BOE Election - Vote November 2, 2021

tjohn said:

nohero said:

Second of all, abstaining from a vote is not the same as not participating in the decision.

Not to the average common person.  To a lawyer, probably, but they are trained to view the world differently.

 I'm going to disagree with you, because "the average common person" isn't naïve about how things work. Lots of "average common people" have been on boards or committees that take votes. 


You can slice it however you like.  What it impossible is to package the abstention in a favorable way during a political campaign.


An abstention by an elected official is difficult to justify, unless that official has some sort of conflict of interest.

And the principal job of the Bd. of Ed. is hiring a Superintendent.



Average common person here. The abstention did impact my vote. However, it was far from being the only thing that made me not vote for them. I did vote for them for their first term.  


STANV said:

An abstention by an elected official is difficult to justify, unless that official has some sort of conflict of interest.

And the principal job of the Bd. of Ed. is hiring a Superintendent.

A conflict of interest should not result in an abstention; it should result in a recusal. 


tjohn said:

You can slice it however you like.  What it impossible is to package the abstention in a favorable way during a political campaign.

 Agreed.  Talking to people today, the other big factor is the complete lack of transparency on Cuttle’s background.  Where does/did Cuttle work?  Where did Cuttle go to school?   None of this basic information is available (look at Cuttle’s LinkedIn page and campaign materials). 

We don’t need every last detail on someone’s background, but basic facts like job experience and education are fundamental.  Why the secret?


michaelgoldberg said:

tjohn said:

You can slice it however you like.  What it impossible is to package the abstention in a favorable way during a political campaign.

 Agreed.  Talking to people today, the other big factor is the complete lack of transparency on Cuttle’s background.  Where does/did Cuttle work?  Where did Cuttle go to school?   None of this basic information is available (look at Cuttle’s LinkedIn page and campaign materials). 

We don’t need every last detail on someone’s background, but basic facts like job experience and education are fundamental.  Why the secret?

Thank you!  What does Cuttle do for a living?  Why is this a secret?  I don't understand the lack of transparency.  They claim to be a recognized leader in many areas but where is the proof?


In his letter to the Village Green supporting Cuttle, as well as Telesford and Vadlamani, former TC member David Huemer explained Cuttle's refusal to discuss their work history in the following way. Though I'd submit that even their current professional status is unknown.

https://villagegreennj.com/opinion/letter-cuttle-telesford-and-vadlamani-will-lead-a-successful-board-of-education/

"The negative, exclusionary nature of their attacks on Shannon reveal a lack of compassion, a blindness to the reluctance marginalized people feel to revisit every detail of their past, and an unwillingness to campaign based on the here and now, on issues and substance.Shannon’s service and record since moving here in 2013 is out there for all of us to evaluate."


I found an article from 2011 that was very informative.  Cuttle was an elementary school teacher early in their career and then founded the Safe Schools Action Network (SSAN).  The only site I can find on the SSAN is the network's Facebook page, which has very limited information.  

https://feministteacher.com/2011/02/04/interview-with-safe-schools-advocate-shannon-cuttle-one-hundred-days-of-bullying/


“revisit every detail of their past”????

No - nobody cares about every detail. However, current employment/source of income and education is fundamental information for ANY candidate to share and is far more relevant than someone’s sexual orientation.   A candidate who can’t share that basic information should be disqualified. The voters got it right.  


michaelgoldberg said:

“revisit every detail of their past”????

No - nobody cares about every detail. However, current employment/source of income and education is fundamental information for ANY candidate to share and is far more relevant than someone’s sexual orientation.   A candidate who can’t share that basic information should be disqualified. The voters got it right.  

Just for reference: Gender identity is separate from sexual orientation:

https://www.glaad.org/how-sexual-orientation-different-gender-identity

https://www.chp.edu/-/media/chp/departments-and-services/adolescent-and-young-adult-medicine/documents/gender-and-sexual-development/basic-definitions-sogie.pdf?la=en


sprout said:

michaelgoldberg said:

“revisit every detail of their past”????

No - nobody cares about every detail. However, current employment/source of income and education is fundamental information for ANY candidate to share and is far more relevant than someone’s sexual orientation.   A candidate who can’t share that basic information should be disqualified. The voters got it right.  

Just for reference: Gender identity is separate from sexual orientation:

https://www.glaad.org/how-sexual-orientation-different-gender-identity

https://www.chp.edu/-/media/chp/departments-and-services/adolescent-and-young-adult-medicine/documents/gender-and-sexual-development/basic-definitions-sogie.pdf?la=en

And?  That is equally irrelevant to someone’s qualifications. However, employment experience and education are critical to someone’s qualifications.   


Just for reference. You appeared to be conflating the two.


michaelgoldberg said:

And?  That is equally irrelevant to someone’s qualifications. However, employment experience and education are critical to someone’s qualifications.   

And … acknowledging and understanding the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity is probably a good indication of someone’s ability or willingness to acknowledge and understand the privacy choices at issue here, whether or not someone agrees with them in the context of public office.


There were 5 candidates running for 3 seats. 

One had a 3 year record of service, votes and POV. And happens to be openly transgender. Through a supporter that candidate found a way to express their reluctance to discuss personal life, rather than relevant BOE service: 

"The negative, exclusionary nature of their attacks on Shannon reveal a lack of compassion, a blindness to the reluctance marginalized people feel to revisit every detail of their past, and an unwillingness to campaign based on the here and now, on issues and substance.Shannon’s service and record since moving here in 2013 is out there for all of us to evaluate."

The other 4 candidates were vying to prove their qualifications for the BOE and for public service. 

Why the fascination with Cuttle's background? To what end? The election is over.


DaveSchmidt said:

michaelgoldberg said:

And?  That is equally irrelevant to someone’s qualifications. However, employment experience and education are critical to someone’s qualifications.   

And … acknowledging and understanding the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity is probably a good indication of someone’s ability or willingness to acknowledge and understand the privacy choices at issue here, whether or not someone agrees with them in the context of public office.

Privacy?  When running for office, disclosure of your employment  and education isn’t an issue of privacy.  It’s about transparency and credentials.  

Ironic that a candidate who wants equality for their lifestyle, also wants special treatment.  Equality means equality all around.  


Maybe that should be upgraded to a very good indication of someone’s willingness to understand even in disagreement.


michaelgoldberg said:

Ironic that a candidate who wants equality for their lifestyle, ...

"Lifestyle"?


shestheone said:

There were 5 candidates running for 3 seats. 

One had a 3 year record of service, votes and POV. And happens to be openly transgender. Through a supporter that candidate found a way to express their reluctance to discuss personal life, rather than relevant BOE service: 

"The negative, exclusionary nature of their attacks on Shannon reveal a lack of compassion, a blindness to the reluctance marginalized people feel to revisit every detail of their past, and an unwillingness to campaign based on the here and now, on issues and substance.Shannon’s service and record since moving here in 2013 is out there for all of us to evaluate."

The other 4 candidates were vying to prove their qualifications for the BOE and for public service. 

Why the fascination with Cuttle's background? To what end? The election is over.

I am interested in the qualifications of every BOE candidate.  This includes their current occupation, relevant experience (past and present), relevant expertise, and relevant skills.  In my opinion, this is baseline information that every candidate should provide. If they choose not to provide this information, it will influence my choices at the voting booth.


nohero said:

michaelgoldberg said:

Ironic that a candidate who wants equality for their lifestyle, ...

"Lifestyle"?

 when people give away their biases...


ml1 said:

nohero said:

michaelgoldberg said:

Ironic that a candidate who wants equality for their lifestyle, ...

"Lifestyle"?

 when people give away their biases...

 I love how people who can’t defend the actual issue of secrecy and lack of transparency try to change the subject with a distraction of silly semantic games. Nice try!


michaelgoldberg said:

ml1 said:

nohero said:

michaelgoldberg said:

Ironic that a candidate who wants equality for their lifestyle, ...

"Lifestyle"?

 when people give away their biases...

 I love how people who can’t defend the actual issue of secrecy and lack of transparency try to change the subject with silly semantic games. Nice try!

Cuttle did not get re-elected, possibly due to record, possibly due to the district's poor handling/communication during the Covid shutdown, possibly due to the questions around education/occupation or other qualifications, and/or possible other reasons. But Cuttle's concession letter was gracious and positive about the future and the elected candidates.

You, however, are showing yourself to be stuck in the past (and stuck in negativity) both semantically, and due to a refusal to learn about or understand other perspectives. To borrow a quote from @kap, "Really not a good look, Michael".


shestheone said:

There were 5 candidates running for 3 seats. 

One had a 3 year record of service, votes and POV. And happens to be openly transgender. Through a supporter that candidate found a way to express their reluctance to discuss personal life, rather than relevant BOE service: 

"The negative, exclusionary nature of their attacks on Shannon reveal a lack of compassion, a blindness to the reluctance marginalized people feel to revisit every detail of their past, and an unwillingness to campaign based on the here and now, on issues and substance.Shannon’s service and record since moving here in 2013 is out there for all of us to evaluate."

The other 4 candidates were vying to prove their qualifications for the BOE and for public service. 

Why the fascination with Cuttle's background? To what end? The election is over.

I found it odd that on the one hand Shannon’s campaign treasurer Annmarie Maini wrote an endorsement praising Shannon’s work as an educator and principal but there does not seem to be any internet confirmation of any school where they were a teacher or principal.  Why not be proud of relevant work experience instead of refusing to disclose it?   And since the other candidates had work histories on LinkedIn, why not Shannon?  Lack of transparency and poor communication by the BOE are problems that many voters wanted to see changes with in this election.


I agree that their work history is not relevant now until they seek another publicly elected office. They had political ambitions and one’s background is part of running for public office.  Good luck to them.


michaelgoldberg said:

ml1 said:

nohero said:

michaelgoldberg said:

Ironic that a candidate who wants equality for their lifestyle, ...

"Lifestyle"?

 when people give away their biases...

 I love how people who can’t defend the actual issue of secrecy and lack of transparency try to change the subject with a distraction of silly semantic games. Nice try!

 "Silly semantic games"?


I seriously considered voting for Shannon based on her school board experience as well as her passion and high profile with several advocacy groups. In the end, I rejected voting for her because her constant use of educational acronyms became a huge turnoff and supported my suspicions that too many educators become trapped by jargon. Also, she seemed too defensive about the board's performance during her tenure.  


@krnl,

Shannon Cuttle goes by the pronoun "their" not "her". 

From Dictionary.com: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/their

their:

c. (used to refer to a nonbinary or gender-nonconforming person previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context):

E.g.: My cousin Sam is bad at math, but their other grades are good.

While my teenagers effortlessly incorporate 'they/them/their' as a singular pronoun into speech and writing, it does seem to take practice for many of us older folks.


    michaelgoldberg said:

     I love how people who can’t defend the actual issue of secrecy and lack of transparency try to change the subject with a distraction of silly semantic games. Nice try!

     dude, don't even. 


    Are the two of you 'liking' the critique, and/or 'liking' the misgendering?


    sprout said:

    Are the two of you 'liking' the critique, and/or 'liking' the misgendering?

     If you look at my comments, I always referred to Shannon either by their name or as them.  Unlike you, I do not think it is necessary to stand in judgment over what I believe to be an honest mistake in pronouns by others.  It was interesting to see how some people were much more interested in Shannon’s pronouns than anything substantive about them.  But I wish them well in whatever it is that they do.


    Mom270 said:

    Unlike you, I do not think it is necessary to stand in judgment over what I believe to be an honest mistake in pronouns by others.

     What part of what I said is "standing in judgment"?


    In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

    Latest Jobs

    Employment Wanted

    Help Wanted

    Lessons/Instruction

    Sponsored Business

    Find Business

    Advertisement

    Advertise here!