Even to do a poor job, the amount of time, the learning curve, and responsibility generated by sitting on any of the elected boards is a great deal for a citizen to take on. There is always a balance to be reached between a citizen board and an "experts" (for lack of a more exact term) board. A case can be made for increasing the honoraria or stipends for those boards. However, it was designed as a citizen's board (at least in the case of the library). (That's why J. Cherryhomes mother received a lot of flack as a board member--she was a retired librarian. Why that same situation didn't occur when Virginia Holt, another retired librarian, was elected, I don't know.) It is a myth that being on the elected boards (library, park, education, estimates & taxation) is a first step to higher office. People get on these boards because they have a (probably) unnatural mania about parks, etc. All the honoraria do is offset the cost to a certain extent of attending meetings (taking off work, finding a baby or parent caregiver) and the other baggage associated with any public office. The rest winds up supporting the next campaign to stay in office (or so I've been told). For my own part, having inserted myself among the candidates last election season, I ran because I knew that the staff was not willing to hear what its constituents were saying and the board didn't appear to either. A lot of that attitude was a matter of class issues as well as badly outdated past practice. It was like pushing a rock uphill with our noses to get the rigidly fixed library management staff and board (with exceptions, of course) to bend enough to listen--not necessarily hear, but just listen--to what their constituency was saying. Then too, having heard what constituents said, in some cases, there was a lack of skill and tools to implement any changes. The drawback of every entrenched bureaucracy is that it isn't very flexible. We are probably lucky, at least in the case of the library, that it isn't any bigger and consequently even more rigid. WizardMarks, Central
Pamela Taylor wrote: >Michelle, > >And I have no illusions that anyone will get rich on that, either. However, >it does pay a few bills here and there. And I am not so convinced that the >job done thus far by the MPSB has been that great. So maybe we got just >about as much as we paid for. > >Pamela Taylor >(Clearwater, FL) > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Michelle Mensing >Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 11:22 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [Mpls] School Board elections > >Pamela Taylor posts: > >>I mean no personal disrespect to anyone, but IMHO there should be term >>limits on the school board. >>There has been too many years of the status quo being maintained. >>Eventually, you have to look at who is helping make those decisions. >> >>Food for thought: Would some of these candidates still be running if >> >there > >>were no monetary compensation attached to the job? >> > >MM: Refering to information in the New Guide to State and Local Elections >in this weeks SW Journal edition, school board members make $9,600 annually >for their service. I find it hard to believe that this amount of money >would motivate anybody to do the job they take on. > >Michelle Mensing >Armatage > > > >_______________________________________ >Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy >Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: >http://e-democracy.org/mpls > >_______________________________________ >Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy >Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: >http://e-democracy.org/mpls > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
