Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Second, our schools are not served well by filling the Board with party insiders looking to use the school board as a stepping stone in a bigger political career. .

Well, this is laughable. Name one School Board member in the last two decades that has used it as a stepping stone to a bigger political career?

Libby Garvey—former school board member who oversaw the decline of APS and wasteful spending (eg HB building) while not building enough seats. County board member for years now who thinks we don’t need actually seats because everyone will learn virtually. James Lander is another school board member who tried to use it as a stepping stone to county board (his Kojo Nnamdi interview tanked him).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Second, our schools are not served well by filling the Board with party insiders looking to use the school board as a stepping stone in a bigger political career. .

Well, this is laughable. Name one School Board member in the last two decades that has used it as a stepping stone to a bigger political career?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem and I agree 100% with getting rid of the caucus. First off, last year was the first and only time I’ve ever been able to participate. It’s not a friendly process to working parents who presumably make up the bulk of people who have kids in schools. Second, our schools are not served well by filling the Board with party insiders looking to use the school board as a stepping stone in a bigger political career. Some of the more recent choices have been completely lackluster and wouldn’t have gone anywhere without being on the Dem sample ballot, which is saying something. Third, I support federal employees running, and I think they should have a fair shot. Under the current system they really have no chance at all.

The Dems can still “endorse” certain candidates and those candidates will probably still win, but at least it opens up the possibility for a fed or non-insider to get their voices out there in a serious way.

How is the Dems endorsing and putting that person on a sample ballot any different that what we have now? A Fed or "non-insider" candidate can NOW run in the general. If the Dems do away with the caucus, then the endorsement becomes a backroom deal by a few. Then everyone will have their hands all up in the air that it wasn't fair and the candidates are still lackluster.

The candidates can all actually run in the general, for starters.

True, but how does that help achieve greater minority engagement and improved school outcomes for minority students?

NP. A small minority of Arlington residents currently vote in the caucus. I'm a working mom and I usually don't even know about the caucus until it's over. Then I'm stuck voting for the democrat on the ticket. I'd like to have more options not predetermined by the pro-capitalist interests of Arlington dems. I have more lefty politics and I don't really care who the official Dems endorse. They represent the wealthier families in North Arl (their donors) and my kid is in a Title 1 school in South Arl.

Sorry, not buying this argument entirely. Fine, you're a working mom. But there is a LOT of information put out every year about the caucus. You seem to know about it enough to comment about it on an internet board. Educate yourself as to when it is and make yourself available to participate. They hold in-person voting sessions on multiple days at night and on the weekend, in both South and North Arlington. Last year they allowed online voting. If you are truly interested in participating, then make it a priority to know when it is. Spoiler alert: it's in the springtime and information is available on arlingtondemocrats.org and a lot of other places. Not to mention that every median in Arlington is covered with election signs during caucus time.

What's with the condescending attitude? Take a look at your post and realize you are defending voter suppression. Only a few thousand people vote at every caucus. The median signs clearly aren't working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem and I agree 100% with getting rid of the caucus. First off, last year was the first and only time I’ve ever been able to participate. It’s not a friendly process to working parents who presumably make up the bulk of people who have kids in schools. Second, our schools are not served well by filling the Board with party insiders looking to use the school board as a stepping stone in a bigger political career. Some of the more recent choices have been completely lackluster and wouldn’t have gone anywhere without being on the Dem sample ballot, which is saying something. Third, I support federal employees running, and I think they should have a fair shot. Under the current system they really have no chance at all.

The Dems can still “endorse” certain candidates and those candidates will probably still win, but at least it opens up the possibility for a fed or non-insider to get their voices out there in a serious way.

How is the Dems endorsing and putting that person on a sample ballot any different that what we have now? A Fed or "non-insider" candidate can NOW run in the general. If the Dems do away with the caucus, then the endorsement becomes a backroom deal by a few. Then everyone will have their hands all up in the air that it wasn't fair and the candidates are still lackluster.

The candidates can all actually run in the general, for starters.

True, but how does that help achieve greater minority engagement and improved school outcomes for minority students?

NP. A small minority of Arlington residents currently vote in the caucus. I'm a working mom and I usually don't even know about the caucus until it's over. Then I'm stuck voting for the democrat on the ticket. I'd like to have more options not predetermined by the pro-capitalist interests of Arlington dems. I have more lefty politics and I don't really care who the official Dems endorse. They represent the wealthier families in North Arl (their donors) and my kid is in a Title 1 school in South Arl.

Sorry, not buying this argument entirely. Fine, you're a working mom. But there is a LOT of information put out every year about the caucus. You seem to know about it enough to comment about it on an internet board. Educate yourself as to when it is and make yourself available to participate. They hold in-person voting sessions on multiple days at night and on the weekend, in both South and North Arlington. Last year they allowed online voting. If you are truly interested in participating, then make it a priority to know when it is. Spoiler alert: it's in the springtime and information is available on arlingtondemocrats.org and a lot of other places. Not to mention that every median in Arlington is covered with election signs during caucus time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem and I agree 100% with getting rid of the caucus. First off, last year was the first and only time I’ve ever been able to participate. It’s not a friendly process to working parents who presumably make up the bulk of people who have kids in schools. Second, our schools are not served well by filling the Board with party insiders looking to use the school board as a stepping stone in a bigger political career. Some of the more recent choices have been completely lackluster and wouldn’t have gone anywhere without being on the Dem sample ballot, which is saying something. Third, I support federal employees running, and I think they should have a fair shot. Under the current system they really have no chance at all.

The Dems can still “endorse” certain candidates and those candidates will probably still win, but at least it opens up the possibility for a fed or non-insider to get their voices out there in a serious way.

How is the Dems endorsing and putting that person on a sample ballot any different that what we have now? A Fed or "non-insider" candidate can NOW run in the general. If the Dems do away with the caucus, then the endorsement becomes a backroom deal by a few. Then everyone will have their hands all up in the air that it wasn't fair and the candidates are still lackluster.

The candidates can all actually run in the general, for starters.

True, but how does that help achieve greater minority engagement and improved school outcomes for minority students?

NP. A small minority of Arlington residents currently vote in the caucus. I'm a working mom and I usually don't even know about the caucus until it's over. Then I'm stuck voting for the democrat on the ticket. I'd like to have more options not predetermined by the pro-capitalist interests of Arlington dems. I have more lefty politics and I don't really care who the official Dems endorse. They represent the wealthier families in North Arl (their donors) and my kid is in a Title 1 school in South Arl.

Sorry, not buying this argument entirely. Fine, you're a working mom. But there is a LOT of information put out every year about the caucus. You seem to know about it enough to comment about it on an internet board. Educate yourself as to when it is and make yourself available to participate. They hold in-person voting sessions on multiple days at night and on the weekend, in both South and North Arlington. Last year they allowed online voting. If you are truly interested in participating, then make it a priority to know when it is. Spoiler alert: it's in the springtime and information is available on arlingtondemocrats.org and a lot of other places. Not to mention that every median in Arlington is covered with election signs during caucus time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem and I agree 100% with getting rid of the caucus. First off, last year was the first and only time I’ve ever been able to participate. It’s not a friendly process to working parents who presumably make up the bulk of people who have kids in schools. Second, our schools are not served well by filling the Board with party insiders looking to use the school board as a stepping stone in a bigger political career. Some of the more recent choices have been completely lackluster and wouldn’t have gone anywhere without being on the Dem sample ballot, which is saying something. Third, I support federal employees running, and I think they should have a fair shot. Under the current system they really have no chance at all.

The Dems can still “endorse” certain candidates and those candidates will probably still win, but at least it opens up the possibility for a fed or non-insider to get their voices out there in a serious way.

How is the Dems endorsing and putting that person on a sample ballot any different that what we have now? A Fed or "non-insider" candidate can NOW run in the general. If the Dems do away with the caucus, then the endorsement becomes a backroom deal by a few. Then everyone will have their hands all up in the air that it wasn't fair and the candidates are still lackluster.

The candidates can all actually run in the general, for starters.

True, but how does that help achieve greater minority engagement and improved school outcomes for minority students?

NP. A small minority of Arlington residents currently vote in the caucus. I'm a working mom and I usually don't even know about the caucus until it's over. Then I'm stuck voting for the democrat on the ticket. I'd like to have more options not predetermined by the pro-capitalist interests of Arlington dems. I have more lefty politics and I don't really care who the official Dems endorse. They represent the wealthier families in North Arl (their donors) and my kid is in a Title 1 school in South Arl.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem and I agree 100% with getting rid of the caucus. First off, last year was the first and only time I’ve ever been able to participate. It’s not a friendly process to working parents who presumably make up the bulk of people who have kids in schools. Second, our schools are not served well by filling the Board with party insiders looking to use the school board as a stepping stone in a bigger political career. Some of the more recent choices have been completely lackluster and wouldn’t have gone anywhere without being on the Dem sample ballot, which is saying something. Third, I support federal employees running, and I think they should have a fair shot. Under the current system they really have no chance at all.

The Dems can still “endorse” certain candidates and those candidates will probably still win, but at least it opens up the possibility for a fed or non-insider to get their voices out there in a serious way.

How is the Dems endorsing and putting that person on a sample ballot any different that what we have now? A Fed or "non-insider" candidate can NOW run in the general. If the Dems do away with the caucus, then the endorsement becomes a backroom deal by a few. Then everyone will have their hands all up in the air that it wasn't fair and the candidates are still lackluster.

The candidates can all actually run in the general, for starters.

True, but how does that help achieve greater minority engagement and improved school outcomes for minority students?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem and I agree 100% with getting rid of the caucus. First off, last year was the first and only time I’ve ever been able to participate. It’s not a friendly process to working parents who presumably make up the bulk of people who have kids in schools. Second, our schools are not served well by filling the Board with party insiders looking to use the school board as a stepping stone in a bigger political career. Some of the more recent choices have been completely lackluster and wouldn’t have gone anywhere without being on the Dem sample ballot, which is saying something. Third, I support federal employees running, and I think they should have a fair shot. Under the current system they really have no chance at all.

The Dems can still “endorse” certain candidates and those candidates will probably still win, but at least it opens up the possibility for a fed or non-insider to get their voices out there in a serious way.

How is the Dems endorsing and putting that person on a sample ballot any different that what we have now? A Fed or "non-insider" candidate can NOW run in the general. If the Dems do away with the caucus, then the endorsement becomes a backroom deal by a few. Then everyone will have their hands all up in the air that it wasn't fair and the candidates are still lackluster.

The candidates can all actually run in the general, for starters.

True, but how does that help achieve greater minority engagement and improved school outcomes for minority students?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem and I agree 100% with getting rid of the caucus. First off, last year was the first and only time I’ve ever been able to participate. It’s not a friendly process to working parents who presumably make up the bulk of people who have kids in schools. Second, our schools are not served well by filling the Board with party insiders looking to use the school board as a stepping stone in a bigger political career. Some of the more recent choices have been completely lackluster and wouldn’t have gone anywhere without being on the Dem sample ballot, which is saying something. Third, I support federal employees running, and I think they should have a fair shot. Under the current system they really have no chance at all.

The Dems can still “endorse” certain candidates and those candidates will probably still win, but at least it opens up the possibility for a fed or non-insider to get their voices out there in a serious way.

How is the Dems endorsing and putting that person on a sample ballot any different that what we have now? A Fed or "non-insider" candidate can NOW run in the general. If the Dems do away with the caucus, then the endorsement becomes a backroom deal by a few. Then everyone will have their hands all up in the air that it wasn't fair and the candidates are still lackluster.

How will abolishing the caucus lead to more engagement by minority voters and improved outcomes for minority kids at school? I was at the meeting last night and heard a lot of anti-caucus speakers essentially make that claim.

It wouldn't. But it would give actual APS PARENTS more say in who gets on the Board by making THEIR votes in the general election more meaningful; rather than mainly party people who are primarily past school-aged children phase of life and who don't follow schools and are unfamiliar with the real issues and concerns selecting a democrat candidate for them.

The vote was 117-22 to keep the caucus

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem and I agree 100% with getting rid of the caucus. First off, last year was the first and only time I’ve ever been able to participate. It’s not a friendly process to working parents who presumably make up the bulk of people who have kids in schools. Second, our schools are not served well by filling the Board with party insiders looking to use the school board as a stepping stone in a bigger political career. Some of the more recent choices have been completely lackluster and wouldn’t have gone anywhere without being on the Dem sample ballot, which is saying something. Third, I support federal employees running, and I think they should have a fair shot. Under the current system they really have no chance at all.

The Dems can still “endorse” certain candidates and those candidates will probably still win, but at least it opens up the possibility for a fed or non-insider to get their voices out there in a serious way.

How is the Dems endorsing and putting that person on a sample ballot any different that what we have now? A Fed or "non-insider" candidate can NOW run in the general. If the Dems do away with the caucus, then the endorsement becomes a backroom deal by a few. Then everyone will have their hands all up in the air that it wasn't fair and the candidates are still lackluster.

The candidates can all actually run in the general, for starters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem and I agree 100% with getting rid of the caucus. First off, last year was the first and only time I’ve ever been able to participate. It’s not a friendly process to working parents who presumably make up the bulk of people who have kids in schools. Second, our schools are not served well by filling the Board with party insiders looking to use the school board as a stepping stone in a bigger political career. Some of the more recent choices have been completely lackluster and wouldn’t have gone anywhere without being on the Dem sample ballot, which is saying something. Third, I support federal employees running, and I think they should have a fair shot. Under the current system they really have no chance at all.

The Dems can still “endorse” certain candidates and those candidates will probably still win, but at least it opens up the possibility for a fed or non-insider to get their voices out there in a serious way.

How is the Dems endorsing and putting that person on a sample ballot any different that what we have now? A Fed or "non-insider" candidate can NOW run in the general. If the Dems do away with the caucus, then the endorsement becomes a backroom deal by a few. Then everyone will have their hands all up in the air that it wasn't fair and the candidates are still lackluster.

How will abolishing the caucus lead to more engagement by minority voters and improved outcomes for minority kids at school? I was at the meeting last night and heard a lot of anti-caucus speakers essentially make that claim.

It wouldn't. But it would give actual APS PARENTS more say in who gets on the Board by making THEIR votes in the general election more meaningful; rather than mainly party people who are primarily past school-aged children phase of life and who don't follow schools and are unfamiliar with the real issues and concerns selecting a democrat candidate for them.

The vote was 117-22 to keep the caucus

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem and I agree 100% with getting rid of the caucus. First off, last year was the first and only time I’ve ever been able to participate. It’s not a friendly process to working parents who presumably make up the bulk of people who have kids in schools. Second, our schools are not served well by filling the Board with party insiders looking to use the school board as a stepping stone in a bigger political career. Some of the more recent choices have been completely lackluster and wouldn’t have gone anywhere without being on the Dem sample ballot, which is saying something. Third, I support federal employees running, and I think they should have a fair shot. Under the current system they really have no chance at all.

The Dems can still “endorse” certain candidates and those candidates will probably still win, but at least it opens up the possibility for a fed or non-insider to get their voices out there in a serious way.

How is the Dems endorsing and putting that person on a sample ballot any different that what we have now? A Fed or "non-insider" candidate can NOW run in the general. If the Dems do away with the caucus, then the endorsement becomes a backroom deal by a few. Then everyone will have their hands all up in the air that it wasn't fair and the candidates are still lackluster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem and I agree 100% with getting rid of the caucus. First off, last year was the first and only time I’ve ever been able to participate. It’s not a friendly process to working parents who presumably make up the bulk of people who have kids in schools. Second, our schools are not served well by filling the Board with party insiders looking to use the school board as a stepping stone in a bigger political career. Some of the more recent choices have been completely lackluster and wouldn’t have gone anywhere without being on the Dem sample ballot, which is saying something. Third, I support federal employees running, and I think they should have a fair shot. Under the current system they really have no chance at all.

The Dems can still “endorse” certain candidates and those candidates will probably still win, but at least it opens up the possibility for a fed or non-insider to get their voices out there in a serious way.

How is the Dems endorsing and putting that person on a sample ballot any different that what we have now? A Fed or "non-insider" candidate can NOW run in the general. If the Dems do away with the caucus, then the endorsement becomes a backroom deal by a few. Then everyone will have their hands all up in the air that it wasn't fair and the candidates are still lackluster.

How will abolishing the caucus lead to more engagement by minority voters and improved outcomes for minority kids at school? I was at the meeting last night and heard a lot of anti-caucus speakers essentially make that claim.

It wouldn't. But it would give actual APS PARENTS more say in who gets on the Board by making THEIR votes in the general election more meaningful; rather than mainly party people who are primarily past school-aged children phase of life and who don't follow schools and are unfamiliar with the real issues and concerns selecting a democrat candidate for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem and I agree 100% with getting rid of the caucus. First off, last year was the first and only time I’ve ever been able to participate. It’s not a friendly process to working parents who presumably make up the bulk of people who have kids in schools. Second, our schools are not served well by filling the Board with party insiders looking to use the school board as a stepping stone in a bigger political career. Some of the more recent choices have been completely lackluster and wouldn’t have gone anywhere without being on the Dem sample ballot, which is saying something. Third, I support federal employees running, and I think they should have a fair shot. Under the current system they really have no chance at all.

The Dems can still “endorse” certain candidates and those candidates will probably still win, but at least it opens up the possibility for a fed or non-insider to get their voices out there in a serious way.

How is the Dems endorsing and putting that person on a sample ballot any different that what we have now? A Fed or "non-insider" candidate can NOW run in the general. If the Dems do away with the caucus, then the endorsement becomes a backroom deal by a few. Then everyone will have their hands all up in the air that it wasn't fair and the candidates are still lackluster.

How will abolishing the caucus lead to more engagement by minority voters and improved outcomes for minority kids at school? I was at the meeting last night and heard a lot of anti-caucus speakers essentially make that claim.