Some have expressed surprised to see my name on the Democratic slate of candidates for the November election. Maybe not as surprised as I was.
I'm running for a seat on the Board of Education. All eligible Democratic seats are open. And while I have some misgivings that all current incumbent members have decided not to run, the opportunity to make a large-scale change on the Board is exciting.
I'm running with four other Democratic candidates, Franca Acuri Biales, Ava Marie Hart, Gene Nocera, and Mitchell Wynn. Only four of the five of us can be elected. The Republicans will announce their slate on Monday.
I'm running because, after reporting for three years for the Middletown Eye on the city and the BOE, I have concerns about education, progress in education and spending in education. I have expressed serious concerns about a Board and a school administration which does not communicate clearly, completely, honestly and with candor. I'm not naive enough to think I can solve all those problems, but I do think that with the help of concerned colleagues, much can be changed.
My immediate goals are straightforward, but not without complexity.
I will work for better communication between the board, and the public.
I will work for an end to the courtroom battles between the board and the city.
I will work toward complete and accurate accounting reports from the administration.
I will work for continued improvements in instruction and learning.
I will work to find the best administrators and teachers for our schools (most immediately a new principal for Woodrow Wilson).
I will work to help make our schools safe and productive for all students.
I will work to ensure that BOE funds are directed primarily at better education.
I will work towards good relationships with all BOE employees.
I will work to encourage identifying and rewarding those instructors who show success in educating our children.
I will work to implement better use of technology in learning.
I will work to encourage the city to understand that good schools are economic development generators, and should be supported as such.
I will work to emphasize that all members of the school administration are employees of the BOE, and not vice versa.
I will work to meet school administrators, teachers, parents and students and try to understand their needs and goals.
I am running as a Democrat, because I am a lifelong Democrat, and I believe, in general, in the principles of the Democratic party. I run as a Democrat, because a wise local politician gave me the sage advice that an independent cannot easily win. I run as a Democrat because, even though I was encouraged to run as a Republican, I could not possible put an (R) next to my name considering what Republicans are doing on the national level.
After expressing an interest in running I was encouraged to run by the Democratic town chairman, Lisa Santangelo, and by mayoral candidate Dan Drew. I was welcomed warmly to the race by Council member Jim Streeto with whom I've battled, and by Planning and Zoning members Quentin Phipps and Mike Johnson. I've also been encouraged to run by Mayor Sebastian Giuliano and Republican Council members Deb Kleckowski and Phil Pessina. I'm happy to say that I already have bipartisan support.
I was invited to run as a Democrat despite the fact that I am still collecting signatures on a petition to put a referendum question on the ballot that will let the public if Acting Chief Patrick McMahon should be appointed permanent chief. This shows me that many in the local Democratic party are willing to entertain dissenting voices.
I run as a Democrat because I hope, if elected, to prove that party affiliation should be hung outside the door when civic leaders gather to address problems. We are too small a town, with large problems needing to be solved, to abandon reason, progress and good ideas to party loyalty.
Finally, I'm leaving my leadership and founding role in the Middletown Eye because, frankly, I had reached the point of burnout after attending hundreds of meetings and events, and reporting on them as a volunteer citizen journalist. I came to learn that a newsblog like this one is essential when the larger news organizations are in such crisis. I also learned that it's possible to make a difference as a citizen journalist, but that real changes mean getting involved on the next level.
The Eye will continue to report city events as we recruit new and excited citizen journalists to continue the mission. I will remain in an advisory capacity and continue to write commentary, but I won't, and can't report on meetings where my reports could be viewed as prejudicial.
I have no aspirations for higher office. I don't, and won't, ever consider myself a politician. I want to make our schools and our city better. I really love living in Middletown, and hope I can have a role in making others feel the same way.
I encourage you to vote in November, and I ask you to vote for me. I promise you won't be disappointed in how hard I'll work to achieve the goals I've put forward.
23 comments:
Ed, I wish you luck in your efforts to gain a position on the BOE. You have my vote and Middletown's schools will be bettered by your participation. (It is a thankless job - Illegitimi non carborundum!)
Re the EYE; ThanX for founding the EYE and all you have contributed to its success. Your participation will be missed greatly. Hopefully someone as dedicated as yourself will step into the very big shoes vacated by your departure.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has for many years imposed a "fairness doctrine," requiring that public issues be presented and that each side of those issues be given fair coverage.
I hope The Middletown Eye will honor this rule.
Best Wishes
ED, Thank you for your work and commitment to a better Middletown.
We will all miss your work on the Eye. I wish you lots of luck with your campaign for the BOE.
Ed, it's great to hear about bipartisan support for you. I had the pleasure of serving on the board with Barbara Weiss (R), who devoted 18 years of service to the BOE. Our town should take every opportunity to loosen the strangle hold of politics.
Rewarding good teachers is a terrific idea. There are many who give it everything they've got, and it is a really demanding job. Getting rid of teachers who are putting in minimum effort, or are not fit to teach for a variety of reasons, would be a real achievement, of the Impossible Dream variety.
Dan:
I'm sure you know that the FCC does not have jurisdiction, yet, over the internet, or blogs, and that the fairness doctrine, no longer even applies to the commercial radio stations which the FCC should control.
That being said, unlike Fox news, or say WTIC-AM, we have always believed in fairness at the Middletown Eye, and are happy to receive reasoned commentary from any candidate.
Reasonably,
Ed
Ed,
As a devoted Eye reader, I will miss your posts. Thank you for all of your hard work.
I also wish you the best of luck in obtaining a position on the BOE. Although I am a registered Republican, all I really care about is getting people on the BOE who truly care about our children and you seem like such a person. I am sick of watching the Mayor and the BOE engage in child-like theatrics, to the detriment of our children.
Best Wishes,
Maureen
I hope you lose! Your Middletown Eye News Blog is terrible. Your news blog is a step below The Middletown Press. You claim to be fair in your blog and you are not. Your entries & news reports are very bias and it is obvious you will not be bias if you are elected to the Board of Education. People do not vote for him.
The Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987, according to Wikipedia which has quite a lengthy and interesting entry on the subject. Federal regulations or not, The Middletown Eye deserves kudos for striving to make information more public and accessible and for welcoming all views. It seems like the people complaining about the lack of some angle or perspective in the Eye could remedy the perceived problem by sending in their own commentary pieces to be published.
To Anonymous 5:33-
Sorry, as a teacher, I just can't help myself. "Bias" is a noun; as you know, it means "slant." One can *have* a bias, as you say Ed does; one cannot, however, *be* bias. You mean "biased," as in, "Ed's entries are biased." Or you could say, "Ed's entries are written with a distinct bias."
(Fun fact: "bias" is also a term used in tailoring. Cutting material on the diagonal (the bias) makes it drape differently than when it is cut straight.)
Don't worry, Anon.; I annoy *everybody* with this kind of stuff, especially my children. It's nothing personal.
By the way -- why not sign your name? :)
The Fairness Doctrine was an attempt by the Left to control the content of rightwing radio. The reason was simple---nobody listened to leftwing radio. Remember Air America? It had a listening audience of about two. So, in typical leftwing idealism, if you can't beat them, outlaw them.
In an ambiguous statement, Ed seems to hold out hope the Feds will control radio, the internet, and other current modes of free speech.Let's see, did Hitler do that BEFORE he controlled the banks, or AFTER? Does it really matter?
Dear Anonymous 5:33,
With endorsements like yours, I might actually be a contender.
"a step below the Middletown Press?" Well, the gauntlet has been thrown.
Thanks for your cheery disposition.
Ed
Further to Anonymous 5:33 -- your penultimate sentence doesn't make any sense. What were you trying to say when you wrote "it is obvious you will not be bias if you are elected"?
For that matter, what were you trying to express with "People do not vote for him." In the absence of helpful punctuation, this becomes a declarative sentence that leaves the reader confused -- no one has had a chance yet to vote for Ed, but I'm sure many of us look forward to the opportunity to do so.
I would be wary of making invidious comparisons with the Press if I could not write a clearer comment than yours.
Surprised? Not me. I never doubted your loyalty to the Democrat party.
I'm also not surprised you have no problem associating yourself with a national Democrat party that now runs 6 wars, shredded the constitution and has completely abandoned the middle class by creating more debt and a loss of jobs.
I'm sure you share Barney Frank's opinion that everything is all Worge Wush's fault.
Putting that aside, I wish you good luck in your election!
It's a shame that Anonymous' comments are being picked apart for grammar issues.
If only we had folks like Ed McKeon on the Board of Education when Anonymous was in school, we might understand what he/she is saying.
Perhaps Anonymous 5:33 is a product of the Middletown educational system? Shame on us all.
I noticed you didn't put up my last post.
This year I hope the Eye publishes names of relatives of the Council members who work for the City and BOE - we have a right to know-
Brian:
Before you spout, you ought to get your facts straight.
The fairness doctrine, instituted after a 1949 study, forced broadcast television and radio to air both sides of controversial issues. I emphasize "both sides" as the reason it was called the "fairness" doctrine. It should not be confused with the "equal time" doctrine(look it up).
The fairness doctrine was instituted far before Fox New was ever imagined. In addition, it only applied to broadcast media, and certainly not to the internet, which had also not been dreamed of.
The fairness doctrine was ended during the Reagan administration, despite claims that it hurt him because he was daily "savaged" by the networks (who obviously forgot to savage him later, when he was deified after his funeral). Perhaps Reagan was more prescient than given credit for, understanding that a conservative broadcast conglomerate would some day rise and need protection from "fairness."
Indeed, Congress tried to write the fairness doctrine into a law, which was inevitably vetoed by Reagan.
The original basis for the fairness doctrine came from the notion that the airwaves, as limited resources, were (and are) owned by the public and leased to private enterprises, and as public resources, ought to be available to the public.
The so-called free-market broadcasters have had the final hardy-har-har on that romantic illusion.
And so, despite what Rush says, Brian, I don't know what the fairness doctrine has to do with Hitler, the internet or Air America, but I guess the concepts are unfortunately intertwined in your mind.
As I've said often, we're open to all sorts of opinions here, even the crackpot variety.
In all fairness,
Ed
anon 10:10am asking the Eye to publish names of relatives of Council members who work for the city or BOE. Seems like you may be suggesting that A+B=C in that- "person is a relative of a council member" + "person works for the City" = "person obtained the job unfairly." I think this is inappropriate. It could be true in some cases, but certainly not most or all. Also, I am not sure if there is a "right to know" as you state. Now, we could investigate how many people in city government have a relative with some association to Wesleyan. I bet that would be a high number, but does it prove anything about the relationship between Wesleyan and the city? Not really. (just an example! let's not jump into any discussion about Wesleyan please). Middletown is technically a city but it's really a small place. It's a small world and people need jobs. In order to do this fairly we would have to use statistics such as, what percent of city workers are related to council members, versus what percent of hospital workers are related to council members, weighted and corrected to account for how many city jobs there are and how many hospital jobs there are, or something to that effect. And how to determine any of that is a mystery to me. Maybe you can clarify your request, or rethink it. Thanks for relying on us for information!
Although we may have disagreed with just about everything in the past I never stooped to name-calling and character assasination. I guess you are the perfect Democrat. Just a sneak peek into the type of politician you aspire to be?
Thanks for your insight into the Fairness Doctrine. I am familiar with Wikipedia. If you delved deeper it showed that in recent years it was all Dems that wanted to reinstate the doctrine-and not because of equal time, but because they were getting killed on the airwaves.
The reference to Hitler is simple-if you want to control the people the government must control communications. That is what he did-look it up in Wikipedia.
I'm sure Reagan had precient visions of Fox news and Hannity.Seems when you stray from Wikipedia you tend to invent the truth. ANY Liberal entity is free to create their own radio network.Lord knows they did so on TV. The only thing that is stopping them is a history of failure.
Well, this "crackpot" is signing off from The Eye. Bet you are sad, but it was fun until you got personal.I'd wish you the best of luck in your political future--but then I would be lying.
33
I realize the comments on this one posting are reaching epic length, but I must respond to Topher. I do not think it is unfair to pick apart a comment for its grammar, because grammar is what underpins verbal communication. Without agreed-upon conventions of grammar, spelling and punctuation, we have no common language. Without a common language, why bother to read or write our neighbors' commentary?
Ed, I hope this marriage lasts. But if it doesn't it will say more about the party than you.
Brian:
Such thin skin. Name-calling and character assassination, really?
Your myth-making about the Fairness Doctrine is as water-tight as a colander. Your suggestion that I get all my information from Wikipedia is insulting, but not as insulting as resurrecting the specter of Hitler once again.
You got it wrong, and then tried to build a case on factless facts. Of these arguments crackpots are born.
When you're tired of complaining and want to actually do something, raise your hand.
But since you aren't reading the Eye anymore, it doesn't do me much good to ask you to be a big boy and sign your entire name.
Throwing bricks from behind the curtain of anonymity is such an adolescent thing to do.
Peace.
Ed
Post a Comment