By Antonio D. French
Filed Tuesday, April 4 at 11:05 PM
BREAKING NEWS - READ IT HERE FIRST!!!
Parental involvement has returned to the St. Louis City School Board. After spending nearly half a million dollars in this campaign, Mayor Francis Slay's slate of candidates has been defeated by a grassroots campaign of parents and teachers.
These are the Unofficial Final Numbers:
Darnetta Clinkscale 20.3% (8,585)
James Buford 21.06% (8,918)
Peter Downs 25.16% (10,653)
Donna Jones 24.4% (10,330)
Joe Clark 5.9% (2,504)
Also... Proposition R (to amend the Charter relating to recalls) FAILED. Other media outlets, including the Post-Dispatch and local TV news, are incorrectly reporting that it passed by a simple majority. An amendment to the City Charter needs 60% of the vote to pass.
YES - 51.33%
NO - 48.67%
UPDATE 1: For the record, the supporters of Clinkscale and Buford (who spent more than $450,000) paid more than $51.42 per vote (8,751.5). If there is a legacy for Mayor Slay's three-year control of the city schools, it is that they sure knew how to overpay for things.
UPDATE 2: Officials at the Election Board are reporting a voter turnout somewhere around 11%.
UPDATE 3: Votes from four precincts have yet to be counted due to a mix-up involving electronic cards left in computer voting machines locked in one polling place. Sources say that these represent just a hundred or so votes and will not affect the results. The official final results will reflect these numbers. Expect those in two weeks.
UPDATE 4: James Buford told the St. Louis American today that he is still reeling from a defeat he did not foresee.
"There was only about 10 percent turnout. The 'angry' voted," Buford said. "There are a lot of angry people out there."
UPDATE 5: Click here to see photos from the Pre-Election Day rally for Peter Downs and Donna Jones.
27 Comments:
Congrats to all involved in the campaign for Downs and Jones. Grassroots campaigning beat money!
Control of the board shifts to the new majority of O'Brien, Purdy, Downs and Jones, with Archibald, Jackson and Fowler in the minority.
And thanks, again, Antonio, for the up to the minute results.
11:14 PM, April 04, 2006
Thanks for all your work tonight Antonio. There were some good wins for St. louis tonight.
11:20 PM, April 04, 2006
As usual, good work Antonio. Great job keeping everyone up to date.
Assuming that most voters voted for a slate, those are some hefty margins.
I was wondering today if last year's SB election might serve as a better touchstone for today's election than finance figures.
Matthew
12:52 AM, April 05, 2006
Well, it looks like the status quo just won again.
With Downs and Jones prevailing, union power has wielded its ugly head once more.
Downs and Jones campaigned on a "we're parents; we need more parental involvement" blah, blah, blah.
Now lets see if they get it.
Nope. Just like charter reform, the only thing this election proves is St Louisans are all about protecting the status quo and not working for real change.
Speaking of not working for change, which if any of the 29 aldermen endorsed Downs and Jones?
And what can be said of the ones who made no school board endorsements?
4:55 AM, April 05, 2006
Sorry Urban-
The Slay effort was working to change decades of failed status quo.
What yesterday's election did was bring back the old pro-union, jobs protecting SLPS system.
Parental involvement? Yah, sure.
The message for Downs and Jones?
Be careful of what you wish for--you just might get it.
I'd still like to hear some politico's analysis as to why the aldermen in general were so silent on the school board elections.
6:12 AM, April 05, 2006
Thanks for the comments, everyone. What a night. Just to think that Donna Jones raised only $3,000! It gives me hope about this city.
BTW, The Post-Dispatch STILL has it wrong on Prop R.
http://elections.post-dispatch.com/voter/stlouiscity.asp
6:17 AM, April 05, 2006
PUB DEF deserves all the credit in the world for standing up for what is right. Antonio has shown dedication to reporting news as it should be reported, so Antonio beat out The Arch City Chronicle, The Saint Louis American, The Saint Louis Post Dispatch (except Sylvester Brown,Jr.), and License Collector Mike Mc Millan's endorsements of Buford and Clinkscale! Big Money never beats Big Community and Big Papers got it's *$$ kicked and taken to the wood shed by Little Paper (Best D@mn Reporter)!
It looks like the 1st Ward
(El-Amin's) had some problems getting their candidates in the end zone to score a "T.D."! First they were with Buford and Clinkscale, and then State Representative Yaphett El-Amin was on the Freeman Bosley, Jr. Show promoting Buford and Clinkscale! But in the "4th Quarter" after some negative community reaction to the 1st Ward's (El-Amin's) decision to support Buford and Clinkscale, the 1st Ward (El-Amin's)decide to post a different endorsement on certain websites and visit the Local 420 teachers union office (Mary Armstrong) to come back home (Downs and Jones) where the "Buffalo Soldiers rome." The referee throws the flag, offsides on the El-Amin's, fifteen yard penalty, repeat fourth down! The clock runs out, no more time, game over. Downs and Jones win. What team were the El-Amin's really on?
Not to be outdone Connie "La Darnetta" Johnson and Curtis "Sometimes I feel like a Republican" Royston went against their own resident of the 27th Ward (Donna Jones)in this school board race, choosing "big" money over what was best for the community. Donna Jones should never forget this either, maybe women with locks aren't allowed in the 27th. Curtis "Sometimes I feel like a Republican" Royston should stop following the lead of State Rep. Connie Johnson and listen to Ald. Greg Carter in the 27th. Ald. Carter won't lead you astray, and have you shaking yo head in dismay!
6:20 AM, April 05, 2006
Anonymous don't forget Mayor Slay spending all that money on the former majority on the School Board, and some alderman and other elected officials that were afraid to make an endorsement. It is better to make an endorsement and be wrong than to not make an endorsement at all!
6:29 AM, April 05, 2006
If by return to the status quo, anon1 means restoring the accreditation points that were lost during the Clinkscale slide, I'd say our children are the winners.
6:36 AM, April 05, 2006
"It is better to make an endorsement and be wrong than to not make an endorsement at all!"
My point exactly.
Slay went out on a limb, pursuing his goals. He didn't win this time, but he was on the record trying.
What about the other aldermen who did not endorse.
What does this say about their leadership?
Oh, yeah, what was I thinking? Using the terms "St. Louis Aldermen" and "Leadership" in the same sentence.
They're mostly just interested in protecting themselves.
6:39 AM, April 05, 2006
This is great news!
Better schools, and we can still recall Jennifer! A great day for the city!
6:59 AM, April 05, 2006
To answer Anony #? (I've lost count), aldermen often do not endorse candidates (unless one of their own is running for hire office). It is often seen as stepping on the toes of their committeepeople, whose only real job is to endorse candidates.
In many united wards (when the alderman and the committeepeople all work together) they will endorse as a group. In divided wards (with one or both committeepeople on opposite sides as the alderman), for an alderman to endorse opposite of the committeeperson is a major slap in the face.
I think in this race, few committeepeople and alderpeople 100% agreed on any two candidates. Instead of risking alienating their committeepeople, the mayor or the unions, most aldermen simply stayed out of it.
The obvious exception was Ald. Mike McMillan. And someone could point out that many of the names on the finance reports of his License Collector campaign are the same ones that appeared on the reports for Clinkscale and Buford.
7:36 AM, April 05, 2006
I am excited about the defeat of the Slay campaign for Buford/Clinkscales. Mayor: Please read this as a strong message that African American voters don't need you to pick our representatives!!! It's unfortunate Slay's folks painted this as an "Us vs. Them" campaign when it should have been what's in the best interest of the City's children. To use support of the Superintendent as a yardstick to measure who deserves to be on the School Board was foolish; you sacrifice the Superintendent in the process. It came off as Buford/Clinkscale would support the Superintendent no matter what; if the Superintendent ceases to act in the children's best interest (and there was little discussion whether he's doing that right now anyway), no one should support him. Callow and Company blew it on this; maybe their day has come and gone?
8:08 AM, April 05, 2006
Thank you so much for your incredible election day coverage. Your ACCURACY and timeliness were unmatched. Your blog is now the first thing I read in the morning. Kudos!
8:09 AM, April 05, 2006
Fantastic, I was extatic to wake up this morning and see this. Amazing work Antonio.
So, to contrast, if I have my math right, the mayor's candidates spent $51.42 per vote, and Jones spent 29 cents?
Good to know you can still turn the city around if your only organized and dedicated enough.
8:35 AM, April 05, 2006
Antonio ROCKED on this. Dude, you showed the biggies how it should be done.
I too will now make PUB DEF a daily read!
Keep up the great work. Your commitment to shedding light on public process and policy is making a difference in St. Louis.
8:38 AM, April 05, 2006
Antoinio and others you talk of cost per vote and say that Buford and Clinkscale spent $450,000 and Jones on spent $3,000. But that includes independant expenditures for Buford and Clinkscale, but doesn't include independant expenditures for Jones. Though the numbers would still be skewed, please either mention the money the Teachers' union spent on electing Jones or don't mention the independant expenditures. Once again you are leading the people astray.
8:58 AM, April 05, 2006
I didn't say yet how much Downs and Jones spent per vote. And I said Buford and Clinkscale spent "more than $51.42 per vote." Over the next week, we'll get a better picture of exactly how much money was finally spent supporting the two slates. But I'm pretty sure it will still show that the parents were outspent 4-to-1.
9:18 AM, April 05, 2006
According to what Peter Downs said on the Lizz Brown show this morning, one of his first priorities will be to see if they can cut the pay of Creg Williams and his top lieutenants.
Does that sounds like things are getting off on the right foot?
9:25 AM, April 05, 2006
Fantabulous coverage!
Thanks and congrats...
9:26 AM, April 05, 2006
Josh, I agree that the immediate future of the St. Louis schools still depends on Superintendent Creg Williams.
The Super runs the district, recommendends policy changes, and executes those plans. The Board's job is to hold the Super accountable, examine recommendations and results from the perspective of taxpayers, City residents and parents.
I very much hope that this Superintendent and this new Board will spend the next few hours and days laying the ground work for a productive working relationship.
They don't have to like each other, but they should respect each other's perspectives and opinions.
A very important decision coming up will be the selection of a new board president. I agree that it would be a mistake to select Bill Purdy.
Purdy has too much baggage and people who supported Slay's slate will jump on that bone like hungry dog.
This theme of "a new beginning" and "a return to parental involvement" should be continued with the appointment of one of the new board members as Prez.
I think it has to be Donna Jones. She has kids (lots of them), he's a black woman, and she comes across as a sweet lady.
I think Peter Downs should be the new VP of the Board.
The people have spoken. This new board should embrace that and run with it.
9:32 AM, April 05, 2006
congradulations fans of grassroot government... maybe all we have to do is send arlene ackerman somewhere and boom!, progressives win out... maybe we should keep her on our payroll...
good luck from s.f.... brock
9:38 AM, April 05, 2006
Creg and the board can sing Kum ba Yah, but wil that get more parents to check their kids homework?
What happens in four years if things are no better than they are now?
Vouchers will be instituted, or the state will take over the district.
Party..ovuh.
9:43 AM, April 05, 2006
Anonymous said.."According to what Peter Downs said on the Lizz Brown show this morning, one of his first priorities will be to see if they can cut the pay of Creg Williams and his top lieutenants."
Sorry, I was listening to Lizz Brown, too. That idea was proposed by a caller to the show, it was not something Downs threw out for discussion. Downs had already given his highest priority list earlier in the show, and that statement was NOT among of them. As both Brown and Downs indicated numerous times this morning, the purpose of the show was to get input for Downs to incorporate into his decision-making responsibilities, and his response to the caller was in line with that overarching theme.
11:16 AM, April 05, 2006
I was upset that only 11 percent voted, when yesterday was such an important day. I question if anyone really gives a shit about city politics?
The 11 percent should not determine the issues which reflect 100 percent of the residents. At least the 11 percent voted the correct way, however, this may not happen in the future.
12:56 PM, April 05, 2006
What Buford said in the American article:
Buford said he is “still reeling,” from a defeat he did not foresee.
“There was only about 10 percent turnout. The ‘angry’ voted,” Buford said.
“There are a lot of angry people out there.”
How can the President of the Urban League and former school board member be clueless about the "anger" in St. Louis City towards the SLPS and some board members?
Also, 10% is about average for these local issue elections in STL city. Buford should know this.
Buford's comments give me reason to doubt his ability as a community leader at any level.
1:24 PM, April 05, 2006
Re: UPDATE 5
I see Jim Hamilton was there. Sheesh. I hope that Downs and Jones avoid the influence of such Stalinist tail-chasers. Hamilton (and folks in the Greens) will get them nowhere fast, and piss off a lot of their own supporters. Plus these leftist "leaders" have no following and no ideas. They're worse than the Slay crew, who at least have some practical ideas.
10:38 AM, April 06, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home