As we are napalmed with lies and assailed by fear mongers, we received this dose of reality- the facts about school merger and reasons to support it – from our friend, Shelby County Commissioner and University of Memphis constitutional law expert Steve Mulroy:
REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE “YES” ON SCHOOL UNITY:
1. We are one county. Schoolchildren in Memphis deserve an equal education opportunity to schoolchildren in the suburbs. We should have a system where the dollars follow the kids depending on need, regardless of which side of the city-county line they’re on.
2. This is the best chance we have to prevent SCS from getting special school district status, which would (a) permanently wall off the suburban kids from Memphis kids; (b) permanently prevent us from ever reconsidering school consolidation; (c) potentially shrink the tax base for MCS, so that Memphis taxpayers would have to pay higher taxes-the rate would rise over 40 cents; (d) permanently choke off our ability to grow education funding in the future for MCS.
3. This would end the double taxation of Memphians, who pay for schools through county taxes and then again through City taxes. The City would no longer have to pay for MCS. That’s $78 million per year that Memphis could save.
4. This would spread the funding among the whole county. We’ve been saying for years we like “single source funding” of schools. This would accomplish it.
5. This would lead to more efficient spending of our education dollars. We’d (a) eliminate duplicate levels of higher-up bureaucracy, and (b) get rid of the ADA formula (the state rule which says that every
time the county spends a dollar on county schools, it has to spend 2.5 dollars more on city schools), which, while good sometimes and needed as long as we have separate school systems, also causes a lot of wasteful
spending.
6. This is a historic opportunity for remaking our school system. After Hamilton County unified county and city school systems under analogous circumstances in the late 1990s, neutral observers praised the unified system’s ability to focus resources on the neediest of schools and children.
7. Even if the day-to-day experiences of schoolchildren didn’t change all that much, the fact that they would grow up in a unified school system would help to get rid of this “us versus them” mentality that has held us back for so long.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON SCHOOL UNIFICATION
Q: How would school unification work?
A: A referendum would take place throughout Memphis some time in February. If a majority of those voting vote YES, unification would occur.
Q: Would suburban voters outside Memphis be able to vote in the referendum?
A: No. State law established Memphis City Schools (MCS) as a special school district within the City only, and only residents of Memphis can vote in the referendum. Tenn. Attorney General Opinion No. 11-5, Jan. 10, 2011.
Q: If the referendum passes, what happens then?
A: A unified school board will then be chosen to govern the new unified school district.
Q: Would a YES vote mean Memphis schools will be run indefinitely by the Shelby County School Board and the Shelby County Schools Administration?
A: No. Those bodies would be in operational control for only a very brief time, until the County Commission could act to appoint unified school board members or set up a special election. See below.
Q: Could Shelby County Schools use its brief “operational control” period to harm Memphis teachers or students—e.g., abolishing union contracts, eliminating the optional program, abolishing charter schools, etc.?
A: Not likely. First, its operational control period would likely be too brief to accomplish such sweeping changes. Second, the Shelby County Schools Administration would not likely be motivated to do so, knowing that its soon-to-be-boss, the new unified school board, would almost certainly oppose such radical changes. Third, even if it did so, the new unified school board would almost certainly undo such changes once it took office. (See below).
Q: Do we know how this new unified school board would be chosen?
A: Pretty much. There are general state statutes giving the County Commission the authority to draw districts to elect school board members, appoint interim school board members in the case of vacancies, arrange for special elections, etc. There are also general constitutional rules ensuring that Memphis voters be represented on a countywide school board.
Q: So how would the new unified school board be chosen, then?
A: The County Commission would draw a unified school district districting plan. In the meantime, it likely could appoint interim school board members representing Memphis. Separately, it would call for a special election under the districting plan, so that Memphis voters would get their fair share of representation. State and federal constitutional provisions entitle Memphis voters to representation on the unified school board and almost certainly a special election to that end, one likely within months rather than years. See Jan. 7, 2011 Letter from Leo Bearman Lori Patterson, Baker Donelson Law Firm (contracted by the County Attorney to opine on this question).
Q: Would this unified school board adequately represent Memphians and African-Americans?
A: Yes. Seven of the 13 County Commissioners come from Memphis-only districts, and 3 more come from districts which are majority-Memphis. Six of the 13 members are African-American, and 7 are Democrats. There is no reason to expect they would use their appointment or redistricting authority to do anything but fairly reflect black and Memphian voting strength.
Q: How can we be sure the County Commission won’t use its power to dilute the voting strength of African-Americans, or Memphians, or suburban voters, for that matter?
A: Any redistricting scheme which failed to fairly reflect such demographics would be challengeable in court under state and federal law.
Q: Who would run the school system if the voters voted YES? Who would serve as the superintendent?
A: The Shelby County Schools Superintendent would serve as Superintendent for a brief transition period, until the new unified school board could be appointed or elected. Once the new unified school board was sworn in, it could then choose to retain or replace that Superintendent.
Q: What about the current MCS Superintendent?
A: The dissolution of Memphis City Schools would deprive him of authority. Since his contract has not yet expired, it would be necessary to continue to pay him for some period, though not necessarily to use him. Shelby County Schools, in the interim, and the unified school board, over the long term, could decide to hire him as Superintendent or in some other capacity, but that would be up to them.
Q: What has been the experience of similar jurisdictions which have consolidated an urban school system with the county school system?
A: The closest analogy is Chattanooga, which merged with Hamilton County in 1997. It had a low-income, predominately black city school district and a more middle-class, predominately white county district. A 2006 Education Week academic article praised its merger as a success which “went off without any substantial hitch” and led to education improvements. A 2007 Annenberg Policy Institute report detailed specific reforms, like increasing college attendance and improving high school academic rigor through the creation of theme-based high school “academies,” which occurred in the years following consolidation.
And a recent Chattanooga Free Press editorial supported Memphis school merger, stating it would help to reverse the City-County, black-white division in Memphis. Re: its own merger, it said:
“But the evidence here confirms that the merger has focused more effective attention on student performance in urban schools. Efforts to improve teaching standards, raise school test scores and graduation rates, and programs involving magnet schools and minority-to-majority transfers have improved achievement countywide and insured fairer focus on children and schools previously left behind.
This is good:
#1, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
I could care not much less about #2, get rid of it. It’s inflammatory at best.
I can’t believe I’m siding with Mulroy, but, I definitely am. This isn’t hard or brain surgery, the moves are already mapped out by the state on how this is to be done and everyone in Memphis who needs to know what to do will know very well what to do to make this transition smooth as silk.
Well, looks like Steve-o better start lobbying his friends on the city council, because that’s where this is headed
Not necessarily. Stay tuned.
This is merely the latest game. We’ve never heard of a private act trumping a public act. It’s the other way around. The school surrender is a public act which superecede the private act.
A stalling tactic.
SCM – “lies”, “fear mongers”; are you describing the Mulroy paper?
1) “deserve an equal education opportunity”, “dollars follow the kids depending on need” – We have this today. What Mulroy is actually asking for is not equal opportunity, but equal outcomes. Consolidation, nor any other structure, will deliver equal outcomes when the inputs (in terms of student support from home) are so unequal.
2) “permanently wall off” “prevent us from ever reconsidering”- Special District status only means that the MCS board would not be able to act unilaterally. The SCS and MCS boards could agree to consolidate the two systems at any time.
“Memphis taxpayers would have to pay higher taxes-the rate would rise over 40 cents;” This is absolutely incorrect. Maint of Effort requires the city council and county commission to continue their current contribution. The county commission CANNOT change the allocation of their funds.
“permanently choke off our ability to grow education” This is simply not true. Nothing about SSD status for county schools would have any impact on how Mulroy’s county commission raises funds for education. The CC would continue to fund education EXACTLY as they do today. This point is the poster child for “fear mongering”.
3) “$78 million per year that Memphis could save” – True. And a $78 million reduction in funding for city schools.
5) “more efficient spending of our education dollars” – There is simply no real world experience to back this up. Mega systems cost more. When two large (and these are very large) school systems combine, costs go up. Yes, you eliminate one of your two superintendents. You also wind up with one or more entirely new layers in your org chart – costs go up.
6) “get rid of this “us versus them” mentality” – This is the heart of the pro-surrender argument. “We will all feel better.” You cannot eliminate “us versus them” by force.
Finally – Mr. Mulroy invents a version of how a new school board will be seated. He cites TCA 49-2-111 and TCA 49-2-1202. These citations, particularly coming from a law professor, give gravitas to his analysis, but his analysis is still a fantasy. 1202 does not apply to this surrender circumstance and 111 is only invoked in response to a court order.
Although I strive mightily to be honest and accurate, I am no less a partisan than is Mr. Mulroy. The two mayors have pledged to bring us real answers and serve as a clearinghouse for the facts. Hopefully they can start by fact-checking the Mulroy paper. My suggestion for all of the SCM world is this: If it didn’t come from a Mayor, don’t take it as the gospel.
Now if you could only get SCS to accept that if it doesn’t come from the mayors (not a mayor), don’t take it as gospel.
Oops, missed your opening. Lies and fear mongers referred to too many people professing to be county educational leaders and advocates. It was on full display with the Pickler press conference Monday.
You are putting the cart before the horse. The question is whether this private act conflicts with the public act such that the public act should be found to have repealed the earlier public act (assuming the public act came 2nd). The larger point is, who wants to take the time to argue about it? Go get your signatures that Allan Wade says you need to equal a council approval and be done with it.
We agree. Sign it and get the election set once and for all.
Ken:
You seem to continue to cherry pick research and only read budgets that reinforce your opinion. As anyone familiar with educational research can tell you, it’s like the Bible: There’s something for everybody to hang their hats on. If consolidation is so bad, why is it a trend of the last couple of decades with more than a dozen city systems in Tennessee alone consolidating with county systems. Across the nation, more and more systems in communities like ours are taking this as a means to decrease costs and increase innovation.
And as we have said over and over, the budgets of consolidated schools in Tennessee show that they grow at a lower rate than our dual systems – significantly. And as we have also said over and over, this referendum could trigger a process that uses consolidation as the vehicle to create smaller districts. We haven’t found these people who are fighting for a larger system (although we assume there are a few tucked away somewhere).
We have a different view of how this community can be better – united by a shared vision that students of diverse backgrounds can achieve and the end of separate but equal system (we know you hate that, but that’s what it is).
Yes, it could save Memphians $78M, as it should, and if we have to pay more in county taxes to treat all students and taxpayers the same, it’s silly to hang on to the flimsy arguments of the ‘burbs. While SCS folks speak mightily about students, their default button is save money and cut taxes. That became obvious when Pickler pointed out that some city schools aren’t up to code and consolidation would result in millions of dollars in costs, as if it’s o.k. that city students are in negative learning environments as long as his taxes are low.
Maybe we can’t eliminate us versus them, particularly if so many are willing to perpetuate it, but it’s worth a try. We haven’t heard all this kind of talk since the old anti-civil rights rhetoric of Southern segs of old. We guess next we’ll hear the old Baptist sermon about how God created the blackbird and the songbird and they never mix.
The mayors have announced that they plan to use the section mentioned by Commissioner Mulroy, so we think it is relevant in that regard and that he probably knew something was coming.
PS: Pickler is already contradicting the mayors.
One of the worst posts by SCM today. The author of this post scares the heck out of me, that someone can be so illogical.
I continue to grasp at a logical reason why this will improve the education for the children of Memphis.
1. Once this passes, do we expect the citizens of Memphis who have elected one inept school board to have an epiphany and vote in a quality board?
2. Does anyone believe that a poor inner city kid will be better off? That he will have opportunity to switch schools, have a more stable home life?
3. Do we believe that the evil suburbanites will like us? That maybe it will be less about us versus them. Do we think it is really a school district that seperates us? Are we that naive?
I have yet to see anything proposed logically that would explain how this helps the kids. What I see are a bunch of pie in the sky progressives with crazy dreams about how this will solve this problem or that problem. I get the feeling that most do not get their hands dirty solving our real problems.
The sad part about all of this is even if somehow it does pass, the towns will form their own districts… Then you will see the us versus them mentality more than anything that exists today and our kids will be just as bad off, since as the author said it will be just a few months before Memphis can elect a majority black council that will prevent SCS from taking leadership.
My question is, if we do not want SCS to take leadership why are we doing this? Whatever the reason, its not for the kids.
Answers:
1: it’s happened in other places so we don’t know why it can’t happen here, and the challenge of designing a totally new district should attract a different breed of candidates – although we think the citizens of Memphis have elected a helluva lot better board than citizens of outside Memphis.
2: Yes, from more compact school districts with more flexibility to scale reform and innovations. So, because a child is born into multi-generational poverty, we shouldn’t try.
3: We don’t really care. We have institutionalize our divisions and used our children as pawns in the process. There’s nothing like the present to attack we versus they.
And what makes you think that it won’t help the kids? And if you want to see hands dirty from working on this community’s problems, we welcome you to come visit.
The towns can’t afford their own districts, but if they do, we’re for it. Their taxes will go up $2 or so and finally there will be a level playing field between Memphis and the burbs.
And if you have any doubts that there won’t be majority black legislative bodies in city, county, schools, etc., in our lifetimes, check out the demographic trends.
SCS won’t have leadership. A new board will. And we can create smaller, more innovative, more autonomous districts, and yes, that’s for the kids.
We again are getting pulled into a conversation about preserving or combining a certain “system”. Why do we continually do this? Since when did the “system” become more important than educating our youth? The “system” talk is about money, power and jobs, not about delivering the best and most efficient education to our youth. If we were really concerned about delivering the highest quality and efficient education to our kids, we wouldn’t be arguing over two systems! This is about preserving sacred cows and nobody is talking about this.
We need to stop the system talk. Tag each child with the expenditure per pupil we have and let them go wherever their parents want to send them and let the chips fall where they may. MCS, SCS, private, charter, KIPP, religious, college prep, vocational, etc. I don’t care! As long as the kids are educated per the requirements of the state, why should anyone care? Give the parent the choice and be done with it.
Stop the tired, worn out conversation of protecting or valuing one system over another. Open the doors and let folks choose.
Probably the best economic development tool we could ever have as well. Think people wouldn’t want to live in shelby county if they had that type of control over their children’s education?
SCM,
Then why can we not elect the board to do all the things you just spoke of? Why can’t we elect the best candidates now? Your entire theory of ‘I ain’t get my hands dirty” progressive mentality is that our Memphians are going to have an epiphany – when in reality small districts and everything else you mentioned can take place today!
Why do we need to run with our tail between our legs to the county, is this what we have become? Why do we need them? In the old days we would have said give us a chance to lead, then we would have said give us money, well (*&#(&#(&# we have all that and we are just quitting. That is the best we can do?
I am disgusted in anyone that is just quitting on Memphis and its kids.
SCM,
“this referendum could trigger a process that uses consolidation as the vehicle to create smaller districts.”
In a surrender, the SCS board will immediately assume control. At some point (6 months if Mulroy is right, 4 years if Pickler is right), a new consolidated board will take charge. What part of that process do you imagine will spawn smaller districts? It seems your plan is 1) surrender the charter; 2) elect true reformers who will reinvent the delivery of public education. You don’t need to surrender the charter in order to elect true reformers. You do need an electorate that wants change. We just had an election for 4 MCS board seats. Winners were 3 incumbents and a returning commissioner.
You also need a compelling vision of what you want public education to look like. NO ONE in leadership has described a vision different from the reforms currently underway in MCS. It is foolish to expect such a vision to coalesce from chaos. The primary focus of the SCS board and its successor will be stability, the opposite of innovation.
I have become a proponent of municipal systems. Your “$2.00 or so” increase in property taxes is a number you made up to dismiss this idea. MCS gets a little less than $800 per pupil from Memphis. There are approximately 6,000 public school students in Germantown. $800 per pupil would be $4.8 million per year. The Germantown tax base generates $156,000 per penny of tax rate. SO – a muni district could be expected to add $.31 or less to the Germantown property tax rate. I believe most Germantown residents, with or without children, would support a modest increase in property taxes in return for local control over their schools.
Am I the only one that suspects a phone call was made between a certain someone at the SCS and/or Shelby County delegation to State Election Coordinator Goins to inform his decision especially seeing as all the city’s lawyers are saying there is absolutely no language that states the city council must first approve the charter surrender before an election date can be set?
Mulroy and Hoover are both speculating given the likelihood that this is all headed to court. (Mulroy’s is more educated speculation).
Each part of the Tennessee Code on reorganization of education services has been designed for different governance situations, and none appear to apply to the Memphis situation except TCA 49-2-502, which requires a referendum for charter surrender.
Memphis’ private act of 1869, as amended, doesn’t require a referendum for surrender of the charter, and this is different from the general legislation.
Thus, the issue of conflict between the private act and general legislation exists, and the general legislation will rule, except the private act’s mandate (1961 amendment) that requires the City Council to approve surrender may be valid since it places an additional requirement on Memphis not in conflict with general legislation.
The likelihood of better education for students in Shelby County can never be determined because we will either have unification or not and will never know if the other would have worked better. However, unification will produce more equitable funding than the creation of special school district outside Memphis and education reforms can go forward either way.
But I speculate.
FG-
Excellent and very informative analysis.
FG,
I agree with everything you said except “unification will produce more equitable funding than the creation of special school district outside Memphis.”
As I have posted before, the “financial crisis” Jones has described cannot happen. Maint of Effort, ADA split, the county commission will play the same role they play today; whether or not SCS gets taxing authority.
I even agree that “Mulroy’s is more educated speculation.” Not necessarily more objective, but certainly better educated.
Ken,
It is naive at best to simply dismiss the prospect of legal action that will justifiably seek to bring an end to the ADA financing split if a special school district is created- especially if said district is empowered with its own taxing authority. Why would the residents within a special school district be legally bound to financially support any other school district? The objection has even more merit were the special district to be granted taxing authority. It would be akin to the residents of Shelby County being taxed to support Fayette County public schools. If SCS does receive taxing authority, what incentive will the County Commissioners have to ensure adequate financial support for the city school district?
By the way, according to the Flyer, Goins specifically cited the 1961 Private Act in his stated opinion which calls upon the city Board of Commissioners to first approve the charter surrender before a public vote can be held. I guess the first order of business will be a special vote to abolish our current mayor-council form of government and revert to a board of commissioners form of government in order for this board to ratify the charter surrender. The state’s opinion includes the approval of a group that represented an entirely different type of government that has not existed for quite some time. Perhaps we should still be enforcing a certain city ordinance that specifies whenever a woman should drive a motorized vehicle, it is required that a man proceed down the street in front of the vehicle giving audible warning of the situation while waving a red flag.
KH,
Yes, ADA and maintenance of effort will produce the same funding for MCS with creation of Special School District outside of Memphis. However, with population shifts outside the fixed school system boundaries around Memphis, the SSD (assuming tax authority) will have an increasing tax base from higher value property and in the long view will be able to enhance services to its students relatively more than available to Memphis students.
Looking at a bigger picture, the magnet of the SSD island will help perpetuate sprawl with its higher general purpose government costs.
Ken-
I went to a link you provided elsewhere concerning Goins interpretation of the requirements for a surrender of the MCS charter. His interpretation runs directly counter to the opinion of the State Attorney General.
The state has ruled that the Memphis City Schools is not a city school system, but is in fact a special school district whose boundaries are coterminous with the City of Memphis and Tennessee Code Ann. § 49-2-502 specifies that the school board of a special school district can transfer the administration of the school district to the county board of education pending a public referendum. It was the Attorney General’s opinion that the city council would not need to approve any motion to surrender the MCS charter in order for a public referendum to be held.
So on what ground does is Goins being allowed to interfere?
Urb – “bring an end to the ADA financing split if…” Your inventing a scenario here. Go look at Williamson County; they have had this exact situation for over 40 years and no one has ever suggested that the residents of the Franklin SSD should not help support Williamson County Schools. If your point is that any law can be changed, you are right. For a law to change, the majority has to believe the change is fair. The ADA split of county funding has been in place for over 50 years. The state legislature is not going to remove the county commissions authority to collect education taxes and they are not going to change the ADA allocation of those collections. Could the legislature re-write those laws? Yes. Can you construct a rational scenario where they would do so? No.
On the AG opinions and Goin’s actions, I’m not an authority. It is my lay opinion that general law requires a resolution by the school board and a referendum, the private act requires concurrence from the city council, and the city council provision is probably unconstitutional. I don’t believe Goins and Giannini should be allowed to conclude that a law is not binding; that’s a job for the courts. So, either the city council can pass a surrender resolution or one of the surrender proponents can seek a court ruling.
Ken-
It is quite easy to construct a rational scenario wherein the residents that reside within a special school district are not required to fund other school districts in the same county. All one must do is look at the national scene. That is exactly the way in which school districts are funded in many locations where the school districts are given the authority to levy taxes.
“The state legislature is not going to remove the county commissions authority to collect education taxes and they are not going to change the ADA allocation of those collections”. While I appreciate your willingness to comment on these issues here, you seem very assured of an issue over which you have no control in the state legislature. No one suggested that the commission’s authority to collect education taxes would be removed. What I am suggesting is the authority of the commission to collect taxes being regulated to assessing properties outside of the special school district should the special school district be granted its own tax authority. It would be very similar to the urban and rural service taxation districts enacted by Nashville during consolidation. Municipality (county) wide variations in a tax rate based on the level of service being received. In this case we would have the county commission supporting the “County” school system which just so happens to be regulated to the Memphis city limits. Meanwhile the same tax rate need not be imposed on those within the special school district as they are not receiving the same “service” form the county. That service would instead be funded via the tax authority held by the special school district. It was mentioned that legislation can be enacted all the time based on the opinion of the majority. Seeing as there is now a majority in place that seems willing to grant special school district status to SCS, you can offer little proof that your predicted restraint in other matters directly related to such approval will in fact be the rule of the day. I am not the type to supply an individual (or group) that has clearly taken an antagonistic stance towards me with a firearm and then simply assume (or hope) they will employ restraint in its use.
Ken, you lost me when you continue to insist a SSD wouldn’t negatively impact the future funding of Memphis City Schools. If the city schools cannot draw on that area which happens to contain most of the growth of high value property then most assuredly, their future funding will be impacted. Come on. If the county had agreed to single source funding in the past, maybe we wouldn’t be dealing with this now.
Ken:
Stay tuned. The mayors’ process will include smaller multiple districts. It will end up being part of their guiding principles.
SCM
PS: Funny that so much good coalesced from defeating the Germans in World War II, but it all came from chaos. Chaos is not necessarily a bad place to drive change and progress. In fact, in many cases, it’s absolutely necessary.
We forgot, Ken, the increase in property taxes for Germantown to have a school district will be anything but modest. It will a substantial difference, and in running the numbers, it appears to be at least $2. We’ve seen no polling that suggests to us that Germantown voters are motivated to spend more on schools. After all, with an aging population and fewer families with children, enrollment is headed the wrong way for the populace to take on more taxes. And already, a sizable number of parents in Germantown take their children to private and parochial schools, so for them at least, there’s no need for change.
Prossives: We haven’t seen anybody with their tails between their legs heading for the county to help them. MCS board did just the opposite. They took charge of their future and demanded change. And when the smoke clears, it will be Memphians controlling the new school system. In other words, the tail will no longer wag the dog and we’ll have a unified focus that is long overdue.
Listen everybody. We are like blind men feeling a part of the elephant, and this is a really big elephant.
Everyone needs to read the opinion provided by Wade to Councilman Lowery immediately. It is in his opinion that if the MCS were to pursue a charter surrender following the requirements of the 1961 acts, then approval by the city council would render the surrender final without the need for a referendum.
SCM- thanks for the post!
Urbanut, thanks for being so excited that the city attorney wants to disenfranshise the african american vote. You should be ashamed of yourself
Progressive: Is English your native language? How do you get disenfranchisement from Wade’s opinion giving African-Americans the right to vote on their future? Would you prefer the paternalistic approach practiced by suburban pols?
There are many people of color hoodwinked to believe this surrender is not the best thing that has happened to Memphis EVER.
Isn’t this the same city attorney that said the City of Memphis did not have to pay back the $57 million withheld from the city schools, but has lost both times it has come to court?
I think it would be good to be on the same school scheldue and hopefully if one set of schools have to wear uniforms then all would. (maybe we could loose the uniforms tha are just added cost for parents)
Disenfranchise the African-American vote? I am not quite sure I understand that particular critique. Wade’s opinion essentially states there are two methods by which the MCS charter may be surrendered based on two somewhat conflicting pieces of legislation. One states that city council approval is not necessary and a referendum should be planned for post haste. The other states that a referendum is not necessary and approval by the city council is the final required step in the process.
Either way the registered voters of Memphis participate. It is a question of whether it is a direct vote by the community or if the vote is made by the elected representatives of the community. The council is composed of 13 members, 7 of which are currently occupied by African-Americans. Of course the fact that this tangent even reared its ugly head reflects the distance this some in this community and region have yet to cross in terms of joining the rest of us in the 21st century.
“Disenfranchisement”, It’s just a twist by a proponent of failure. Don’t buy it.
—
Ken and Prog Fail,
You both put a lot of faith in a parochial election system that hasn’t operated properly once, as in:
misfired every single time.
—
So, you don’t really know what the electorate wishes here and as long as it’s run by the same people (machine) you never will. There will be snafu after snafu to get rid of votes that might help get rid of corruption. Unless we get SOME OVERSIGHT!