Here is the weird thing about this election: Dave Seiffert's current term does not expire until 2013.
Yes, that is correct. He literally cannot lose on Tuesday.
However, if voters choose to give him a 4-year seat, they are taking a huge risk. Why? Because if that happens, his 2-year seat will again be filled by appointment.
This can happen before the new board is seated. Why is that a problem? If either Gerald Chapman or James Ekeberg lose on Tuesday, one of them could be appointed to that seat and will serve another 2 years, even though the public did not choose them.
A vote guaranteeing him 4 years, rather than having him serve the 2 years he had agreed to, is not worth that kind of risk. Dave Seiffert can run for a 4-year seat in 2013 without this kind of risk involved.
Dave C. Wilson
Palatine
Taraxias
6:38 am on Saturday, April 2, 2011
Sieffert is an unqualified union stooge and buffoon. Hopefully, the voters will see through this and vote out these jerks.
Jenny
7:02 am on Saturday, April 2, 2011
Dave Seiffert is a nice guy.
However, a Board member needs many other very important attributes to serve in that very challenging position-- other than just "nice guy". At this point, he does not deserve an additional term to that which he was handed on a silver platter by Chapman, Eckeberg & gang. I see lots of campaigning, publishing, and communication efforts coming from the 1-3-5 candidates. What has Dave said or done besides answer every question at the forums with, "I'll seek the advice of the Administration." No thanks, Dave. We've already had enough of that. I'll vote for ALL 1-3-5 candidates. Their efforts, actions, and responses have earned my respect.
Kathy O.
9:16 am on Saturday, April 2, 2011
I'm glad that Mr. Wilson wrote this letter. Dave Seiffert was just appointed to this position (under much controversy) not too long ago. There is no reason to vote him into a four year seat until he has a proven track record. Let the voting public decide who gets to serve on the board. Let's not leave it up to the board majority to decide who they want to appoint.
Sasha Yu
1:52 pm on Saturday, April 2, 2011
"There is no reason to vote him into a four year seat until he has a proven track record." << one of the many reasons I'm leaning against ANY of the 1-3-5 candidates. ...
Alex
10:20 am on Saturday, April 2, 2011
Dave Seiffert will be a great canidate for our school board. He understands what needs to be done for education and our children.
Kathy O.
10:32 am on Saturday, April 2, 2011
He may be just as you say. However, it doesn't erase the fact that regardless of the outcome of the election he will serve on the board (either in a two year or four year capacity.) It is not fair to vote him to a four year seat when he was already appointed to the two year seat. If he is voted in, it will allow the board to appoint another member. This is not right, leave that decision to the public. If Mark Bloom (the board member who Seiffert replaced) would not be allowed to run in this election, why should Mr. Seiffert be allowed? Furthermore, I think the voting public has a right to full disclosure on this fact so that a truly informed decision can be made before casting a ballot. Mr. Seiffert has two years to prove himself.
Maryb
3:03 pm on Saturday, April 2, 2011
Dave Seiffert’s appointment to one term while running for another term, as a team with Chapman and Ekeberg, is a clear example of the mendacity of Chapman and Ekeberg. Their actions display a naked power grab that none of us should allow. Think about this: Chapman holds himself up as a pillar of the community, Ekeberg is a family doctor and Seiffert sells a child’s treat, ice cream. Talk about wolves in sheep clothing. It takes your breathe away.
Mark
11:29 am on Wednesday, April 6, 2011
It's so nice that justice prevailed in this election. All the plotting and conniving by Chapman and Ekeberg with Bloom's resignation and filling his seat was to no avail. They wasted a thousand dollars on attorney fees for nothing.
Congratulations Manjula, Scott, and Gerard!