This blog has been edited from an earlier version.
One of the best science-fiction films of the 1970’s is the remake of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” starring Donald Sutherland. Sutherland’s character, a city health inspector, starts to notice personality changes in the people around him. When Sutherland drops in on a Chinese couple who own the neighborhood dry cleaning shop, he’s surprised not to hear their usual bickering. The husband leans into Sutherland while his wife stares blankly at the two of them and he whispers, “She’s not my wife.”
Watching the Rochester school board elect its new officers last night was a bit like watching a scene from the film; some board members’ votes were mysterious and hard to explain. While Van White’s election to the board presidency was fairly predictable, the reasons some members gave for supporting Cynthia Elliott as vice president were convoluted and didn’t gel with reality.
Elliott has been a controversial and, at times, divisive figure on the school board. She is frequently confrontational and has found herself at odds with her fellow board members on everything from the direction of the school district to the supervision of superintendents. Elliott also didn’t initially have the support of the Democratic Party in her latest re-election bid. She had to wage a primary to get on the ballot.
Yet some board members twisted themselves into pretzels last night, trying to justify their votes.
In nominating Elliott for vice president, Jose Cruz said that although he and Elliott often disagreed, that he respects her passion for helping city students. Outgoing board president Malik Evans said he voted for Elliott because he always knows where he stands with her.
Elliott’s challenger for the VP post was Willa Powell, who was nominated by Van White and has consistently been one of White’s strongest supporters.
Powell was also supported by board member Mary Adams. Adams said she couldn’t support someone for a leadership position who not too long ago advocated for doing away with the school board. (Elliott supported mayoral control during former mayor Bob Duffy’s push a few years ago.)
Elliott ended up winning the vice presidency in a 4 to 3 vote.
The loss had to be tough for Powell to take, since she has frequently supported the board members who ended up voting for Elliott last night. Powell’s colleagues seemed to have trouble looking Powell in the eye during the meeting.
Powell’s loss may be more about her lack of support at City Hall and in some corners of the Democratic Party. She was a critic of Lt. Governor Robert Duffy when he was mayor, and she’s often spoken out against the neo-liberal education reformers who embrace charter schools. On the other hand, Elliott and new mayor Lovely Warren share a benefactor in David Gantt, a state Assembly member and one of the area’s most powerful and influential politicians.
This article appears in Jan 1-7, 2014.
Tim, was this post edited? It seems to be missing something that I read earlier in the day.
Hi Dave,
The answer to your question is yes. We decided that the first version of the blog needed some work, so it was taken down and reworked. We’ve now noted the change at the top of the blog. Thanks for pointing out.
Chris Fien
City news editor
Dave,
Do you remember what you “read earlier,” which is now “missing”? I’m really interested in knowing — because certain parts of the article are very strange.
I NEED Y’ALL TO HELP ME OUT WITH THIS. IS IT JUST ME, OR IS THE ARTICLE BELOW STRANGE IN SOME WAYS?
First and foremost, I want to be clear about the fact that my questions (above and below) have absolutely nothing to do with me supporting a particular school board member(s). As many of you know, I am unequivocally convinced that ALL of them who were up for reelection recently, as well as those who will be up for reelection two years from now — should be replaced. If there is any governmental entity in which FRESH, NEW, BOLD, KNOWLEDGEABLE, COMMITTED LEADERSHIP is desperately needed — it certainly is the Rochester Board of Education. Still, I just don’t get parts of the article below.
For example, is it just me, or does it seem that Willa Powell is being portrayed by journalist Tim Macaluso as the “victimized, great-white-hope?” — i.e., “The loss had to be tough for Powell to take, since she has frequently supported the board members who ended up voting for Elliott last night. Powell’s colleagues seemed to have trouble looking Powell in the eye during the meeting.”
And can someone please help me to understand this one: “Powell’s loss may be more about her lack of support at City Hall and in some corners of the Democratic Party. Elliott and new mayor Lovely Warren share a benefactor in David Gantt, a state Assembly member and one of the area’s most powerful and influential politicians.” WHAT??? Is this guy really serious? Is he actually suggesting, or am I misunderstanding — that Campos, Cruz, and Evans voted for Cynthia Elliot because they are afraid of, or beholding, or pandering to Lovely Warren, David Gantt, and their “corner of the Democratic Party.” What about Powell’s ally — State Democrat Party Majority Leader, and Chairman of Monroe County’s Democrat Party, Assemblyman Joe Morelle? Is he NOT “one of the area’s most powerful and influential politicians?” Seriously, am I missing something here?
Additionally, it’s fine to have principles, but should the idea of being “principled” NOT be consistent? I mean (relative to leadership) — if someone decides that he or she can’t vote for a particular Board member (based on the Board member’s past position on a critically important issue) — then is it not a fundamental contradiction for such person to have declared that he or she would “never” support Dr. Bolgen Vargas as Superintendent of the Rochester City School District, and then, when it’s time to vote, actually turn around and vote in favor of his appointment?
Lastly, is the article below an example of race-based, “yellow journalism,” which I observed people writing about here (on face book) a couple of days ago, or am I off-base?
I”M JUST ASKING. HELP M E OUT.
Ok, so now Mr. Cruz and Ms. Campos, after opposing Mr Gantt last year and Ms. Warren this year, are now doing their bidding? This line of reasoning is ridiculous. It may be that Campos, Cruz and Evans have decided that they are not going to be pawns of the RTA, and are actually serious about educating African American and Latino students.
David Gantt part II and III.
Tim is on the right track here. The focus belongs on the three board members who did this to Rochester: Malik Evans, Melisza Campos, Jose Cruz. Why?
While we wish her good health, and every kind of personal well being, Cynthia Elliott is not an appropriate choice to lead the city school board. Readers of this publication are very familiar with the reasons.
There was her celebrated and repeated public bursts of profanity at a board meeting, and later to media, just prior to the 2009 election. There was her climb down from the stage to intimidate a union leader, who expressed an opinion that offended her at a board meeting. There has been her too frequent failure to perform the most basic board responsibilities, attend meetings, attend important job interviews, and prepare for board work. Health, which did not prevent her from running again last year, does not account for most of this. There has been her regular and cynical resort to appeals to racial animosity. There was her indecent circulation of the troubled musings of a child of a prominent union leader, about that union leader’s divorce. There is her support for abolishing the school board she collects a salary to serve on, and continues to run for, coupled with her disproportionate contribution to making that board a laughing stock, which fuels the mayoral control movement. This is just a partial list.
When it is politically convenient , some people excuse Elliott’s conduct by saying “well, she is just so passionate in her concern for children….” This is not just hogwash, it is offensive hogwash. There is zero evidence she cares more about kids than any board member she has served with. Quite the opposite.
I have served on 3 elected public school boards, and I served with Elliott, Evans, and Campos. I observed Elliott’s performance to be almost completely devoid of either decency or good faith. I know Evans and Campos observed the same thing, and we talked about it many times. It is deeply disappointing, even shocking, that these two board members would do such a manifestly irresponsible thing.
We can speculate about motives. Cruz ran against Gantt in 2012, rendering his support for Elliott particularly hypocritical. Campos supported Cruz. Both barely won their last board primary. Evans endorsed Richards, believing he was on the winning side. Perhaps these three were trying to get right with Gantt. Evans resents Willa Powell’s run for assembly in 2010, which he believes cost him the seat won by Harry Bronson (BTW, Howard, Joe Morelle is no ally of Powell), Why would the board elect and then rebuke Van White? Is Gantt’s Mayoral Control law, or a state takeover of city schools on tap? Elliott’s antics in a more visible position might grease the skids. We can only guess.
We can be sure of this, however. Whatever silly political game playing led to this, it was not done in the public interest. Evans and Campos face reelection next year. I like them personally. We worked well together. They have sought and had my support in the past. I want a better explanation than they have given, and so do a lot of other people. The Democratic Committees in the southeast part of the city, whose members have expressed concern about Elliott before, might be a good place to start. We can’t blame this one on Gantt, folks. The board members who did this must be accountable.
Tom Brennan
Rochester, NY
I would trust the editorial voice of City if they hired African Americans or hispanics. Even one. But since their current staff is completely Caucasian and their previous writers have been 95% white, I have a difficult time believing that they value this population of Rochester and more report on them like another Sci-Fi movie District 9.
In that movie the journalists swoop in and out of the dangerous sections of District 9 (read “The Crescent”) and from a safe distance siphon off the glitz and the non-glamourous stories from the darker race, to sell copy.
City does this every week, never really knowing about the community they report on. Tim Macaluso’s use of the “Body Snatchers” metaphor is emblematic of this superficial journalism trick and extremely harmful to race relations and in-depth understanding of our city’s problems.
The blind continues to lead the blind, while the same persons sit on Boards making decisions which benefit no one.
Rochester is a joke.
Campos attendance or lack of attendance to board meeting should be addressed. Board members pay themselves 23k a year. The school district is at the bottom of the state and the boards pay themselves the highest of any school board member of the state. If teachers and principals have to be held accountable at the very least can the board explain how they deserve to be paid at all??