Apparently not invited to join in: 21st Ward Green Party Committeeman (and mayoral candidate) Willie Marshall. Both competing Green Party organizations, Two Rivers Greens and Marshall's Gateway Green Alliance, have endorsed those same three candidates.

Why are people supporting Bill Purdy?

While I do not think the current board majority has handled issues well, they are better than the previous board who failed to realistically deal with the budget. Whether they stuck their heads in the sand or had the wool pulled over their eyes(too many cliches) by the former superintendant, we certainly don't want to go backwards.

Maybe they endorsed Purdy, O'Brien and Downs because they think that contracts involving public funds should be made public before the vote.

Purdy's knowledge of what's really going on in the school system would be an extremely valuable check and resource for a board with Vince "Ready-Fire-Aim" Schoemehl in the majority.

====Maybe they endorsed Purdy, O'Brien and Downs because they think that contracts involving public funds should be made public before the vote.

This is hard to figure given public disclosure has greatly improved over the last two years.

Don't understand how ArchPundit can say that public disclosure has improved over last two years. Previous board never had a court ruling against them for Sunshine Law violations, as Francis Slay's slate has.

The contracts to outsource custodial and food service were secret before the votes.

The document that the current board releases as the budget is very sparse relative to the budget documents released under previous board/Hammonds time.

Uh, no. The Court warned the Board about potential violations in one case. Further, the violations that did occur relating to documents arriving on time for meetings was commonplace in the past. Hilgemann used to complain about it quite regularly. This was a continuing staff problem that no one addressed previously. But again, this is a continuation of a problem that was occurring under Hammonds.

In terms of budget material, it's simply nonsense to say Hammonds released better numbers or was more accessible. The District released the budget in a fair amount of detail and held public meetings on it where anyone could ask Harry Rich and Sajan George about it. The reporting of the yearly audit on the web site is a huge improvement as well. Budgets were not even discussed and Board Members were stonewalled when asking for information under Hammonds.

The contracts for both custodial services and for food service were out there before the votes were taken. Whether they were officially released I can't tell you. Compared to the moves where the Board was back approving contracts that were already being executed under Hammonds, it's hard to figure how the current situation isn't an improvement.

Anyone who seriously tried to get public documents out of the District previous to 2003 knows how much the culture has improved at the headquarters.

These extensive comments by ArchPundit bring to mind this recent posting on his Blog St. Louis:

====[N]o more stories from me [ArchPundit] on the SLPS. Currently I have professional obligations that require me to evaluate efforts that might touch on administration of the District. It isn't a direct evaluation by any means, but writing outside articles creates two problems.
1) People may be unwilling to be honest with me during evaluation work creating a roadblock to accurate findings
and
2) I may not be able to divulge information I have thus making readers unable to judge the argument or my role in such matters fully.

====This applies to ACC stories as well.

That was a very ethical position by ArchPundit. So why doesn't it apply here, on ACC's blog? I don't mean to silence ArchPundit, whose insights are indeed valuable, but I would think that the same ethical considerations that led to the gag on his own blog should at the very least cause him to disclose during discussions such as this that he has been engaged to evaluate school district matters, especially if it's a contract with the district (i.e., if he is answerable on that contract to the School Board, and hence to the board majority, and hence to Vince Schoemehl). That might shed a different light on the objectivity of the comments.

Oracle, I am tired of your comments that intend to change to topic of conversation every time someone actually states the facts in regard to the SLPS. Archpundit is correct in his comments and there is no ethical violation in stating the facts. I do believe there are ethical violations in misstating the situation surrounding the board, as you have done. Your partisanship is quite apparrent. I hate to tell you that the candidates who you support are liars and irresponsible people who do not care about fixing the schools in the city, or they are so stupid that they actually believe the positions they advocate for are the right policy positions.

===I imagine that after particularly bad Post stories you'll find my reaction somewhere, but I won't be doing anything indepth.

I'm no longer publishing stories, but that doesn't mean I won't be commenting on them. I made that clear in the bit you cropped out.

And I don't have a contract with the Board. Sorry, but the conflicts have to do with a federal grant and a private study. Commenting on a story or comments to a story are significantly different from writing a story.

careful, oracle -- "ethical violations" is a term that the establishment hit-squad uses on dissidents like yourself. you shouldn't throw it back at them or they'll just turn it around on you. they have tired and outdated smear tactics that are painfully obvious and middle-brow. don't play into them.

Southsider used the term "ethical violations", I didn't. I referred to "ethical considerations" which is night-and-day different from accusing someone of wrongdoing. Also, I accept ArchPundit's subsequent explanation that the engagement to which his blog alluded is not a contract with the board.

Oracle, You are correct about the phrases, i'll watch my semantics. However, you are the one who used a lame cop out about Pundits ethics to back off when he presented some real facts. That is my beef with your posts.

Also, I had no idea I am part of the establishment hit-squad, privatenose. Tell me who else is on my team of deadly assasins, or perhaps my brow is so low i can't see the obvious establishment hit-men I associate with?

Southsider

EVERYONE has a good nickname but me. This is getting to be like Talk Radio in here! Archpundit, The Southsider, Oracle, Norman Pressman.... Lemme see what i cant come up with :-P

Jay Leno used to say that Al Gore was so dull, his FBI code name was "Al Gore." Norman Pressman isn't a dull guy by any means, but the reference to his "good nickname" makes the comparison irresistable.

Now that's funny Oracle. And for the record, I have no problem with Oracle's phrasing. It's a reasonable question.

Perhaps these three were endorsed because they are the most qualified. They just might have the students in mind instead of land development. Something to think about.