It's official that there will be a new Wake County school board member this fall in District 5.
As noted in today's article by Thomas Goldsmith, school board member Anne McLaurin says she will not run for re-election. She said she felt comfortable leaving now because of the board’s increasing emphasis on student achievement, the development of potentially workable student assignment plans, and a recent decision to ask the state for additional funding.
“The board took a stand on requesting that the governor and the legislature increase the funding for education and that was not something the board agreed to do when we were talking to the county,” McLaurin said. “I think we are in a better place.
The other thing that’s important to me is that the whole community is engaged and is understanding what a great system this is. Sometimes you have to be shaken a little bit before you know what you’re losing.”
Also in today's article, McLaurin laughed when asked about the charges some have leveled, that she served as Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker’s voice on the school board. Meeker, for those who somehow don't know by now, is McLaurin's husband.
“I think Mayor Meeker stated his own views pretty clearly didn't he?” she said. “I don’t think he ever thought he needed me to make up his mind and I didn’t need him to help make up my mind.”
McLaurin said that N.C. State Professor Jim Martin has told her that he's interested in running for the District 5 seat. Martin, a Democrat like McLaurin, had been mulling a run in District 8 against Ron Margiotta before the redistricting plan moved him into District 5.
No one has officially announced plans yet to run in District 5.
McLaurin ran unopposed in 2007. That's pretty unlikely this time.
Aside from the increased interest in the school board now, the redistricting has made the seat more competitive. Instead of being more of a Inside the Beltline seat, District 5 now has a larger portion outside of Raleigh.
Comments
"redistricting has made the seat more competitive"
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 12:16 — concerned2Perhaps that's why she's stepping out.
Why now?
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 10:28 — Bob_SconceThe redistricting maps were designed to ensure that both McLaurin and Morrison stayed in their districts. Yet, both have decided to bail. Is it too late to crack those maps back open? With McLaurin not running again, it'd be easy to shift her district south, shift Tedesco's north a little and Sutton's west. That would mean that Knightdale was only in 2 districts instead of 3.
Morrison and McLaurin would have done the county a service by announcing their intentions months ago, instead of waiting for redistricting to play out. Classy way to bow out, doctors.
Question
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 21:43 — Dove314Are you sure you have correctly pinpointed when they made their decisions not to run (you mention months ago)?
Well...
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 22:18 — Bob_SconceAt minimum, they know months ago that district boundaries were going to be decided to keep them in their districts. At that point, they should have said to themselves "Hey, people are making decisions here. I should make up my mind now."
So, it's either intentional or just negligence. Neither speaks well of the two of them. Now, because they don't understand the expression that ends "or get off the pot," we're going to have these districts for the next 10 years. Thanks Anne and Carolyn!
In any case, it was fairly obvious to me -- I predicted months ago that they weren't going to be in it (on this very blog).
Handicapping
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 07:07 — Dove314Is that kind of like saying RM knew months ago and even told people that he wasn't going to run again so the redistricting should not have taken his district and his physical address into account? Oh wait .....
Wasn't this also a quote from you on the process?
It's not 'just' a political opportunity -- of course its purpose is to reapportion voting districts to their correct sizes. But, gerrymandering is an intentional part of the political process.
There are many ways that district lines could be "fairly" drawn, but none of those ways are required by law. Heck, it's possible to plug the numbers into a computer and arrive at the most equally balanced districts, but the law doesn't require that. Instead, it gives elected leaders the task of redrawing the districts with full knowledge that they will use the redrawing for political advantage.
It's not a fully unbounded ability -- there are some limits, such as the restrictions of the voting rights act, the requirement that districts be contiguous and (of course) the requirement of balance. But, as long as politicans stay within those boundaries, they can do whatever they want.
blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/school-board-to-discuss-redistricting-today#ixzz1Os1Mo3P
Well..
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 08:17 — Bob_SconceSo, if Ron pulls the same stunt, then I'm going to say the same thing about him. Note, though, that he changed his mind back before they started redistricting. Of course, in his case, there really weren't any scenarios which would pull his seat from his district.
What you quoted was me arguing against the idea that politics should be left out of the process. I still think that redistricting is inherently political, and the majority would have been well within its rights to draw the most advantageous districts possible.
However, the board chose a different course -- they decided not to let such political considerations enter into the process. So, my comments in this thread are directed to the process that they actually used. And I'm suggesting that Morrison and McLaurin subverted that process. It's as if everybody said "Ok, we're not going to play politics here," then Morrison and McLaurin winked at each other.
No politics?
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 08:45 — Dove314Are you really saying there were absolutely no politics involved in the redistricting? None at all with the strict exception of Ms. Morrison and Dr. McLaurin?
Yes
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 10:10 — Bob_SconceWell, at least if you define "politics" in the traditional gerrymandering way -- "I'm going to make districts with a solid majority of my voters and some portion of your voters, to increase my side's representation and decrease yours." Of course, there are necessarily political consequences to redistricting, especially when the county has grown as Wake County has. But, I see no evidence that the redistricting occurred with the intention of creating any specific consequences. Heck, Ann Majestic said that she didn't see where it was set up to benefit any particular group.
Now, the GSIW folks would probably disagree with me, but they had some very specific political goals that were hurt by the map that eventually came out. However, ANY map would have hurt their political goals because most of the growth has been in the suburbs, and their core supporters are closer to downtown.
I don't know for sure that either of the Doctors were delaying for partisan reasons; but, their delay certainly had political consequences. Among them, Knightdale is divided among three districts.
Equivocations
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 11:17 — Dove314That's a lot of equivocations. Seems to read as "yes if you use a very narrow definition and don't take into account all viewpoints on the subject."
As for Ms. Majestic as a valid referent, come on -- the Repulicans on the BoE and in Wake County would have had her head served up on a platter if she said anything disagreeing with the board for whom she works. Not to mention they selected Mr. Shanahan to be the legal expert on the subject.
You've made the point several times that gamesmanship is part of politics. Yet then you single out this incident, leaving so many previous incidents excused or unremarked upon, and make accusations here without supporting documentation, which conveniently support your party and incumbents of choice. You have to, at a minimum, acknowledge you have a bias here.
Well, of course...
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 12:49 — Bob_SconceOf course I'm biased. So are you. But, I don't see what that has to do with the validity of my argument.
Besides, the biggest complaints from the opposition had nothing to do with political motives -- they were all wondering why specific precincts were split and why the maps drawn up by Shanahan didn't precisely match the first public description. I don't recall, for example, GSIW complaining that the lines were drawn to give the majority a political advantage. Heck, they give the opposition a great candidate to supercede McLaurin -- Jim Martin would have had a much tougher shot in Margiotta's district.
What sort of supporting documentation would you like? All I'm saying is that redistricting would have been a whole lot easier if McLaurin and Morrison had announced their intentions in advance and, thus, they did a disservice to the board. And now, as sheartw pointed out, we're stuck with districts drawn for them which they won't be in.
Incidentally, Tharrington Smith did the 2001 and 1991 redistrictings and I suspect that they're probably doing redistricting for other NC districts -- I know Ann Majestic is also the attorney for Durham Schools.
Bob.. and this is exactly
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 10:30 — shearertwBob.. and this is exactly why I said the redistricting process should not take into account any of the current BOE members current residencies, etc. None of the current BOE members are likely to be there 10 years from now which is next time we get to fix this thing. Now we find out two of the members weren't even going to be there when the new districts take effect.
Flummoxed
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 11:19 — Dove314Today, I've agreed once with you and once with another where I never thought I would.
Not entirely true, Bob
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 16:49 — valsparMorrison lives practically in the center of her district, before and after the redo, and needed more numbers, not fewer, from the west and the north. As for McLaurin and the reference to Tedesco's district, Tedesco drew his borders exactly how he wanted them to be.
Not quite...
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 17:43 — Bob_SconceRecall what John said he'd want to do if they cracked it back open.
Besides, John didn't draw the borders -- Shanahan did. And when he did so, he had to balance a few different criteria. After having equal representation, keeping members in their districts was big.
Had Morrison and McLaurin both announced early, then Shanahan could hve created a new district around Knightdale, Zebulon and Wendell, pushed Malone, Tedesco and Sutton west, push Hill south and combined the remaining bits of Morrison & McLaurin into a single district.
If you were to start with a blank slate, you'd never end up with the districts that we had before the redistricting or after it. And, the main thing holding back the blank slate is that the board members act like pins, holding their districts to their home addresses. Pull out a few pins and things start getting a lot easier.
I can think of only one
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 08:50 — shearertwI can think of only one thing to say.....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBfYQOSSPqc&feature=related