I am so disappointed that Peter Downs not only didn't make the cut but that he didn't have the most votes. Does anyone on the board have children in the St. Louis Public Schools? I hope when the school board elections come around again (2 years?) that Peter will give it another try. At least we know we can count on him to continue reporting school board (mis)happenings.

I am little surprised at the result. Name recognition seems to be important. I don't understand how Peter Downs, of the opposition slate, didn't make it when his compatriots did.

I can't wait to read the ACC for ward breakdowns.

While I supported Peter Downs (in 2003 as well as yesterday), he did pretty well considering that:

He beat two of the candidates with the mayor's backing and came in just 600 votes under Fowler, who definitely already had strong name recognition and credibility on the Northside.

I figured O'Brien would do pretty well since she's a current member, but she should've talked to her printing company: I didn't get her mailer until Election Day, after I had already voted for her; and there was a blatant typo on one side.

I'm not particularly excited about Purdy, but he does bring decades of experience; and I do like his wife. Maybe Fowler will just sign on to the current majority, but he might surprise us.

I also voted for Nancy Galvin because she's a Benton Park person, but wasn't surprised with her vote total.

I wish Downs had won, too. O'Brien and Purdy both had strong name recognition and probably what tipped them higher than Downs was their political connections.

The three candidates with the highest name recognition won.

One of the candidates endorsed by the mayor won -- adding another vote to the bloc of four.

One of the candidates endorsed by the Post-Dispatch won.

One of the candidates endorsed by the St. Louis American won.

Two of the candidates endorsed by the teachers union won.

I am very happy to see Flint Fowler among the candidates who won election to the school board. Despite the fact that the Mayor endorsed him, Flint is his own person and will vote his conscience on issues. I can not imagine a person better qualified to sit on the school board than Flint.

Board of Education Election Reflections

Election Day has come and gone, and the results are mixed. Following are a few thoughts or perceptions on what has transpired as relates to the election of members to the St. Louis Board of Education. Interestingly, the overwhelming $195,000 poured into the campaign for the Mayor's slate did not prove profitable, and we all can be encouraged that money does not always buy elections. Isn't it also encouraging to see that multiple slick advertisements do not seduce all voters? Some of us really want to believe that good, humble, caring, and dedicated men and women still stand a chance in our democratic society despite the greed that grips politics in general.

First, Veronica O'Brien's resounding win could indicate more than just being an incumbent or being the first name on the ballot. It could denote a sound vindication of a woman who has suffered unnecessarily at the hands of bullies. I am reminded of Helen Reddy's song, "That ain't no way to treat a lady." Many St. Louisans remember and disapprove of how she was treated by both Schoemehl and Slay. O'Brien stepped in a vacant spot on the Board at the behest of the Mayor, and when she either recognized or realized business was taking place in a way that was detrimental to the educational process, to children, to staff, and even to the community due to quasi-lawful shenanigans and trickery, she stood up for what she thought was best for the stakeholders in the city public school district. The fact that she came out first supports the fact that her voice and her yeoman efforts to do justice and what is right are greatly appreciated and more broadly than realized.

Bill Purdy's second-place win is no less remarkable. In one public forum, he was openly, unfairly and publicly mistreated by the moderator. Even one of the sponsors of the forum apologized to Purdy, O'Brien and Downs for unfair treatment by the moderator. A recent Post-Dispatch editorial was noticeably strident in its criticism of Purdy and failed to recognize extenuating circumstances or events that colored his last year on the Board. Just as the unpredictable tsunami hit and devastated parts of Asia, so the overwhelming fiscal crisis that hit the Saint Louis Public Schools represented more an unpredictable convergence of events and statewide actions than a lack of responsibility on the part of the Board. Even the Mayor's appointed auditor gave the district good marks after his audit. Reelection for Purdy was an uphill battle because of accusations of being associated with the past and its problems. However, he has proven his commitment to the city school district since leaving office by attendance at board meetings and active involvement through concern and community activities. Once a ball player for the St. Louis Browns, he may be considered at this point the "come back kid."

Most disappointing, however, is the fourth-place standing of Peter Downs. Downs, a parent of children in the school system, who has invested so much time and effort in keeping abreast of what was transpiring in the school district, both good and bad. His contributions to the concept of urban public school education and to the honest dissemination of truth and fact beyond the P.R. spin are invaluable. Countless school district administrators relied more on Downs and his St. Louis School Watch for sound information than upon any other source. The fact that such an involved parent of two children in the school district could or did not win a seat on the Board of Education does not bode well for public school education, children, or staff. What better advocate could there be for the positive welfare of the system? Who can guess what happened here? Was it the fact his name was the last on the ballot, or could it be there were just too many candidates taking away enough small numbers of votes? We may not ever know, but one thing is sure, St. Louis needs Peter Downs and his active and committed involvement to a better school system. Perhaps there is a more important service awaiting him than serving on this board, but it is the Board of Education and the school system that is losing out.

Though unrelated to the Board of Education election, the mayoral vote certainly appeared less than a resounding mandate for the mayor. A virtual unknown to most people garnered over 20% of the vote, which appears as a form of protest to the incumbent.

In conclusion, let's wish all three new board members success in improving the quality of life and morale for those who labor so faithfully to educate our city children. Let's wish them success in providing the support necessary by both attitude and actions to ensure a quality education to all who want to learn. Really, there isn't too much that can be done for those who do not want to learn, a fact that must accepted more readily, because they hinder the learning process for the children who are genuinely eager to learn through disruption and distraction

Finally, let's pray for the majority board members that they will learn to respect and acquiesce to the views of other duly elected members who represent the concerns and views of the community. Respect is a two-way street. Labeling one group as dissidents is an unjust political ploy to rob them of their true nature, i.e., advocates for children, parents, staff, and community.

Let's hope the media will show true respect and fairness in its reporting of school district news.

Helen Louise Herndon
Hloherndon@cs.com

Until more children leave our public schools with better educations, I am pretty sure that no one can be happy.

"A virtual unknown to most people garnered over 20% of the vote, which appears as a form of protest to the incumbent."

not only an unknown, but a rather inept candidate got 21% against slay.

The results are pretty easily explained by a turnout of 12%. Most didn't think there was anything worth dragging themselves to the polls and most didn't. Marshall seems to have attracted just slightly less than Mike Chance did while Slay's turnout was half. For Mayor about 25,000 voted compared to 46,000 in 2001. That doesn't sound like an angry or disenchanted public, but an apathetic one. Brown's vote total is nearly 2000 votes lower than the lowest winnner (Moore) in 2001.

Slay's 79% was very close to my March 12 forecast ("probably by about 4 to 1"), and I believe that the reasons he did so relatively poorly are the reasons mentioned in that piece:
http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2005/03/slay-may-break-dubious-record-in-april.html

I don't know if this was conscious strategy or dumb luck, but Marshall increased his take of the vote by staying as unknown as possible. He didn't even respond to the Post-Dispatch questionaire, and on primary night, he turned down an invitation to appear on Channel 5 10:00 news. The less voters knew about him, the more likely they were to vote for him, and that's not just a swipe at Marshall. Historically, polls that ask whether a voter plans to vote for a specific incumbent or "someone else" show much higher support for an unnamed opponent than for a specific named opponent. Last year, more people preferred "someone else" over President Bush than actually voted against Bush, and in 1996, more people preferred "someone else" over President Clinton than actually voted against him. In this election, Marshall had a name, but voters had little to associate with that name, unlike Kerry or Dole.

Nevertheless, the combination of Slay's beating his Green Party opponent this year by so much less than he beat his Republican opponent four years ago and the voters' rejection of two of his three school board candidates adds up to a small but significant hedge on Slay's supposed mandate.

I was going to say that I thought you had predicted the Mayor's race pretty well. I just hadn't looked back at the piece.

Ultimately, he did 'poorly' because no one showed up--because his race was a done deal, but the Green candidate did as well in raw numbers as the last Republican so that is a positive for the Greens. Slay got 5000 more votes in the primary so it would seem that complacency is the thing that hurt him--the same thing that happened in 2001, though turnout in the primary was far higher that year.

What we did learn about Marshall wasn't very encouraging (AIDS bracelets?!), so his low-profile idea was certainly a good one.

I also believe that this race was decided by turnout, it looks like the same 11,000 Slay haters who turned out in the primary also turned out here. I think if about 6000 more people turned out things would have been much different. But as I see it, people did not feel much was at stake in this election, the majority of the people that turned out were Slay haters and people affiliated with the schools, which are usually one in the same.

White liberals are the most passionate about Peter Downs. There aren't a lot of white liberals.

It is not accurate to describe the people that supported the 420 teacher's union 'slate' as Slay haters. Many of us agree with a lot of the people that grew up with him. He has made bad choices with respect to his advisors.

That's not a dig at publiceye is it?

The vote totals are strangly simiilar, I could be wrong but I am waiting for the Ward breakdowns to compare to the primary, but who knows how long that will take the BOE. You could be right but those teachers sure do hate him. And the amount of people involved with the SLPS makes up about 10% of the electorate in the city. There was not a 100% turnout of those folks but it was high. If more voters had turned out I estimate 5000-6000, than Moramarco and Keaveney probably would have won also.

Sojurner, what advisors? which decisions?

Thank God more voters did not turn out. If Moramarco and Keaveney had gotten on the board, we could kiss the public school system good-bye.

Kiss the public school system goodbye??? I don't think the SLPS would have disappeared if Moromarco and Keavney would be elected. If they were elected they wouldn't make a joke of the system like Purdy and O'Brian are going to do.

Guess you missed the board meeting Monday. If you had attended you might have noticed that Bill Purdy questioned all the wasteful expenditures that Mayor Slay's hand picked CFO and CAO had snuck on the agenda for the 19th's meeting. Many an eye was opened. Strangely not in attendance were the ever so caring Moramarco and Keaveney. I guess they really are concerned about education. Like I said, we got two seats filled, two more to go, and the schools have a chance.