At any rate, at the meetings last night Delegates were elected. In District 5, no candidate emerged to challenge incumbent Supervisor Dennis Morris within the party. Early word was that HB Sager, backed by Morris foe Mark Prince, would run within the party, but he did not file on April 2nd and there are reports that he has been circulating filing petitions to run as an indy. Additionally, no nominations will be allowed from the floor unless a candidate has not filed for that office, and as far as I know, Morris did indeed file.

Regardless, the meetings were still held in District 5. In Toms Brook, we had a grand total of three people and elected 17 delegates. In Mt. Olive, six people attended and elected 25 delegates. 

In District Four there was a much different story. A late challenger arose to incumbent Sharon Baroncelli, Carolyn Miller, a former jailer at the county jail. Early reports indicate that 58 people were in attendance. It should be noted that a handful of people is far, far more common. However, this is a contested nomination–hence the turnout. According to a source, there were a number of motions made that were withdrawn–however, when the dust cleared, it appeared that Baroncelli had elected the most delegates, 41, to Miller’s 17. Since delegates are not pledged to any particular candidate, the nomination is still technically up in the air. Indeed, there will be a candidate’s forum at the County Breakfast at the Mt. Jackson Denny’s at 9 A.M. this Saturday. However, with such an overwhelming advantage, Miller may very well pull out, unless Fort Valley offered up a suprise (doubtful, given that Miller is from Woodstock). The big question: will she take advantage of the loophole that allows the loser of party run processes (canvasses, conventions, and mass meetings) to run as an independent if they gather the signatures in time? Will another independent arise? Will the Dems take advantage of their increasing share in the District and file someone? 

Still waiting on word from District 1. However, last we heard, no one filed other than Dick Neese. Another Dem challenge doesn’t seem likely, but might we see an independent? Doubtful, since Neese tends not to track much controversy, but with the county’s budget still up in the air and a general anti-incumbent mood striking conservatives these days, possibilities abound.

As I mentioned, although Twitter is often used to keep families in touch, politicians are using it to keep constituents and fans constantly up to date. Not all elected officials do their own twittering, but many are twittering live from meetings, even some behind closed doors: two Republican members of Congress sent over twenty “tweets” (as messages on twitter are known) from last week’s meeting with President Obama. However, not everyone is enthused about the innovation.

From Politico:

Andrew Rasiej, founder of the Personal Democracy Forum, a conference and website focused on the intersection of technology and politics, says it’s all for the good. He believes that “real-time constituent communications” soon will become “the norm rather than the exception” — a development that will lead to “more transparency and more citizen participation, hopefully resulting in a better democracy.”

Perhaps, but isn’t it rude to pay more attention to your handheld than to your colleagues?

Jacqueline Whitmore, an etiquette expert based in Palm Beach, Fla., and New York, thinks so. 

“When you’re sitting in the room with the president of the United States and you’re on Twitter, what are your priorities?” she said. “And I also think it is a bit disrespectful to the person you’re with.”

The article then goes on to talk about how a simple tweet, while taking 30 seconds or so to complete, might take five minutes of someone’s attention. Still, as with every technology, there is a balance to be had. Certainly you should not be tweeting non-stop when you are expected to be an active participant in a meeting, but when you are a passive observer or listening to a speaker that may be of importance to hundreds of people, then Twitter is the perfect technology. 

ABC News points out that the GOP is taking advantage of Twitter in the process of re-branding themselves as the party of small government and transparency:

 

Fifty members of Congress use the micro-blogging service Twitter to communicate with constituents, according to the Sunlight Foundation, a non-partisan watchdog group that advocates for greater transparency through technology.

One might think that the party of our BlackBerry-wielding, text-happy president would be the one to lead the way in this ever-expanding Twitter-verse.

But, in Congress, it appears that, according to Sunlight, Twittering Republicans outnumber their Democratic counterparts almost 2 to 1.

“It is ironic, but they’re in the process of rebranding themselves,” Thomas Whalen, a political historian at Boston University, told ABCNews.com, adding that Republicans partly attribute their loss in November to Barack Obama’s tech-savviness.

“Because they’re the party of the outs, it behooves them to open the government,” he said.

 

Be sure  to check out the rest of the article for some great quotes from Texas Congressman John Culberson about why the GOP is so readily embracing twitter. Twitter is the perfect tool for two reasons: One, to communicate with the youth demographic that so readily abandoned the party last fall. Two, Twitter helps underscore the movement towards the GOP being the party of transparency. 

I think Twittering has applications and should be embraced from the bottom up–any Board candidates or members interested in embracing Web 2.0?

However, members of Citizens for Honest Government complain that alternatives to new construction have not been seriously considered.

“We’ve been against [building new schools] all along,” Citizens for Honest Government’s Fred Hughes said Wednesday. “We’ve suggested redistricting. We’ve suggested to them that there’s no real need for schools at this time, no proven need in the future. We’ve suggested that they build up instead of out.”

Hughes provided a list of options he said he presented to the supervisors and School Board members in December 2007. These included moving fifth-graders to the middle schools at the northern and central campuses, using portable classroom trailers, eliminating the use of empty classrooms for teacher planning time, adding on to current schools and redistricting.

But, those options weren’t given proper consideration, Hughes said.

“The only people that the supervisors are listening to is the school board, and the school board is not listening to anybody,” he said.

Suzanne Curran had even hotter words for the Board:

he public’s money is still paying for the projects, Suzanne Curran, of Citizens for Honest Government, said Wednesday. She wasn’t at Tuesday’s meeting.

“The government, whether it be local, state or federal, does not ever earn money on its own,” she said. “It takes money from those of us who earn it. Any money that they have tucked away some place was tax money to begin with. Right now, the General Assembly is in session determining how much money they’re going to cut from local education pots of money.

“It’s just nuts. Maybe this money was going to be needed to offset what doesn’t come from the state so we can keep functioning here. We don’t know how long this economic downturn will continue. I’m offended by what I see as poor decision-making.”

The board defended itself by saying that this was a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and that the move did not constitute an endorsement for school construction. However, some of the Board member’s individual involvement seems to indicate otherwise. Additionally, I hardly think the school board will view this as less than an endorsement. Indeed, Superintendant Rowland quickly came out swinging for two new schools, even going so far to acknowledge that a tax increase will be needed. 

I agree that due dilligence was not given to all the suggestions from CHG, which from my understanding were first presented to the School Board over a year ago. Here they are:

• Moving Grade 5
• Portable Classrooms
• Conversion of special instructional spaces
• Revised scheduling
• Reducing planning time
• Redistricting 
• Smaller buildings 
• Build additions to existing schools

Granted, I’m not sure how many have merit–the fifth graders were already moved less than a decade ago. Also, many of the suggestions will not be met without public concern, if not in some quarters downright outrage. You’ve never seen an angry parent in a rural area until you bring up the words “redistricting.”

Still, I will admit, I am not a structural engineer, so I don’t if we can build up instead of out as CHG suggests. However, I’m man enough to admit it, and I would at least like to know before I make up my mind. So far, I haven’t gotten an answer. I think a combination of these suggestions could likely bring about a workable solution. 

Frankly, I think our current problems stem from the decision over 40 years ago to move to the campus system. This further divided the communities and created a precedent for moving kids up through the same campus. I will grant that this does provide more community support throughout a child’s early years, but now you have the problem of uneven growth in the county and therefore major issues in the lower levels. 

But that’s the past: Let’s find a workable solution NOW, particularly when we have major issues with our economy.