Having non-partisan candidates only works for local governments where the majority of the people know them. The state board candidates are seldom known. Much as I don't like vouchers, the current system is better FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION than going back to the "democratic" way, where any fool could get elected. BTW, IF WE DO go back to the "democratic" way, it WILL become partisan.

There is a better way than either. Have all the local board members within that board seat either elect their own representative to the state board, or at least pick two good people to run. The local board members are the ones who have to put up with the mandates from the state board. This would be a better fit in the republic we are. This would also make the local board seat a more important position, with influence at the state level.

Two recommendations:

First, just pass a law requiring all school board candidates to publicly state their opposition to vouchers (and charter schools while we're at it).

Second, have the UEA and PTA select the nominees and let the general public vote on their nominees. Having candidates vetted by the UEA and PTA makes sure we don't get kooks and voucher supporters.

The Republican Convention does produce extremists, we'll also be seeing Buttars and Chaffetz on the ballot. In this post-vouchers referendum era it is probably time for a democratic election for state school board members. The public is paying much closer attention now that we have seen some of our legislators paying more heed to out of state interests than to their constituents.

Having a committee choose the nominees only works if the committee is unbiased and immune from political pressure. This was clearly not the case this past year.

When your position on a political hot button issue such as vouchers can determine your suitability for office despite everything else, the system is not working.

Good idea, but when applied politically, doesn't work

While I tend to agree with Frank on most issues, he loses me by asserting that a board member's positions on immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc are not relevant. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the NEA and its agenda knows those issues are at the forefront of the NEA's efforts to influence curriculum and the social culture of schools. The UEA, as the little sister of the NEA is also right there in the fray.

In Utah, school officials are the parent during school hours. Since schools long ago abandoned any pretense of focusing on the 3 Rs, and resent the accountability of testing and merit, shouldn't parents at least be given the chance to learn their board member's positions on many issues which shouldn't, but clearly do, impact the quality of their child's education and influence the in loco parentis?

We need good open government in the State of Utah. We need to return to the direct non-partisan election of the State School Board.
The recent attempt by our State Legislative Leaders to stack the School Board with voucher supports and other right wing wacko's shows the need for direct elections.
If the people want to elect voucher supports or UEA representatives, at least the will of the people will be heard over the back room deals of our State Leaders.
We have one of the worst run State Governments when it comes to Special Interest politics. Look at all of th conflict of interests that out Legislators have.
One only has to look at the money that is being paid into the campaigns of Legislators like Greg Curtis. Our State Government is bought and paid for by Special interest groups.
We need to vote out all of our Legislative Leaders and start rebuilding a good open government.
Please vote Democratic this November!!! Throw all of the Republican bums out.

And your wife Frank!
Best Wishes Always!
Your 1978 Classmates

LaVarr argues the system of direct, non-partisan voting results in candidates no one knows. Who knows the names of the State School Board now?

Using our current system, a few high-power lawmakers and the nominating committee know the names of the school board candidates. Using the older system of direct, non-partisan voting, a handful of concerned voters know the candidates. Which is better?

I propose having the voters, although the percentage may be small, know the candidates is a much better option, especially when trying to limit the influence of special interests or connections to already powerful state leaders.