parties would vet the candidates and voters would have a better idea for whom to vote in the primary. Voters would rapidly discover that the school board generally has been the hiding place for Democrats to be elected to office in the county. Check for yourself: how many of the present school board members are registered Democrats?

Some will try to make the case that Democrats and Republicans share the same ideas about education. Really? When was that last the case? Probably in the 1950s.

The second aspect that would strongly improve the election is single-member districts. These single members would be voted upon by their own district, not by the county at large. That would make members responsible to their districts. Who can forget Toya Green's (yes, vetted as "highly-qualfied" by Bill Lewis) response to her District 20 constituency: "I don't represent you!"

It's time to stop pretending that the population of the county is so small that voters in Mt. Pleasant know who is the best person to represent North Charleston. The system as it is allows the Chamber of Commerce and its lackeys to control outcomes in many areas. What just happened in North Charleston, where Mt. Pleasant supporters (and the Chamber) put Cindy Bohn Coats over the top North Charleston vote-getter Shante Ellis, is a case in point.

Part of the solution is better communication within the county about what the candidates stand for. Evidently, we can't depend upon our local newspaper or television outlets for full information. Perhaps its lack of interest (or collusion) in local races is part of the reason that the Post and Courier has become a dinosaur.

CCSD's Third Board Replacement: A Charm or a Strike-out?

Soooo many people want to get onto the Charleston County School Board without running for election. What does that tell you? With a non-partisan Board, each individual represents whom? Himself or herself, of course. Fortunately, the CCSD Board does not have the privilege of replacing its own members. Thanks to John Barter's unnecessary resignation, that responsibility passes to the Charleston County legislative delegation.

Twelve people have put forward their desire to be anointed by the Republican-dominated delegation. Now we just need to figure out which ones have been recruited by Superintendent McGinley and her minions. Whoever is selected and vetted by Governor Haley will have nine months of Board experience before running for re-election.

Who are these people? None of them are household names. Only Charles Glover has served on a constituent board (#23 in Hollywood). Two candidates probably have close ties to the Superintendent, Anne Sbrocchi and Carol Tempel. They are also liberal Democrats, so you've got to hope that the delegation has more sense.

Do we need more attorneys on the Board? Seems unlikely unless one has some special qualification for the job. Three hopefuls are "self-employed" attorneys: Robert Ray Black, Elizabeth Hills (liberal Episcopalian, if that matters to you), and Tripp Wiles III. The rest are a mixed bag of experience, including a journalist (Edward Fennell), jazz musician (Ian Kay), life-long Charlestonian and synagogue leader (Burnet Mendelsohn), non-profit manager (Troy Strother), and marathoner and arts activist (Charles Fox).

Last, but not least, we have a private investigator, charter school organizer turned down by McGinley, and friend of Chris Collins, Howie Comen. We can assume he's not one of the chosen few! For his background go to
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120701/PC1204/120709960

Feel free to provide more information on the suitability of these candidates.

Deerin's Group Shills for CCSD's McGinley

You think that seats on the Board of Trustees are non-partisan? When did you fall off the turnip truck?

In a thinly-veiled attempt to stack the Charleston County School District's Board of Trustees with supporters of the status quo, especially CCSD's Superintendent McGinley, Ginny Deerin, long-time Democratic Party operative, has cobbled together Citizens Working Together for Great Schools, or CWTGS.

CWTGS' main plank is pro non-charter schools, or to put it another way: anti-charter schools. Anti parental choice.

Deerin recently attended the Democratic Convention in Charlotte as a delegate along with her close friend, Mayor Riley. Let's not kid ourselves. This slate is an overt try to elect Riley supporters, and thus McGinley supporters, to the School Board, no matter what Deerin claims.

Two of the slate, John Barter and Jim Ramich, will be delighted to vote, if elected, on the Kiawah TIF desired by Riley: both of them own homes, if not reside year-round, on Kiawah itself.  Chris Fraser, present Board Chair and another TIF supporter, already is congratulating them for running.

Mattese Lecque was defeated for the Board in the last election but hopes the "second time is a charm" by joining the Democrats' team, so difficult for her, since she is a former officer of the Charleston County Democratic Committee. Also, as a Charleston County employee she knows on which side her bread is buttered.

Todd Garrett, the fourth member of the team, already has the political edge given to him by the Charleston County legislative delegation: they appointed him to fill Toya Hampton-Green's empty chair for a month. No politics there. We wonder if Garrett knows he's being used.

Too bad the Post & Courier is on the mayor's payroll. The taxpayers at large will never know what's going on, if the local rag can prevent it.

CCSD School Budget Charades Successful Again

Mike Bobby could tell the taxpayers of Charleston County that the Charleston County Schools operate on a shoe-string, and no one could disprove his assertions. Most people looking at the proposed budget will immediately flash back to those days sitting in algebra class, when X2 + 4xy + 3Y2 needed to be factored. In a sentence, "Let me out of here!"

On the other hand, those knowledgeable regarding accounting will immediately flash back to prior chief financial officers and their sleight-of-hand numbers. Despite the requests and pleas for clearer outlines of expenditures, no such clarity has developed. The public, to put it bluntly, is "foiled again." And that will become "taxed again."

This week's public hearing reported in Wednesday's paper (School Budget Could Mean Tax Increase) was a charade to provide cover for the coming tax increase--and it will come! Supposedly three "community" members (i.e., non-CCSD-attached) attended the hearing; however, the only one who spoke, Jon Butzon, is a community member in the same sense that Nancy McGinley is: not. No one who has attended closed-door sessions of the School Board could represent the community at large, and anyway, he represents the Mayor! Holding a barely publicized meeting at 5 p.m. on a Tuesday was guaranteed to keep naysayers away.

Ask yourself: if the meeting had kept secret from the public, how many fewer participants would there have been? What does that answer tell you about how well it was publicized? Instead, 75 Calhoun rounded up the usual suspects from employees who have a vested interest in getting as many dollars as possible (and I don't mean "for the children"). CCSD Board members in favor of a tax increase (all but two--Ravenel and Kandrac) arranged their "cover" by voting initially for no increase. CFA Bobby obligingly came back with a budget in which, as his fellow conspirator Toya Green puts it, "the cuts that would be required if no tax increase is passed would be so painful that [. . .] those in the majority would approve some sort of increase." Which they planned all along.

These folks "in the majority" are more than happy to raise taxes. Let's not forget that those elected to the Board in the last election, those that constitute the majority in favor of this tax increase won thanks to the endorsement of the Charleston County Democratic Party.

The idea that we have a non-partisan school board is as ludicrous as thinking that this one doesn't want to raise taxes. We're stuck with them for now. Will voters' memories be long enough to "throw the bums out"?

Democratic Stealth Campaign in CCSD

Under the radar. Well, at least it was under my radar, but as usual one commenter has made sense of Tuesday's results for Charleston County School Board.

Here's a snippet plus my take on why the analysis makes sense:

"Good old fashioned dirty politics based on rumor and fear[. . .]. Add Altman to the ballot and he became a target in an already high profile election. The others just became collateral damage."

"Despite this being non-partisan, the two political parties are working openly for certain candidates. This only causes further partisan divisions."

Those of us who don't travel in educrat or partisan circles wouldn't realize how carefully Mayor Riley managed to get the word out. Certainly the P & C wouldn't cover that. It's believable because of the GOP-sponsored ad in the P & C just before the election for four recommended candidates--Stewart, Engelman, Kandrac, and Lecque.

When I saw it, I was a bit mystified why it had appeared. I didn't view all these candidates as Republicans. Now I know they simply were the ones not being pushed by the Democrats.

Do voters in Charleston realize that, in the large majority of states, non-partisan positions are voted upon on a different date than partisan ones?

How did South Carolina arrive at this crazy "system"?

"It really is ironic that the Democratic Party has gone out on a limb by backing the candidates they have. [. . .] Why any political party would want to claim 'ownership' of this board is beyond me. Maybe we should give out the personal contact information so parents with problems might be able to reach the party leadership and the mayor at home. They can’t expect Toya Green or Greg Meyers to be much help."

Maybe the question should be, what does the Democratic Party have to gain by backing these candidates? Unfortunately, corruption comes to mind.

Where do Mayors Summey and Hallman stand in this "non-partisan" effort? Were they on board as well? Do they care?

"To some extent the Republicans have painted themselves out of the picture by never having gained any real influence on the school board. AR’s isolation on the current board proves the point."

Now, here I must disagree. They never had a chance. Republicans have never gained any real influence on CCSD's School Board because any school board is the last refuge of Democrats in a generally Republican area. Democrats can run as "non-partisans," and most Republicans are none the wiser. I saw this disguise work all too well in the New Jersey suburbs.

Add to the previous remarks another commenter's observation that the North Charleston results reflect two black versus one white candidate, and the total finally make sense.

How someone as sensible and well-educated on school policies as David Engelman could be defeated while at the same time Chris Collins, a novice who thinks that the student population in Charleston County is down because some students have decided to attend schools in Berkeley County instead (well, that's what he said!) is, in fact, an example of the world turned upside down.

How school board trustees are elected needs to be reformed if the Charleston County School District, especially its downtown schools, is to become truly excellent.

At Least It's on the Editorial Page This Time

"School board candidates should stand on their own," lead editorial, The Post and Courier, Sunday, August 13, 2006.
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=editorials&tableId=102155&pubDate=8/13/2006
Showing its true colors, the editorial staff of the Newsless Courier blatantly revealed today that it would like to be in a blue state, or shall we say, a Democratic one. Under the guise of showing how a "slate" of candidates is unfair to the voters, they shot their second (or third depending on how you count it) salvo at the "A-Team" running for Charleston County School Board.

We are a loooong way from the days when the local paper was the FIRST in the nation to endorse Barry Goldwater for President. Then, believe it or not, most voters in the Low Country were Democrats. Unfortunately, many, if not most, Low Country residents (now Republican) still think of it in those terms, and the staff, nurturing that illusion, is careful not to go overboard in endorsing Democrats. Of course, nurturing Democrats is much easier when the election is non-partisan and candidates can hide their liberal opinions behind that label! Thus, the staff feels free to take aim at the "Republican" slate for the non-partisan school board elections.

Apart from being confused (the writer gives the impression that a bill can never become law in South Carolina unless the governor signs it), the editorial makes some rather duplicitious assumptions.

1. "This is a non-partisan election. Candidates for the board should stand on their own." Why? No rule exists that prohibits candidates running as a team, nor does the editorial suggest one. In fact, that it is non-partisan has nothing to do with running as teams (on a legal basis, that is).
2. "The measure [to make the races partisan] passed the Legislature three years ago over the objection of groups such as the League of Women Voters ...." Wow! If they object, we know it must be bad [not]. I don't think they're complete idiots at the Newsless Courier; they know that the LWV has been a lackey of the Democratic party for DECADES.
3. "[passed] without the signature of the governor." My previous point ... if not vetoed, and the legislature adjourns, it will become law. See, the Newsless Courier subtlely intimates that the governor [Sanford] did not approve. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.
4. "... the U.S. Justice Department ... contend[ed] that partisan elections would make it more difficult for minorities to be elected to the board" and thus "thwarted" efforts at partisan races for Charleston County. Well, yes, because the bill set up races in exactly the same fashion that was struck down by the federal courts regarding partisan races for Charleston County Council, where now candidates run in partisan races from DISTRICTS.

The solution to this nonsense is so obvious that, of course, the editorial does not mention it. The editorial also does not mention that in FOUR counties in South Carolina today, school board races are PARTISAN, yes, PARTISAN. Didn't know that, did you? One of them is nearby Georgetown County. The editors don't want you to think about why it's okay there and not here.

You see, the CCSD already has eight constituent districts. Obviously, the Feds would have no problem with partisan school board races in DISTRICTS; that's what they approved for the County Council, which serves the same population!

Truly laughable is the conclusion of the ACLU in this matter (yes, the editors of the Newsless Courier wholeheartedly agree with the ACLU--check for yourself). THEY concluded that implementation of the legislation for partisan school board members in Charleston County would "insure white control of the school board."

As opposed to the black control we have now??? With ONE black school board member out of NINE? No, what the ACLU was worried about was that Democrats would lose control of the school board if they had to identify their true colors.

I'd like to see a school board election in 2006 where every candidate, running as a non-partisan, is forced to identify his or her political party. Then voters would at least have an inkling of what they're getting.

Biased Coverage? Surely Not the P & C!

Front page news: a non-story--"'A-Team' fundraising methods questioned," by Diette Courrege and Schuyler Knopf, The Post and Courier, Saturday, August 12, 2006. http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=localnews&tableId=102085&pubDate=8/12/2006

Reporters Courrege and Knopf cannot be blamed for this one. They do not write the headlines, and they do not decide what goes on the front page. No, bias here clearly exclusively lies with the EDITORS of the Newsless Courier.

The headline SHOULD read, "Democratic activist questions 'A-Team' fundraising," because that's what the story is about. Wow! Front page news! A Democrat attacking Republicans! Will wonders never cease!

Herbert Hayden, the executive director of the State Ethics Commission, in response to a query by a local Democratic activist, Charleston civil-rights attorney Peter Wilborn, will do his job looking into the accusation that the Republican-backed slate of Charleston County school board candidates is illegally soliciting funds. Of course, the part about the "Democratic activist" did not make it onto the front page with the accusatory headline. What a surprise!

Even Hayden is quoted as saying, "'I don't think there's been any attempt to circumvent the law or receive anything that they shouldn't be receiving.'" Non-story. Belongs in Local & State section.

What is going on here is what has been going on at the Newsless Courier for years. Non-partisan school board elections are a joke, as I said before. Democrats do not have to declare themselves as such. When candidates DO reveal party affiliation, Republicans in most of Charleston's constituent districts have the edge. HORRORS! [at least from the EDITORS' viewpoint]
We can't let THAT happen--someone might upset the status-quo!

Thus a blatant attack. Even if a similar article appears on the front page clearing the 'A-Team,' the damage has been done.

Why do I think those who make editorial policy for the paper have no affiliations with Burke High School, Brentwood Middle School, et al? Their children most likely go (and went) to Buist Academy, local private schools, boarding schools, and/or the best schools in the county.

What do they care about those who must send their children to failing schools?

More Appropriate Headline: "A Band-Aid over Melanoma"

"State board leaves Burke in school district's hands," by Diette Courrege AND "Trouble on 'A-Team': Engelman departs," by Schuyler Kropf, The Post and Courier, Thursday, August 10, 2006, front page, above the fold.
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=localnews&tableId=101778&pubDate=8/10/2006
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=localnews&tableId=101787&pubDate=8/10/2006

It's hard to say which of these stories dealing with the future of public education in Charleston County is more disheartening.

1. Is it worse that Joe Riley, after being mayor of Charleston for 30 years, during which time Burke High School has gone from a poor high school to an abysmal one, has the temerity to suggest NOW that he will make it a "renowned national model for excellence" so that it will not be taken over by the state? or
2. Is it worse that the self-named "A-Team" running for the CCSD school board promising true reform turns out to be headed by "good ol' boy" Arthur Ravenel, Jr., who somehow believes that making millions mixing real estate and politics and having his name on a bridge gives him the right to be the new school board chairman?

It's a close call, but I have to go with # 2. After all, in the case of Burke, we have a DEMOCRATIC mayor putting on a good show for a DEMOCRATIC state supertintendent. If you believe politics wasn't a factor, well, you must have fallen off the turnip truck yesterday! But more importantly, the status quo will be changed ONLY by a change of personnel on the CCSD school board and in the state superintendent's office. Certainly not by Joe Riley, who has no control over what goes on in the school district!

AND, politics was also the factor for the "A-Team," the "Republican" slate in this non-partisan election. "Non-partisan" is a joke, and all those involved know it. It's "pig-in-a-poke" voting. This expression refers to buying a bag supposedly holding a valuable pig while trusting that the unseen pig actually exists. When the sucker opens the bag, it turns out to hold ... a worthless[substitute some worthless animal here].

For those of you not familiar with South Carolina before it elected its first Republican governor in a century, it used to be that all white folk were Democrats, Southern ones that is [think of Dixiecrats], with only a few "Post-Office Republicans" (liberal) hanging on by their fingernails. That's when Arthur Ravenel, Jr. was a Democrat. Now, the large majority of whites in South Carolina have moved into the Republican Party with the rest of the conservatives in the country. In fact, for most offices in the state, you must now be a Republican to get elected, and thus Arthur Ravenel, Jr. is a Republican. But, he's still a good ol' boy who believes that Charleston should be run by the same small group of old Charlestonians and their hangers on. That belief is the true cause for the public disagreement between him and Sandi Engelman.

Is there any way to fix the train wreck? Not this year. Talk about counting your chickens before they're hatched--arguing about who's going to be board chairman even before running, much less before being elected?

Whence my quote, "a Band-Aid over melanoma"? That's from the only sensible member of the state school board (one out of 12!), Ron Wilson, in regard to the district's presentation of how it will fix the Burke problem, "smoke and mirrors," he rightly names it. Apparently he CARED that Marvin Stewart, chairman of the downtown constituent school board, presented a "unanimous vote of no confidence in Charleston administrators." Why should anyone pay attention to them? They only live in the district and send their children to Burke!

By the way, if you are wondering who these state school board members are, apparently four of the 17 did not vote. Were Terrye Seckinger (Isle of Palms), Kristin Maguire (Sanford's appointee), Patsy Pye (Summerville), and Joe Isaac (Pawleys Island) voting "Yes"? Or were they too timid to be there?

If so, let's hold these lackeys of the state superintendent responsible! They're appointed by your legislative delegation. You can email them at http://ed.sc.gov/agency/stateboard/page296.html .