• Clear sky
  • 39°
    Clear sky

Stu Rodman Says Racism On BCSB NOT Newsworthy

There's a blog in the IP this morning concerning a letter that good ol' Stu sent regarding the reporting of Michael River's stated reason for casting the lone vote against a new school superintendent.

It seems that Stu still has visions of policy governance swimming about inside his head, left over from his days on the school board.

He doesn't think it newsworthy that a school board member bases his votes on his/her racial bias instead of the merits of a question.

He said, in part:

"The Beaufort Gazette story, also published in the Packet, that one school board member preferred a black superintendent was not particularly newsworthy or helpful. . ."

Given the recent "outrage" on a national level about similar comments how can he not see that it was newsworthy. It's newsworthy and relevant to the national trend and it is newsworthy and relevant locally in that it reveals one of the base problems with the school district - personal agendas trumping the overall good of the school district.

He goes on to say:

". . .A more helpful approach would be to balance the reporting of problems (which are regularly reported), progress (such as new leadership, new schools and an improved relationship with County Council) and issues (such as loss of Home Rule and state funding). . ."

Let's touch on his points for a brief moment . . . kinda like giving the devil his due if you will.

Problems are not regularly reported Stu, the school district and the school board are rather adept at hiding their problems. Besides that, it is only recently that local newspapers have even hinted at providing objective reporting on the school district, and we're still waiting to see if the reporting becomes in-depth and revealing.

"progress" - What progress Stu?

"New leadership" - made necessary by the inept and ill-advised seection of the previously unqualified superintendent. It remains to be seen if they selected a qualified and effective leader this time . . .

"New schools" - What new schools would that be Stu? Are you talking about the collosal debacle commonly known as the NAHS? Ya know, the once 1500 student, $28 million dollar full-fledged school that has now morphed to an 800 student, almost $50 million shell? That one?

Maybe Stu us referring to the new schools approved in the "emergency" referendum during May of 2006. Ya know, the two schools that were supposed to be built on land already owned by the District, but are now slated for the recently purchased land because the District didn't do their homework. The same two schools that haven't even made it off of the drawing boards yet, in spite of the "emergency" referendum and despite the "crisis" that exists in Bluffton. Those schools Stu?

"Improved relationship with county council" - Shucks Stu, whaddya think we are, stupid? How else would those two former school board members act - you don't honestly think that we expect you to criticize yourself do you? Rubber stamped endorsements and approval of school district actiions and decisions is not "improved relations" - that's more accurately called "turning a blind eye" to the problems.

And Stu, what about those issues you mention? When did "home rule" apply to school districts? It's more commonly applied to municipalities and some counties, is it not? Regardless, when the people charged with taking care of local issues and finances know no bounds, and just continue to raise taxes, it's time to challenge and control those tax increases and decisions.

The legislature has at least tried to control spending, as laughable as that may sound it's more than either county council, the school board or the school district has seen fit to attempt. On the contrary the reaction from local officials is to request the maximum allowable tax increases under the new rules whether we need it or not - not a wise way to figure out what you need, but a perfect way to figure out how much you can get away with . . .

"State funding" - now there's a real issue. But Beaufort's arguments about dwindling state revenue flies in the face of the reality of things. This school district is full of things we don't "need" but are "nice to have" - the district hasn't "wanted" for anything, hasn't been deprived of any necessities. We have schools that aren't required, we buy computers that aren't needed, we have schools at half capacity yet continue to build . . . need I go on Stu?

He concludes by saying ". . .
perhaps it would be productive to have more in-depth reporting of the school-related issues and less sensationalism."

Wake up Stu - people have been saying that for a LONG time. As the local papers like to say there is a lack of "organized opposition" to these issues so they don't report "the other side."

Sensationalism - like in campaigning that "it's for the kids"? Like in ignoring the true expenditures of the school board, letting the public THINK that it's "only" $147 million this year when it's really over $323 million?

Like not providing in-depth coverage of the efforts to stop the audit of those expenses?

Let me clue you in Stu - the lack of organized opposition is about to end . . .

And one last question for you Stu - Did you really think that coming to Michael River's defense, as weak as your effort was, would go unnoticed and unchallenged?

  • Comment

Get news delivered by e-mail!

Recent comments