The Result of Voter Apathy - State School Board Nominating Committee

Last Sunday, Jeff Alexander (2008 chair of the State School Board Recruiting and Nominating Committee) and Tom Hatch (legislator that sponsored the bill creating the committee) wrote an editorial in the Trib arguing the merit of the current system of electing State School Board officials. editorial For those of you unfamiliar with the process, currently a committee of 12 members appointed by the governor whittle down the candidates. The committee is made up of a representative from each of the following sectors: manufacturing and mining; transportation and public utilities; service, trade, and information technology; finance, insurance, and real estate; construction; agriculture; a teacher; a school administrator; a parent; a local school board member; a charter school representative; and a higher education representative. A quick tally shows 6 from the business community (the consumers of public education) and 6 from the education community. When more than 3 candidates file for an open seat, the committee interviews those running, and ranks the contestants in numerical order on preference. The governor then decides what 2 people will appear on the November ballot.

In the Tribune editorial reference above, Alexander and Hatch argue since the State School Board members: have such large districts, are non partisan seats, and that campaigns do not bring in much money; the committee is the best way to nominate candidates from the field. The nominating committee is able to interview the candidates and each member of the committee has a vested interest in their selection. They argue the reality is that voters are apathetic, once that fact is recognized, the current imperfect system is the best option.

There are many who disagree with Alexander and Hatch. They cite that the committee is made up mostly of urban members, with little rural representation. The last two times the nominating committee was required some popular incumbents were excluded from even being placed on the ballot. (This year many are watching to see if Kim Burningham makes it through the process, he was an active part of the ethics initiative push this year, which was not too popular among many elected officials). They argue direct non-partisan elections, despite voter ignorance on the issues, is the only fair way. editorial

This year's committee is meeting today. They will have to eliminate candidates in districts 2, 3, 5, 9, and 14. The Governor will then eliminate one additional candidate from those districts as well as in districts 6 and 15. A total of 18 candidates will never make the ballot.

Voters are NOT knowledgeable about the role of the School Board or the candidates running for those positions. But the current process seems to go beyond recognizing that fact, it seems to embrace it. The committee is a short list of who's who of Utah lobbyists. Saying that making the election of school board members direct non partisan would lead to special interests funding a candidate to buy the election, discredits the fact that they currently get to choose who goes on the ballot. What is the nominating committee's criteria for a good school board candidate if a popular incumbent fails to even make the ballot? Prior to 1994 elections were direct nonpartisan races, to go back to that will take a huge uproar. It is time for partisan legislators to change the law back. For that to happen, voters need to take responsibility and gain enough knowledge of the issue that their disgust with the current system can not be discredited as unintelligible. The reality that voters are apathetic should motivate more education, not inspire lawmakers to create a committee accountable to no one to make decisions on behalf of the electorate.

To see the members of the State School Board Nominating Committee go here.