George:

I have been hesitant to wade in on this because I regret having to disagree with people whose opinions I usually find being very like my own. However, after much thoughtful weighing of all the arguments for and against, I'm declaring my support for the referendum and will vote yes.

I find no reason to fear that the voters of C'ville will suddenly abandon their practice of being pretty much colorblind when deciding who gets their vote. I also find no reason to fear that they will suddenly turn into radical fundamentalists and elect a school board that will force unscientific curriculum down our children's throats. And I see no reason to fear that the elected process will be any more political than the current appointed process. In other words, I am not reacting to the fears that I have heard expressed by others, because I believe them to be baseless, and I very much dislike fear-based campaigns.

As to the cost of running for this office, I am having a hard time coming up with a name of any person appointed in the last 10 years (and probably before that) who could not afford either the time or the money (probably no more than $2000.00) to run for election. If one has the time to serve, one probably has the time to run, and one's friends are almost always able to contribute 10 or 20 dollars to help defray costs of campaigning (mailers, etc.). For larger costs, like newspaper and TV ads, support will undoubtedly come from the candidate's wider associations, including, if asked for, political parties.

I think we can pretty much ignore the concern about not having taxing authority; none of the other elected boards in the state have it either. I find it hard to assume that the School Board and Council will become adversaries, although the dynamics would certainly change.

Citizens would have two bodies that they could influence with the power of the ballot box, and how wrong can that be?

Sue Lewis (electronic mail, November 7, 2005)