Ron Margiotta was re-elected chairman of the Wake County school board in a 5-4 vote today over Kevin Hill.
There had been heavy lobbying for the chair's slot. Hill in particular had lobbied Debra Goldman to cross party lines to back him. The votes were done by written ballot and will be made public later.
UPDATE
Multiple votes are being made to determine a vice chair among John Tedesco, Keith Sutton, Chris Malone and Goldman. It appears the Democrats are sticking with Sutton while the Republicans are fracturing their support.
Deborah Prickett got a vote on the eighth balllot for a five-way race.
We're starting the 15th ballot now with some Democrats getting votes to go along with Sutton. Presumably some Republicans would rather pick a Democrat at this point than unify behind one person. If they unified, presumably Margiotta would pick the Republican nnd break the tie.
They've recessed after the 16th ballot. We'll see if anything takes place before they come back.
During the recess, I checked on the earlier votes.
The board chair vote was along party lines.
The first round of the vice chair vote had all four Democrats voting for Sutton. Goldman voted for herself and the other three Republicans voted for Tedesco.
One of the Democrats compromised on round two and voted for a Republican making it a 3-3-2 split.
Since then, the Democrats have all hung together for Sutton and the Republicans have voted across the board.
The recess didn't solve things. The 17th ballot was split four ways.
After 30 rounds of voting there's still no resolution.
We've just finished round 41. While I haven't checked the votes since the recess it's likely that Goldman is still refusing to back Tedesco which would result in a tie that Margiotta could break.
Of the first 47 rounds, 22 of them have seen Sutton with four votes, Tedesco with three and Goldman with one.
They took a recess after the 50th vote. Majestic says the board can't move on to the regular meeting without first completing the annual meeting.
A 26-minute recess failed to accomplish anything as the 51st ballot again had four for Sutton, three for Tedesco and one for Goldman.
Tedesco was elected vice chairman on the 56th ballot after Goldman announced she would stop voting for herself. She voted for Tedesco to make a 4-4 tie that Margiotta broke.
It's late so I'll blog more about the vote and other stuff on Wednesday.
Comments
56 ballots to elect a vice-chairman
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 13:35 — Athey01Is this the way 9 adults behave? It was painful and embarrassing to watch. I wonder what Mr. Tata and Ms Majestic thought of this time consuming "exercise" by those elected to focus on the education our children.
9 adults? You mean 1 adult -
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 15:01 — woodstock9 adults? You mean 1 adult - Goldman? She held the key from the first ballot. Neither side wanted her back in as vice chair and it took her 55 votes for her to get that.
At least the Republican
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 16:58 — Jeff_morseAt least the Republican voted for other people and the Four Dems only voted for Mr. Sutton... By they way did anyone elese notice that Mr. Sutton opened Mrs Morrison's Ballot almost every vote to see who she voted for? I found it very interesting.
Well...
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 13:48 — Bob_SconceThat's really not that uncommon in organizations where there are more than two views represented. Conclave, where the Pope is elected, often has a number of ballots. Look also at elections for Prime Minister in countries where there are more than two dominant parties.
It sounds bad, but I think that's only because it's so foreign to us. We would have the same problem in the election of the Speaker of the House if, for example, the Green Party and the Socialist Party had any significant number of seats.
Pope, I understand.... Prime Minister, I understand...
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 16:45 — Athey01but Vice Chairman (not Chairman) of a local school board... that I don't understand. The total unwillingness to compromising or work together, in becoming an ongoing theme of this ego-driven board.
Well...
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 17:25 — Bob_Sconcethe point is that there are three different parties involved here -there's the R's, the D's and the G. Unless one of them has an absolute majority, this is exactly what you should expect. I don't think it's ego-centric; it's a natural result of a very fragile majority.
However, I agree that the whole thing of casting ballot after ballot without any discussion in between is somewhat dysfunctional.
Did you notice the expression on Kevin Hill's face as Tedesco and Goldman hugged behind him? Check out the photo -- Priceless.
What a JOKE
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 07:22 — SatchHHWhat a bunch of silly nonsense. This Republican majority is an embarrassment to our county. They've been sending us downhill ever since they got elected. Stephen Colbert had it right to mock what's going on. They take 50+ votes to elect a VICE Chair and spend less time and thought on voting OUT consideration of SES or student achievement in our assignment policy. These folks don't care a bit about our educational system unless it's just to drive WCPSS to the ground so Ron's charter and private school friends can make a killing. Oh yeah - let's not worry about special needs kids - they can go to their "public, non charter schools."
Ron needs to go
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:31 — EBDarcyJust another sign of Margiotta's total failure as a leader. All of that nonsense just to prevent Sutton from being Vice Chair.
Doesn't this put Tedesco into even deeper trouble as far as his new job being a conflict of interest if not a violation of the code of ethics? Not only can he potentially vote on issues now he will be able to set the agenda as well.
Funny...
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 11:06 — Bob_SconceI thought that it was a lot of nonsense just to keep Tedesco or Goldman from being Vice Chair.
Personally, I'm amazed that people keep harping on this bizarre conflict of interest idea. Since when did working to improve education conflict with the obligations of a school director?
Don't know why you are amazed
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 16:24 — EBDarcyThis is clearly a conflict of interest. Doesn't this look like some GOP donors have basically created a job for Tedesco? Would he have this job if he weren't on the BOE? Of course not.
Check out WRAL's story and the comments that follow. No one is "harping" they are asking questions. Aren't BOE members supposed to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest?
So...
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 16:38 — Bob_SconceHere's the board's confict of interest policy:
http://www.wcpss.net/policy-files/series/policies/1036-bp.html
Please tell me what part of that is a problem.
What GOP donors? According to what I've seen, Art Pope has nothing to do with this. But, even if he did, so what? Heck, let's pretend that JT was a member of the executive board of the Republican Party; what's the conflict?
Would he have the job if he wasn't on the BoE? Ignoring the fact that he wouldn't have LOST HIS PREVIOUS ONE if he wasn't on the BoE, let's assume that the answer is NO: so what? He's gained a lot of experience and knowledge about education in the 1.5 years he's been on the board, and he's shown a lot of passion for education. Those two things naturally made him a much more attractive candidate for this job.
It is conceivable that somewhere, down the road, his new employer may come out with, say, a math curriculum, that the school board is asked to sign onto. At that point, he may have a conflict and would have to refrain from voting on the matter. But, until that happens, all you have is some inchoate fear that somehow his being involved in education policy is going to conflict him out of board decisions.
according to Tedesco
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 21:58 — EBDarcyTedesco retracted his claims that he lost his job because of the BOE gig. Do you have evidence that he's lying about that?
"Aren't BOE members supposed to avoid even the appearance of
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 16:34 — AngelaWconflict of interest?"
dunno, why don't you ask Mrs. Anne McLaurin-Meeker, you know, the Mayor of Raleigh's wife?
except
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 21:57 — EBDarcyAnd both of them were elected to those offices. Is there some law against spouses both being elected public officials? And McLaurin isn't working for a group that is trying to reform the system she helps govern.
Nope...
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 23:07 — Bob_SconceNo such law. Just like there's no law that says a school director can't also be the CEO of a school reform group.
The reason the two things are similar is this: There's a claim that John's new employer is funded by people who have a specific agenda for the public schools, and that John's relationship with his employer would conflict with his obligations to the school district. But, if that's a valid claim, then McLaurin has the same problem since Charles Meeker ALSO has a specific agenda for the public schools, so McLaurin's relationship with her husband would create a similar conflict with HER obligations to the school district.
I'm beginning to think that you're just a troll -- your arguments really aren't very well thought out.
Why do you keep calling
Thu, 06/23/2011 - 09:11 — virginiadareWhy do you keep calling school board members school directors? The more common usage is that school directors are administrative employees (ie "Director of Special Ed), not elected board members. It's very confusing for you to use that term to mean board members. In Wake County they have never been called anything but school board members.
I think the argument is valid. The organization who has hired John has as its sole reason for being a specific agenda for the public schools. Charles Meeker is an elected official and leader who has an opinion, but no authority. Should he not be allowed to express that opinion just because his wife is a schoool board member? John is getting paid by the organization that is trying to "reform" schools as well as getting paid to be a school board member. McLaurin is not being paid by any other individual or organization to implement their agenda for the Wake County Public School System and is under no obligation to agree with her husband's opinion or to vote on school policy the way her husband might wish. (Does your wife agree with your every opinion?) You can't see that difference? John's very livelihood now depends on his doing his employers' bidding, whether it would be in the best interests of Wake County public school students or not. Seems like a conflict of interest to me.
So...
Thu, 06/23/2011 - 10:25 — Bob_Sconce1. Why do I refer to them as school directors? I agree that's not common parlance in NC, but it is elsewhere (see, e.g., http://www2.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/governance/ or http://www.psba.org/issues-advocacy/issues-research/schools-schoolboards/profile-school-directors.asp ) and it matches their roles -- the school district is run under the authority of the school board, just as a corporation is run under the authority of its board of directors. Plus, saying "director" is more concise than saying "board member" -- "member" is a role, not a title.
2. I pointed to board policy on conflicts above. Please tell me which part of that John is violating.
I don't agree with every opinion of those who employ me, just like I don't agree with all of Mrs. Sconce's opinions. However, I would be in some serious trouble if I consistently went against the interests of either my employer or my wife. I don't see any evidence John is being paid to "implement their agenda for the Wake County Public School System." If he were, then I agree that it would be a huge problem -- it wouldn't be a conflict of interest, it would be bribery!
Personally, I think the entire thing is absurd. John's working for an organization whose purpose is to improve education. He's a member of the board (better?) of a government organization whose purpose is to improve eduation. I would have thought this was a good thing.
I guess I am referring more
Thu, 06/23/2011 - 11:22 — virginiadareI guess I am referring more to a generic "conflict of interest", the spirit rather than the letter of the "law" or policy. Maybe "bribery" would be a better term. He could lose his job if he doesn't do as they wish, which might or might not be in the best interest of WCPSS. Wonder if he would resign if he could not in good conscience implement their agenda on the Wake County School Board. "Improve education", like "reform", is a relative term. Much of what this group wants to do would actually harm public education, in my view.
So...
Thu, 06/23/2011 - 11:37 — Bob_SconceI'm not sure that they could fire him if "he doesn't do as they wish," at least vis-a-vis the school board. That'd be a great wrongful termination case and probably lead to some sort of criminal sanctions against the employer.
Further, I'd expect John to have an employment agreement which covers exactly this sort of situation. If he doesn't, he should.
What does the group want to do? It's only been in existence for a month or so.
Isn't NC a state that allows
Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:38 — danofncIsn't NC a state that allows your employer to fire you for whatever they wish?
So...
Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:13 — Bob_SconceSee the wikipedia entry on "wrongful dismissal."
Sorry...don't see the
Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:28 — danofncSorry...don't see the relevance.
If his employer sets its agenda as wanting to do A, B, and C, and he has a vote as a board member that makes A, B, or C not happen, I don't believe there's a reason that they couldn't let him go.
I'm not particularly enamored with the idea of a sitting school board member being the leader of a group that champions the charter school cause, which seems to be what this organization is going to do.
EMPLOYMENT-AT-WILL
Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:54 — AngelaWhttp://www.nclabor.com/wh/fact%20sheets/eaw.htm
However, I would be in some
Thu, 06/23/2011 - 11:05 — shank56However, I would be in some serious trouble if I consistently went against the interests of either my employer or my wife.
Sconce,
Take notes from Mary Matalin and James Carville - they made it work.
great minds...
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 19:34 — louiselee44I was just about to ask the same question when I saw your post! That's been bugging me ever since she got elected, especially since Mayor Meeker has made it very clear which "side" he supports.
Heh...
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 17:50 — Bob_Sconce"appearance of a conflict of interest" is far too subjective to be a workable. Heck, you could use that to say that any board member with children in the schools has a conflict. Or, any board member who pays taxes has a conflict. Or, any board member who's ever gotten behind a slow school bus has a conflict.
LOLOL!! How does one "make a
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 09:08 — woodstockLOLOL!! How does one "make a killing" on charter schools? Charter schools are PUBLIC schools. Please explain. As for the private schools, they are NON-PROFIT, so who exactly is getting rich?
Both charter and private schools ARE part of our education system... a high quality system includes choice/options. Ideally the all the components -- public and private -- would work together and not in opposition to each other
Great job, great outcome!
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 06:55 — woodstockGreat job, great outcome!
figures
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 07:27 — SatchHHWoodstock - you would think it's a great job to spend hours and 56 votes to get these two embarrassments (bring out the animals, prom queen) elected to lead our school board. What a joke. This board needs to spend their time on real issues. Oh yeah, they voted to NOT have special committees like Finance (Malone as chair), Student Achievement (Prickett as chair), etc. Those issues don't need any extra time when the decisions have all been made by puppet masters. What a sad time for Wake County. Pope and Luddy are laughing at all the poor sops who actually need a good public school system.
The only people being
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 08:59 — woodstockThe only people being laughed at are folks like you who want to keep WCPSS mired in the 1960s and return to failed and antiquated status quo policies.
Margiotta explained that the committees were redundant. The committees met -- with limited participation -- then had to meet again for discussions with the full board. THAT was the joke... and it was enormously inefficient.
Get the facts.
As for Pope and Luddy... well you probably believe JFK's assination is still unsolved and that the Moon landing was fake, so....
What a bunch of clowns!
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 23:54 — IDoverHow funny to see the Republican BOE members stumbling all over themselves. I guess now J "Tea Baggin' Tedesco can now proclaim that he once again "won by a landslide." What a joke.
...
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 20:26 — SideburnsI wonder if Goldman had pre-planned on waiting it out 56 times to honor her parents. How very weird.
Doesn't Goldman get it, NO
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 20:14 — woodstockDoesn't Goldman get it, NO ONE wants her as vice chair.
Update: Oh, maybe she does get it. :)
Congrats to Tedesco.
It's the other way around -
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 23:14 — wireless200It's the other way around - she doesn't want him as vice-chair and I can't say that I blame her. He's demonstrated that his maturity and self-control are below-par for the job. And let's be honest - do you really want someone's fingers in the Wake budget who can't manage his own mortgage payments? Might as well let a Democrat do it.
Way to go Ron and John
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 21:43 — FSandYOUGlad you're staying around Ron and way to go John. You're on a roll. Keep it up.
Should be entertaining
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 20:20 — Solon77At least it will be entertaining.
There is no way they will
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 19:59 — woodstockThere is no way they will ever elect a mouthpiece for the NCAAP -- Sutton -- for vice-chair.
Of course, Goldman is once again the obstacle. When is the GOP going to excommunicate her sorry...?
Mouthpiece
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 07:31 — SatchHHI disagree that Sutton is a mouthpiece for the NAACP. BUT it is clear that RM and JT are mouthpieces for Republican/Tea Party folks. Guess it's OK to have an public school bashing mouthpiece as leader of a public school system. JT is shameful in the way he bashes teachers at tea party rallies. It's obvious they want to tear down WCPSS.
Give an example of Tedesco
Wed, 06/22/2011 - 16:59 — woodstockGive an example of Tedesco "bashing teachers." Never happened. Provide some evidence the he wants to "tear down WCPSS." You can't. YOU are the shameful one.
If Goldman doesn't want to
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 19:28 — WakeCountyParentIf Goldman doesn't want to support Tedesco, why doesn't she just vote for Sutton and be done with it?
Sutton? You mean Mini Me...
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 20:01 — woodstockSutton? You mean Mini Me... "Me" being Barber??
Hiu, why do you continue
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 20:05 — duvalHiu, why do you continue allow the offinsive and often racist remarks by Woodstock?
LOL Name one racist comment
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 20:09 — woodstockLOL Name one racist comment I have EVER made. You are way off base with a comment like that.
' Paraphrasing..."big black
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 20:11 — duval'
Paraphrasing..."big black man dancing around his living room dressed in a pink tutu..."
Recall??
LOLOL... uh, that is NOT
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 20:17 — woodstockLOLOL... uh, that is NOT "paraphrasing" that is simply putting words in my mouth. You are shameless.
OK Hiu, pull it up. It was
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 20:22 — duvalOK Hiu, pull it up. It was on this blog.
LOL I know what you are
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 20:56 — woodstockLOL I know what you are trying to refer too... . but it had nothing whatsoever to do with race, and it never does with me. I don't play that game.
...
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 20:38 — SideburnsWeren't you the one crying a few days ago that you weren't anyone's research assistant? And now you demand that Keung find something on the blog for you? And misspell his name -- twice -- while demanding it?
First of all...
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 20:28 — Bob_SconceFirst of all ... his name is Hui, not Hiu.
Second of all ... the main page for this blog has a search feature. I suggest using it.
Third of all, except for your post, the only reference to a tutu was here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/margiotta-rejects-naacp-request-for-presentation-at-board-meeting
Fourth of all, "mini me" is a reference to being smaller (a crack on Barber's weight, not his race) and balder (a crack on Sutton's hairstyle, not his race.) Offensive? Sure. Racist? No. Unless, that is, you take the view that any crack on a person's looks is racist when the target is black.
Hui...Typo, sorry. So, do
Tue, 06/21/2011 - 20:33 — duvalHui...Typo, sorry.
So, do you recall the remarks I paraphrased because I did not do a search through woodstocks gazillion posts in the past 2 months?