A place for parents educating their kids in San Francisco
brodkin, murase, mendoza
Can't bring myself to vote for incumbents this time around. Definitely Brodkin, possibly Murase, and Natasha Hoehn has my vote.
I had planned on voting for Mendoza with the idea that it would limit Maufus's chances. But in the end I just couldn't do it. Brodkin, Hoehn & Khalif.
Brodkin, Murase, and Hoehn
Brodkin, Murase and Khalif (meant to vote for Mendoza but just couldn't do it and switched to Khalif at the last minute)
Brodkin, Murase and Mendoza
last minute decision - could not stomach the thought of voting for Mendoza - and voted for Brodkin, Murase and Khalif
Brodkin, Murase, Hoehn. NO incumbents! Especially not the appallingly arrogant Shree-Maufas!
Khalif, Brodkin, and Dajani.
Just vote for Brodkin.A vote for any of her top challengers (such as Murase, Mendoza) could mean she doesn't get a seat.
12:34, I disagree. IMO it's foolish to only vote for one BOE candidate. This gives more weight to the candidates selected by the other voters, which may well include Maufas.
Margaret Brodkin and no one else.
Funny, I thought that I'd be the only one who found that my fingers couldn't make the vote for Mendoza either.
Please at least vote for Brodkin and Murase. I don't believe Hoehn can win, but she has just enough support that she could act as a spoiler -- allowing Kim-Shree Maufas to just eke her way in. My personal slate is Mendoza, Murase, Brodkin.
Brodkin, Murase, Hoehn.
1:03, you may disagree all you want, but a vote for anyone who could possibly beat Brodkin jeopardizes her getting a seat. Look at previous elections, some candidates lost by very few seats. If I voted for Murase or Hoehn, one or both of them could get just enough to prevent Margaret from getting a seat. If you really want Brodkin on the BOE most of all, the safest thing (and mathmatically logical thing to do) is to bullet vote for her. Cast one vote.
I couldn't vote for Mendoza again either. My hand just would not draw that line. I voted for Brodkin and Omar.
The teacher's union ran an ad this morning in the Examiner.Here's what it said on bold print:"SF Teacher's Say VOTE for the 3 M's.Maufas, Mendoza, Murase"That the teacher's union and their dues going to support corruption. Thirty have spoken for thousands.
Let's hope some people remember to vote for the M's and Vote for Margaret!!!!!
With 98% of the votes counted, it looks like 1. Mendoza, 2. Maufas, and 3. Brodkin. Maufas is back. There is no joy in Mudville.
Mendoza, Brodkin, and*barf*Maufas elected.Murase missed it by 0.7%.Khalif 3.8%.
Apparently SFKFiles posters are not representative of SF voters. Isn't the winning slate the same as the good old SF Bay Guardian's "clean slate"? Lots of hip, but lazy, young voters in this city.
What about absentee ballots? Are they all counted?3:05 PM was right. Hoehn was a spoiler, taking the votes from Murase not Kim-Shrew.
Election after election, its always the same thing with the BOE race: its seldom that the best candidates get in.The overwhelming majority of the electorate, not having kids in the SFUSD, does no research on the candidates, does not follow SFUSD happenings (such as commissioners using public money for personal expenses, and so forth.When less than 15% of the electorate has kids in the SFUSD system; the victors are determined by union and "progressive" rag endorsements.Thank you SF teachers union for doing your part to keep the status quo on inept commissioners who who will look after your interests but could care less about the interests of the people actually using the SFUSD system.
According to the info at the Department of Elections, Mendoza, Maufas and Brodkin won in that order. I don't want to hear how teachers didn't support Maufas unless they move as a group to remove the union leadership. There is no doubt that union support pushed Maufas over the top.Mendoza 21.32%Maufas 14.4Brodkin 14.32Member, Board of Education Votes PercentTOM CHAN 20603 7.03%JAMIE RAFAELA WOLFE 14152 4.83%OMAR KHALIF 11350 3.87%MARGARET BRODKIN 41940 14.32%BILL BARNES 15930 5.44%STARCHILD 9761 3.33%HYDRA MENDOZA 62438 21.32%KIM-SHREE MAUFAS 42188 14.4%EMILY MURASE 40632 13.87%WINIFRED DAJANI 11103 3.79%NATASHA D. HOEHN 21617 7.38%WRITE-IN 1209 0.41%
I'm pretty baffled that people would vote for Maufas. I agree that voters not involved in SFUSD probably relied on the Bay Guardian and the UESF recommendatons. But I believe that these people would NOT have voted for her if the message had gotten out. Somehow the message failed to get out...just how much in ad fees do the newspapers get from UESF? That might be a place to start investigating.
There are still about 20,000 absentee and other types of votes to count. It ain't necessarily "over" yet.
2:06, that doesn't really make sense if you think it through. UESF bought a couple of ads -- do you think that really bought off the press? The Chron did do an article within the past couple of weeks that gave some details of Kim-Shriek's spending, and has previously covered the mysterious incidents in which her daughter confessed to stealing money from Jill Wynns and then recanted -- though the daughter has not recanted her confession to stealing money and a laptop from an SFUSD staffer. (I believe she physically returned the laptop, so I guess she can't exactly recant.)The Bay Guardian is a mystery -- it's laughable that they call their picks the "clean slate."
Perhaps all the negativity against Maufas backfired and people felt sorry for her. With 20K votes (or more) left to be counted, it is possible that she has lost her seat. It will be an agonizing week ahead.
Disagree, 6:56. Maufas got votes from the people who carry the SFBG into the polling place with them and from those who believed that teachers were supporting her, unaware that 28 out of the 6,000 UESF members were present to vote on the union's endorsements. Except for a few bewitched dupes, she is a case where the more you know, the more appalled you are. (And watch your purse/wallet.)
The general public just does not pay that much attention to the Board of Education. It feels good to vote for a winner. An incumbent is a good bet for a winner. So people tend to vote for the incumbents. Maufas was reelected. Please cut up her company credit cards.
The reelection of Maufas is a case in point of the sorry state of machine driven politics in San Francisco.It wasn't a matter of some people feeling sorry for Maufas. Most people pay very little attention to the school board. the voted the party line. Just look at Pelosi's wide margin over Dennis while she was simultaneously and soundly rejected as speaker.
Ugh! I am disgusted that someone so unethical as Kim-Shriek could be reelected! I have also been disappointed in the past. Last time around it seemed like so many parents were up in arms about the lottery, you'd think they would have voted off all board members supporting it. I did a lot of research to find out their views, but all lottery supporters got reelected as well. Maybe no one reads the Chronicle??? The reports about Maufas' travails were fairly recent.
We should all bow before the mighty power of the Bay Guardian.
Another problem is that the Chronicle and PPS-SF endorsed a slightly different slate. Both endorsed Brodkin and Mendoza, but split Murase and Hoehn. That let Mafaus squeak in.No joy in Mudville, indeed.
PPS didn't endorse anybody. They are not allowed to.
It ain't over til it's over. They are still counting ballots.
Maufas did not squeak in. She came in #2. The Reset San Francisco poll gave me hope that she could be knocked off. But it was not to be. Three seats for two incumbents. We had little chance. Thank you to all of you who did vote anybody but Maufas.
SF liberals got what they deserved. Too bad the children have to carry their mistakes.
There are still 60,000 votes to be tallied. Here's how it will play out: Brodkin will move into 2nd place, Murase will nose Kimshree out of 3rd.A happy ending.
7:27,Is this some sort of magical thinking or is the Department of election wrong - because according to the election result information posted on their website the votes have all been 100% tallied? It's over.There is one story out there about 7000 votes that went astray.
Don, instead of again arguing for the sake of arguing, and being unpleasant just to be unpleasant, here's a thought: why not call the department of elections and ask them yourself? There are thousands of write-in ballots and provisional ballots left to be counted, and they have to be counted by hand and the signatures have to be verified. Many races in SF are still "up in he air".
Everyday, at about 4 pm, at this link:http://www.sfelections.org/results/20101102/they update the vote totals.This could go on for a week at least.
This is a classic example of how Don jumps into the discussions and ridicules people and makes bogus arguments, when in fact, he doesn't know what he is talking about most of the time.The Dept of elections website says that 100% of the precincts have reported, but nowhere does it say that 100% of the votes have been tallied.Nobody in the BOE race is declaring victory yet, because, apart from Hydra, (is is almost certain to win) it is too close to call.
IGNORE THE TROLL.
It gets harder and harder to take anything Don says seriously when he is so often and obviously wrong about things which are easily verifiable. If he doesn't even understand how school board elections play out, how can he possibly comprehend something as complex as school budgeting, an equitable student assignment system, or how to close the achievement gap?
At one point Don was just opinionated and long winded. Lately he has just be writing shorter entries (thank you) but he has also been flat out wrong.
Don's was an understandable misunderstanding that I'm sure was shared by many others. Some of us remember the last BOE election, in which a decidedly more moderate slate of candidates were ultimately elected than what appeared to be the case before the absentee ballots were counted.
I just love being the center of attention, even when I'm wrong which is most of the time.
Everywhere Don sticks his nose he makes trouble. That's why everybody dislikes him. He is such a negative person. But he paints himself out to be a child advocate. You're not fooling anyone, DON!
Oh, I'm so "baffled" that people voted for Maufas. It so perplexing. Could it be that the average liberal is just a moron who can't think for himself and votes however the progressive establishment dictates? They wanted Maufas and that's what they got. I'm right you idiots!
It gives you a little glimpse into the dangers of voting the party line. What an embarrassment. People are sheep.
DON JUST SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know it is hard, but can't we p[lease just ignore him and stop talking about him? It just feeds the flames.
1:20 from yesterday here. I mistakenly claimed that PPS-SF endorsed candidates, but it was the San Francisco Parent PAC that made the endorsements. But my point remains: the "parent slate" was slightly different from the Chron slate, which split the 3rd vote and may have let Mafaus squeak in.We'll see in the coming days.
Why have the winners been announced in the papers if the results are not reasonable assured?
I think the problem is that many SF voters don't have kids, so if they are young and liberal, they just go with whatever the SFB Guardian says. Since they don't have kids, they are unlikely to care about the BOE.Obviously your politics tend to change when/if you have kids and/or buy a house.
I suppose the Examiner could have pulled a Truman/Dewey headline snafu, but since they announced the winners yesterday and I logically assumed....As to how often I am wrong, noi doubt I make mistakes even though I am not human, but I did say over and over recently that Maufas would not be easily beaten due to her endorsements by UESF and the SF Democratic Party. I wish I had been wrong about that.Also, I would appreciate it if you would not post on this blog pretending to be me.
I might add that it is not Maufas who is squeaking by at the moment but Brodkin who has the third most votes. Given the closeness between Maufas, Brodkin and Murase it is conceivable that the results could change. But people at news desks who know more about these issues than I do have made the decision to announce the winners already. Perhaps they are wrong.
Don, ignore them.
This message is from Mission District public school parent/activist Tracy Brown, who has worked on children's causes with Margaret Brodkin for more than 20 years:Today is a great victory for San Francisco’s children. The MargaretBrodkin campaign has delivered its message and the SF voters havespoken. It is not about winning a seat on the board of education it is about building a “Children’s Movement” in San Francisco. It is about inspiring us all to care about children and bring voice. The voice has made it clear, WE WANT CHANGE, WE SUPPORT YOUR WORK! 42,000 informed voters made a decision to cast their votes for Margaret Brodkin. Her name was not on the common card that voters took to the poll from the Democratic Party. This vote symbolizes the message of the informed voter. The people who cared enough to research and cast a vote for Margaret and to these people I am truly humbled by the show of support. The wall postings and work that so many contributed to the GOTVcampaign one household at a time can only be attributed to all of your work. This grassroots campaign was hosted out of a little red wagon that reminded us of who we would give voice to and what issues were important; we pushed that wagon forward with so many voices! I am thrilled that these issues were just as important to 42,000 voters asthey were important to me. I celebrate this as a victory and anaffirmation of all the work that lies ahead of us as we embark on this journey together to transform our schools into community hubs that will continue to support and empower our students to be 21st century leaders. I am truly humbled by all of the support, guidance and leadership. Parents do have a voice and it has been trusted over to you Margaret. You are a true inspiration, a passionate advocate and atrue believer of the good in everyone. The people have spoken: keep representing the Children’s Movement!!
It looks like the dreaded Don was right after all.
I won't hold my breath waiting for Moody to apologize. IMHO, she doesn't have it in her. Who cares, anyway? If that's how she gets her kicks, so be it.RE: Caroline's post from Tracy Brown of the Brodkin campaignBrown said:"...as we embark on this journey together to transform our schools into community hubs that will continue to support and empower our students to be 21st century leaders."Can I take this to mean Brodkin supports neighborhood schools along with Diane Ravitch - another sincere education researcher and child advocate? - That she sees the loss of neighborhood schools as coming 'at our peril', as Ravitch says in her last book? how can you have schools as community hubs when the students are from all over the city? Last I heard community hubs are composed of community members.
I was wrong. I thought Maufas was in a three way tie with Murase and Hoehn for third place, based on the Reset SF poll. I thought Brodkin had it made for second place, but she narrowly made it into third place, ahead of Murase. Lesson: early polls numbers change significantly for Bd of Ed, which is a low profile race
Updated numbers just up for the day-- Mendoza far ahead, but the difference between Maufas, Brodkin, and Murase just got even closer. They're currently polling in that order, but distance between Maufas and Murase is only 748 votes at this point, down from I believe about 1500 yesterday.Also, I supported Brodkin's campaign, but I'm not sure why that letter from Tracy Brown was posted above. She's not exactly someone I'd consider a moral authority, and has many of the exact same issues for which Maufas has been criticized on this blog. YMMV of course, but I'd be careful you understand who she is before implying that we should listen to her. Especially when she clearly may have things wrong-- at this point Brodkin is holding onto the third slot by a mere 144 votes over Murase.
Today's tally, it will change again tomorrow afternoon. Murase is gaining on Brodkin. It is too close to call.MARGARET BRODKIN 45842 14.18%HYDRA MENDOZA 68844 21.29%KIM-SHREE MAUFAS 46446 14.36%EMILY MURASE 45698 14.13%And Moggy's right, Don is an idiot.
Tracy Brown's commentary was written to stand on its own whether or not Brodkin won.
Let's pray for Brodkin and Murase to come in 2nd and 3rd
I hope Maufas gets pushed out somehow and that the media was wrong in announcing too early. But I'd much rather have Brodkin than Murase. And I'd certainly rather be wrong than have Maufas. As for Anonymous Moggy, this constant flaming is just making you look mean, small and disinterested in education. If you have some issue with the results take it to the media outlets that have announced the winners already.
IGNORE HIM. HE'S MENTAL.
In Moody's world everyone is mental that doesn't agree with her. Just 2 days ago she said she would stop these constant attacks. Within the hour she was back at it.
Thank goodness Jane Kim is leaving. Did you see her article in School Times? One of her ideas for lowering the achievement gap is using surplus real estate for community gardens. While its a nice idea to have community gardens, I don't think any serious education expert sees that as a tool to lower the achievement gap, unless the teacher is Hagrid and the school is Hogwarts. Why not just brew up a potion?
HE'S IS BAD PERSON. DON'T LISTEN TO HIM. IGNORE HIM. I IMPLORE YOU.
From today's sfgate: "As of late Thursday afternoon there were about 71,000 absentee ballots left to count and another 14,000 provisional ballots that have to be reviewed for eligibility before they can be counted."
Here's a message directly from Margaret Brodkin:Dear Wonderful People Who Supported My Candidacy for Board of Education, Thank you so much for your well wishes in the past several days. Although the vote count will go on for another week, it is not breaking my way at this point and the trend is not likely to change. So now seems like an appropriate time to reflect on the campaign and to share my gratitude for all of the amazing support I received. I ran because I want to see our governing bodies be more accountable to the people they are intended to serve. I ran because I believe in what James Baldwin has said: “These are all our children. We will all profit by, or pay for, whatever they become.” I have had the privilege throughout my adult life of being able to work for the benefit of children and families. Running for the Board of Education was a great opportunity for me to continue my life’s work. In the end, overcoming some of the obstacles I faced in this campaign may not have been possible. And while the support I had may not have been quite wide enough, it was certainly deep. The campaign was short, but the passion of many was very high. During a six week period, 32 committed supporters had house parties and other events so that we could discuss the issues. At many, we had deep conversations – and I learned so much. I have a much more profound understanding of public education and the many ways it needs to be improved. Over 320 people (mostly parents, educators and children’s service providers) made donations to my campaign – some giving so much more than they could reasonably afford. And hundreds of people volunteered to distribute literature with zest and enthusiasm – many did it day after day. Particularly moving to me was the number of public school parents who supported me and who cared so much about who would represent their needs and perspectives on the Board of Education. I will never be able to thank everyone enough. I have been thinking a great deal about my friend and colleague Mauricio Vela, who passed on October 22, and who worked so hard on my campaign even as he was very sick. Mauricio ran for the Board of Education 4 times – several times coming within a handful of votes of electoral victory. He so wanted me to win an election that had eluded him. Instead he has reminded me what winning really means. The celebration of his life at St. Paul’s one week ago made it so clear that the impact of one’s life on the well-being of young people in our city cannot be measured by votes in an election. Mauricio ran for all the right reasons – because he wanted to make a difference. His campaigns were merely steps in his ongoing and lifelong crusade. He always won in a sense because he was always fighting the good fight for opportunity and justice for our kids. Mauricio, thank you for continuing to inspire me and remind me of what politics needs to be about. I am awed by the trust that so many people placed in my candidacy. We cannot stop working together to make San Francisco public schools exciting hubs of learning where all children have the opportunity and support to succeed. This campaign was one more chapter in the Children’s Movement in San Francisco. Together we sent a message about the importance of accountability to the community and to our children. The campaign was a part of our collective ongoing effort to galvanize the city to support our public schools – to make schools the center and most important institutions in our community. I plan to continue to provide leadership in that effort in whatever way I can – and to be part of nurturing a new generation of leaders. I look forward to the next chapter. Margaret Brodkin
Bravo, Margaret. I am glad you are on the board. I hope you will take time to talk to parents on this blog, as well as (perhaps) starting a blog of your own like Rachel has. I think you will find it valuable.
Thanks for posting on KIM and community gardens. Doesn't this clarify just how out of touch the current Board of Education is?
We love you, Margaret*And we are all praying that you get on the BOE!
11:52,Did you misread Margaret's comments? She may very well not be on the Board. She seems to think the likelihood of her winning is not good.
Who does Brodkin think will likely be selected for the BOE: Mendoza + Maufas and Murase or??
She is just not counting on it, until all the votes are counted.
R.I.P., Mauricio Vela.
Elections just posted new numbers as of 10 minutes ago -- Murase has knocked out Brodkin -- dang! Maufas is still in too.
Glad to see Murase on the BOE -- but it's sad to see Brodkin out of the running, and an outrage to see Maufas re-elected. Shame on UESF and the Bay Guardian. They know she's a crook and a liar.
Why don't you wait until all the votes are counted? Margaret could still come back.
It's going to be changing every day for at least a week. Why do you folks keep declaring winners? The only one we can be fairly sure has a seat is Mendoza.
I am mad at all the people who wanted Brodkin, but also voted for Murase. They couldn't do the math and see how that was a vote against Margaret.
How is a vote for murase one against brodkin? I voted for Mendoza, brodkin and murase. The people who should be upset are the ones who voted for others -- we ALL needed to vote three as a set block to knock out maufas. The endorsements of others by the chronicle and examiner hurt that block voting effort.
My objective was to get Brodkin on the BOE, and with that in mind, bullet voting for her was the thing to do, if that is what you wanted.If your sole objective was to get Maufas off the board, then your point of view makes a bit of sense. I didn't think Maufas would lose, because she was an incumbent and because most voters don't pay attention to the BOE race. Still, it ain't over yet. I am still praying that Brodkin gets back into one of the three spots, and Maufas is bumped down to 4th. It could happen. So at the snail's pace of 15,000 ballots a day hand-counted, it could drag on for at least another week.
6:19, in what respects would you predict that Brodkin and Murase would vote differently on measures before the BOE? Brodkin is far more focused on SpEd students and "wrap-around" services than Murase, but otherwise I don't see much of a difference. My guess is that it was the UESF endorsement that undermined Brodkin's campaign (if it is indeed undermined; it ain't over yet).
Brodkin is a tiger and doesn't care about being liked when she is fighting for what she thinks is right.Murase, I think, will make the newbie mistakes of trying to get along with everybody and thinking she has to defend SFUSD, instead of providing the oversight needed. If Brodkin does lose, it will be because of the ugly lie-ridden smear campaign Fewer and Mendoza waged against her.
Garcia is driving policy, not the Board. If you are for Garcia you are for more of the same.
7:05 if Brodkin is indeed "a tiger and doesn't care about being liked when she is fighting for what she thinks is right" then it seems that what Mendoza and Fewer said about her (essentially that she's unpleasant in her interpersonal interactions) sounds like it's correct.
That's not really a valid interpretation, 10:22. Brodkin does put effective advocacy for children ahead of her own personal interest in not making waves so as to be liked, it's true. But her campaign inner circle is composed pretty much entirely of people who have worked with her for many years, sometimes decades. I think those who supported her are people who wanted a school board member who would put the best interests of children and schools ahead of her own personal popularity.
How ironic that Mendoza and Fewer would wage an organized campaign to convince opinion leaders that Brodkin is not a nice person the way they are.
Margaret Brodkin for Interim Mayor!
"if Brodkin is indeed "a tiger and doesn't care about being liked when she is fighting for what she thinks is right" then it seems that what Mendoza and Fewer said about her (essentially that she's unpleasant in her interpersonal interactions) sounds like it's correct."This seems like another way of saying that one should not fight for what one believes in. This is a capitulation mentality. SFUSD has plenty that needs to change and Margaret Brodkin would put the interests of children before her own social acceptance. It's sad that anyone would think doing otherwise is OK.
Don and 12:35, I'm not saying that it's wrong to fight what you believe in (personally I think it's admirable), only that this approach will likely make you enemies, as Brodkin apparently has. IMO Brodkin would have been a fine addition to the BOE even though she apparently has some interpersonal issues as Fewer and Mendoza noted.
It still isn't over.Kimshree has slid to 3rd, and is only 958 votes ahead of Brodkin.Pray, people, pray.
Or .25% ahead, to give it perspective.
Does Jesus Christ prefer Brodkin, Maufas or Murase?
I pray for Brodkin to come in 3rd:) nobody mentioned Jesus.
If you are going to pray why not pray for 1st place? Besides, suppose Brodkin does win, who will be her allies on the Board to give her a working majority? This isn't like the Republican sweep of most national and state elections. Perhaps Rachel will be emboldened to join her, but who else?
Which God is the God of Vote counting?Brodkin's allies on the Board would be Rachel, Jill and Emily. And sometimes Norman, too, if he is paying attention:)I still think Brodkin might get on the Board. All we can do is wait and hope.
Whether Brodkin gets on the board depends on whether there are enough remaining pockets of support in the ballots not yet counted to give her the approx. 1,000 votes she currently needs to get out in front of maufas and then enough additional votes to keep her there.Let's assume that since the election office promised to have the preliminary ranked choice voting results by this past friday, they prioritized running the ballots from the districts with seats in question - all the even number districts except D4. perhpas they even ran D4 ballots first too, just in case. if this is what happened, then the ballots still to be counted may overwhelmingly come from the odd numbered districts. the question is, who will do better in those districts - Brodkin or Maufas?I can see Maufas doing well in D5 and D9, but not so much in D7, which I think will produce a lot of votes for Brodkin. Brodkin should do well in D11 because of the many many years she spent at Coleman Advocates, which is in D11, and her friendship with D11 Supervisor Avalos. Brodkin might have an edge over Maufas in D3 and D1, but really who the hell knows?
Acck. She's still 4th.
God decides who will be commissioner. So pray , baby, pray.
God decides? I guess your god is not an adherent of democracy.
The voters decide, actually.Too bad so many of them are stupid idiots who just vote the way the slate cards tell them to. Too bad more teachers don't bother to show up to cast their vote for whom they think the Union should endorse.
The UESF endorsement meeting was held at the beginning of August, during the day on a weekend, so you can see the problem with getting teachers to come. It's not clear whether the decision made by the 28 UESF members who showed up for the meeting (out of the total UESF membership of 6,000) was spontaneous or was guided by UESF leadership who had already decided whom they wanted the membership to endorse.
Well, of course it was "guided" by the leadership, but it is my understanding that any Union Member can show up and cast a vote at the endorsement election event they have.
As of Sunday evening:MENDOZA 92780 21.4%MURASE 63004 14.53% Go Emily!!MAUFAS 62513 14.42%BRODKIN 61326 14.14%Does anyone know how many votes are still there to be counted?!
It's shameful that Maufas didn't even bother to show up at any parent focused candidate forums - she cancelled the afternoon of BOTH PTA/PPS forums.Unfortunately, parents let the teachers union (all 28 of them, apparently) decide the fate of the BOE election, since all labor unions fall in place behind the endorsement of the UESF.And Dennis Kelly was saying they were going to support KSM long before the Aug endorsement meeting. She's a realiable vote for whatever they want (whether it makes any sense or not.)It's shameful that she is winning and not Margaret Brodkin. We also have Mendoza and Fewer to thank for that (people should know: Margaret supported both of their campaigns and encouraged both to run for the BOE - small thanks for that!)
10:07,I don't understand what you are getting at when you say that "parents let the teachers union... decide the fate of the BOE." How's that? It is the teacher's union that is responsible for their own endorsements, not parents.The liberal establishment in the form of UESF, the SF Democratic Party and the Bay Guardian was able to convince enough people that KSM should be reelected. To the extent that this city is very progressive and the progressive candidate KSM is winning, it should give people pause when deciding whether to abide the endorsements of the established political party.
Don's a troll. Ignore him.
7:17,Are you intent on ruining every thread with your redundant jabs at Don? As for Don's question, UESF, the DCCC and BG are to blame for failing to safeguard the interests of children with their endorsement of KSM. No wonder they didn't endorse Brodkin - tiger for the interests of children.
Don poisons every thread he jumps in on. It is best to ignore him. The BG actually did endorse Brodkin.That's why she still has a chance.
8:54, a small correction: The Bay Guardian actually endorsed Brodkin along with Maufas and Mendoza. The Guardian has been a stalwart supporter of Margaret's over the years and this election was no exception.
The problem with Moodie, Mogie or Kate's (all one person evidently) incessant attacks upon Don is this: WE CAN MAKE OUR MINDS UP FOR OURSELVES! We do not need you telling us on every other post who is a troll, who to listen to, whose point of view is worthwhile and whose isn't. We already know what your view on Don is. You've said it about a thousand times. You are the girl who cried Wolf. For that matter I can agree with Don or disagree with him on any given subject. If what you want is for everyone to ignore Don why not start with yourself? Why do you keep bringing him up? You seemed obsessed if you ask me. If it is so important to you than practice what you preach. Besides, I have read nothing on this subject written by Don that would concern me in the least.
Here, here. Second that.
9:43 and 10:09 = Don, sockpuppeting.
PLEASE just ignore him. Totally.
Don't listen to HIM. He's evil.
Let us pray people. Let not envy enter your heart and poison the soul.
Please stop. Whatever your beef is take it off line. Show some respect for others who've no interest in your personal gripes.
Children. Children. Take your anger out on those responsible for this atrocity, Dennis Kelly, Tim Redmond and Sandra Fewer and the DCCC. Don is a straw man.
What you folks do not realize is that most of these posts are probably Don pretending to be people who can't stand him. And then he posts as people who supposedly agree with him and accuses them of being "obsessed with him. He is the one who is obsessed, he stalks people, he had to be escorted by security out of the SFUSD offices for threatening people, he is an unbalanced person. There is nothing you can do when sockpuppet psychos take over blogs and want to make the discussions all about them. I am only writing this to let those of you who may not be aware of Don's sockpuppeting understand that 98% of this back and forth is all probably just Don in another one of his sockpuppeting manic stupors.
It's over. Very few votes left to count and Brodkin is in fourth place, trailing Maufas by 1,300 votes.
According to BeyondChron, there are a lot of provisional ballots in D10 that need to be counted, but I'm assuming they will favor Maufas (and Khalif) rather than Brodkin.
M, I saw you on Polk street in the Tenderloin with diamond studded pumps and a hot pink mini skirt. But just because I assert something doesn’t make it so. You have taken an incident at 555 and twisted it to make it out to be something other than what it was. I was not escorted out for threatening anybody. I was escorted out ostensibly because I was not wearing a visitor’s pass even though I signed in at the front desk and wasn’t asked to wear one at the time because they know me. The real reason I was asked to leave the Media office was because I had asked them why SFUSD employees were editing a private school-related blog on the taxpayer’s dime. They didn’t have an answer for me, hence, the rude treatment. I spoke before of this incident on this blog and you have may words and just substituted your own fantasies. If you have any doubts about this you may call Susan Wong at the Office of Equity , Policy and Operations because she works right next door and she will explain it to you. By the way, I was there at 555 to meet with her.When you tried to make out my involvement in Cub Scouts as homophobia I just shook my head in disbelief. But you are taking this strange vendetta too far. You accuse me of stalking. What is this nonsense? Have you no shame? You are bad person.
Don and Katy, please take it offline. Thanks in advance.
If someone is going to continually attack me I am going to continually defend myself. That's just the way it is. I don't like it either, but you're asking to much of me.
It's still not over, there are about 30,000 more ballots to count.
Yes, but according to BeyondChron, provisional ballots are typically cast by persons in prison or the military, who I'd imagine would tend to favor Maufas rather than Brodkin. IMO it's pretty much over for Brodkin.
Whatever, 8:20.But what you are saying seems so racist: "people in prison will favor Maufas".Yuck!We'll see soon enough.
I don't know the back story to this feud. What I do know is Don seems to be attacked on every thread. Someone is trying to discredit him at every opportunity. Why, I don't know. But it doesn't have anything to do with the election and shouldn't be cluttering up the thread.
So stop talking about him, 8:58.
regarding Military families, I think Brodkin was the only BOE candidate to actively campaign for their votes:http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/10/25/wikileaks-military-families-and-importance-voting-rights
So maybe Brodkin will get more of those provisional votes?No harm in hoping:)
there is nothing racist about that comment. Blacks voted overwhelmingly for Barach. Jane Kim won with the Asian vote. Did you see the SF Weekly article on her? It isn't racist to think that someone might vote based upon race. It isn't a great idea but it happens all the time.
The racism is in suggesting that all people in prison are African American. Only 29% of the California prison population is African American.
Good people,Allow me if I might to point out the obvious. If you don't want to talk about HIM, then don't talk about HIM. And that includes posting comments about not talking about HIM.
I believe an apology to Don is in order.
Don for interim mayor!
Don't feed the troll.
SHE is not the type of person who apologizes. That takes scruples. Anyone who just makes stuff up in an effort to disparage another person is not the apologizing type. Let's just stick to the topic. People can see that anyone who would go out of their way to put someone down minute by minute and day after day is on a crusade and has sunk pretty far down. I just feel bad that I am associated with her rantings. But it is her behavior not mine. I need to stop feeling as if I need to defend myself, though. I don't know this person. I have never met her. And I certainly don't care to.
Hang in there, Brother! Don't let the bottom feeding rabble get you down.
Nobody cares. Take it off this blog.
I care. Such abominable behavior is worth caring about.
Who is Moggy?
Moggy is Kate.
All these back and forth posts are from Don, sockpuppeting endlessly.He always tries to make the discussion about HIM.Kate, please delete this entire thread, or at least all the posts in it that have nothing at all to do with the SUBJECT: "Voting: Board of Education"
Rather than ask to have posts removed from the blog, why not refrain from writing them in the first place? Problem solved.
I am not trying to make the discussion about me. You are. Do I come on Sf kfiles and endlessly accuse you? No. To thine own self be true.
"Moggy is Kate"If you mean Kate who runs this blog - no Moggy is not Kate. Moggy is a woman whose first name is Katy.
Why don't Moggy/Katy and Don meet face to face and hash out their differences instead of subjecting the rest of us to the hijacking of this blog?
Hi 4:33,I appreciate the sentiment and I feel badly that the blog gets hijacked by this stuff. But... I am not the one that comes on here make constant accusations. I am on the pointed end of a spear that is constantly thrown by an anonymous person or persons. I admit that I have participated in this off topic dialogue at times, but only to the extent that I need to defend myself. It is very unpleasant to have someone say things about you that are not true. As I said earlier I don't know this person. I don't know her real name nor do I care to meet her. I just want her to leave me alone.
Now Don's the martyr hero. Everyone look back on this blog and see all the nasty mean things Don has written about any number of people. Don always goes off topic and makes numerous conversations about himself. He's certainly not the victim that's for sure. And....this is not M or K.
M & K should get a restraining order, the guy's a nutcase!
They only counted about 2,000 votes today. Brodkin is still 4th, about 1335 votes behind.
How many votes still remain to be counted? According to the SFBG, most of the currently uncounted votes are from provisional ballots, that are typically cast by military personnel and those in hospitals or jails. My guess would be that most of these voters simply left the BOE section blank. I really doubt that Brodkin will be able to get more votes than Maufas at this point.
About 25,000 votes left to count. Could be 2 more weeks.
6:10 is a sock puppet.
The comment by 6:10 is the kind of irresponsible and inflammatory commentary that should not have a place on this blog. You are the one constantly attacking me, not the other way around. I don't even know who you are other than "anonymous" or kate or moggy or moody or whatever it is you call yourself nowadays. Shame on you for this disgraceful behavior.As far as my pointed criticism of public school officials, that is entirely appropriate and necessary in a democracy.
Ignore the troll.
5;56 pm is right. He is not the victim here, he is the bully.
Read this entire thread and you will see that Don is not the bully here.
Don is "posing" as other people, and "attacking" himself, and then blaming others, all to focus attention for himself. Yes, we should just ignore it all.
Those of you who have posted know if you are me or whether you've been drinking pollyjuice potion. When you are accused of being a sock puppet you can clearly see what is going on here. They/she says over and over to ignore me and no sooner do they say it then they start accusing again.
For lack of any active moderation and at risk of blow back, I will say…Let’s face it, this forum was placed here as a courtesy by Kate (not that Kate). Y'all need to shape up or people will continue to lose interest as is already the case as a result this insult-fest. If you’re going to post anonymously don’t take the attitude that your opinion actually counts for anything. Anonymity is the same behavior used by such notorious groups as the Taliban, Al Queda and the KKK. I'm getting very tired of reading anonymous posts by people who claim the high road, want to tell us who to listen to and what is true and what is false, but haven’t got the gumption to be anything other than hidden.So may I suggest… If you are going to post and/or criticize anonymously, you need to provide more than "lol, you suck or you’re a sock puppet or what an idiot". Let’s have constructive criticism along with a breakdown of what and why a person’s post is wrong if you disagree. If you can't handle that and the current behavior continues, the blog will continue to infarct and hemorrage participants. Secondly, if you can't handle your ideas being properly and reasonable scrutinized, don’t post. Not everyone wants to listen to your incessant whining. In other words, insults and crap should stop.Questions? Comments?
Don, I agree with you on this point, but please drop it. If you and Katy have something to discuss, please email each other back and forth rather than clogging up this blog. Thank you
Tell the "anonymous" person or persons who keep attacking me to stop doing so rather than asking that I stop defending myself against defamation. What you don't appreciate is that an anonymous person simply slips out of any responsibility for his or actions while I am forced to defend mine..
8:24 - I'm not Don. I didn't read anything he wrote on this subject I deemed to be improper. You on the other hand continue to write the same accusatory posts over and over. Anyone can see that you are the troll. I'm sure I don't speak only for myself when I say we are ruddy sick of your crap.