|
OK, that is the end of the ballot. Regular blogging about things people who do not live where I do might possibly care about (but probably still don’t) will resume on Wednesday. For now… time for me to try to run and find a post office and or mailbox that hasn’t had a last pickup yet. Maybe the mail room downstairs will do. Don’t know. I’d rather find a real one. Two candidates:
And the official page on them here. I like Bowman. She points out some of the same gripes as Hemstad and she’s had a nice long career in health care. Sounds reasonable. Although again there is very little info here and I haven’t spent any time digging for more. But given that, my vote goes to: Sue Bowman Two candidates:
And the official page on them here. There is very limited information here. But Hemstad brings up some specific gripes that seem legitimate and Anderson has been on the job a long time. With this limited amount of information, my vote will go to: Anthony Hemstad Two candidates:
The official page on them here. Also, after the last one and before this one, I found this article which goes more into where Sheila Killeen (who I already filled in the bubble for on the last line item on the ballot) and Michael Murphy (on this one) are coming from on the math. And I’m not so sure I agree with them fully. They are into emphasizing computational mathematics over the more abstract ways of teaching math. I can understand where this is coming from, but I also stongly see the value of NOT teaching computational algorithms directly, but rather teaching how to think about problems and how to come up with the algorithms when needed. However, I think the truth here is that which method is best depends highly on the child being taught. I do not think there is a one true right answer here. I think this is a perfect example where the method used should really be adapted on a per child basis depending on the child’s learning style. Unfortunately, things are just not set up to allow for that sort of thing. Given that, I guess I am OK with going with “more traditional” methods that Killeen and Murphy advocate in the case where you have to pick one primary method. But I would really hope that more flexibility is put in place, and the actual mix of the council would allow for a more hybrid method. For people who will be going into higher math levels, learning to think of math as a problem solving exercise rather than somewhere where you memorize and follow rules is crucial. But for making sure people have the basic skills first, you need a bit of the computation and “this is how it is” bit, especially in early grades. You really do need both. But I will go ahead and cast my vote for: Michael Murphy Two candidates:
Official page on them here. Bottom line, I like Killeen’s emphasis on math. There is limited information here, and I haven’t done a ton of research. This is basically based only on her pamphlet blurb. BUt my vote will go to: Sheila W. Killeen There is again only one candidate for this position: Judy Bushnell. Once again, she may be just fine, but I will always vote against anybody running unopposed if I have the ability to do so. Since there is a write in possibility, I will once again vote for myself. My vote goes to: Samuel A Minter There are two candidates again: The official page on them is here. I’m being short again because I don’t have much time to finish this and get to a post office. But I like Keri Andrews I think. Andrews calls Noble out on some specific areas where she feels he has fallen short and she will do better. She says some OK things. Noble is probably actually just fine too. There is nothing really objectionable in the things he says either. But I think this is one case where I will let my anti-incumbent, change is good type bias win. My vote will go to: Keri Andrews There is only ONE candidate for this position: Claudia Balducci. I know nothing about her, and I have not yet done any research on her like I normally would if this was a contested position. She is probably a fine person and probably a fine City Council member. However, I fundamentally believe that in a democracy nobody should ever run unopposed. So I will not vote for her. I can do this because there is a write-in slot. So I will vote for myself. My vote goes to: Samuel A Minter Two candidates: And the official descriptions here. I didn’t see anything really strongly compelling about either candidate here. But the incumbant does seem to have some experience and has been involved with some OK things. The challenger doesn’t seem objectionable, but also doesn’t seem to make any sort of case why she would be particularly better than her opponent. Therefore, I will vote for: John Chelminiak Two candidates again:
The page on them is here. There is also a bit more here and here. I was leaning toward John Robert Albertson at first. I liked some of his comments in the pamplet. But then I read his candidate statement in that last link. He is WAY too into major restrictions on what private people can do with their property. Example, he is against big houses because they are wasteful. As someone who aspires to someday having a big house on a lot of land…. no thanks. As such, even though the incumbant doesn’t really excite me and also has some issues, my vote will go to: Grant Degginger |
||