By Antonio D. French
Filed Tuesday, August 07, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Cleaning out the old digital closet, we ran across this nugget of irony.
In July 2006, when he was running for state senate, Derio Gambaro sent this mailer to St. Louis voters saying he was the "best person to stop Governor [Matt] Blunt's agenda."
As we all know, in June 2007 Governor Blunt appointed Gambaro to the State Board of Education...
18 Comments:
Gambaro is a prime example of how many politicians prostitute themselves for money or jobs!
8/07/2007 10:36 PM
Wrong,
The position he was appointed to pays less than $100.00 per monthly meeting.
8/08/2007 8:11 AM
It is interesting that the negative Jeff Smith story is followed by a Gambaro story.
8/08/2007 8:13 AM
Today is the anniversary of the election, you know.
8/08/2007 9:54 AM
Gambaro is a prime example of the level of expertise available from the state board of education.
100 dollars a meeting? times 8 members? My God, that is 800 dollars a meeting. You don't always get what you pay for.
As a taxpayer----I demand a refund.
kjoe
8/08/2007 12:06 PM
The transitional board, with a solid majority of African American citizens appointed by Democrats Slay and Reed, was established according to law by a state board of education with a majority appointed by Democratic former governors. Maybe we should see what this new board actually does before we start criticizing.
Could they really do any worse than what we already have?
8/08/2007 3:39 PM
Oracle, the same could be said about the Board as reconfigured in April after the election--how about their chance? We have seen them buy new textbooks, bring in new programs, discuss safety issues, and remain open to public input. They can't help it that they have a saboteur on the Board.
As a parent, I've seen the SAB hold meetings on a random schedule with the minimum notice as required by law, and hire a law firm. That's it. We had the chance to let people who were ready to do something do it. Now we're back to the waiting game while people who don't feel they have a responsibility to the public figure out what they want to do. Of course they could do worse. And if they do, we have no way to remove them. The members of the SAB are irrelevant; it is the process by which they came into being that deserves criticism.
8/08/2007 5:42 PM
Regasrding the state board---Branson guy was appointed by Ashcroft, Alan Keyes delegate Chrisitian school builder came from Blunt, KC minister came from Blunt, and Gambaro---who once pledged to stop Blunt's agenda---was appointed by Blunt.
Could they (Takeover board) really do any worse than what we already have?
8/08/2007 3:39 PM
Yes. Especially if you think welcoming a state board's TexasCan Charter school, and othe slay blunt crap with open arms, destroying and undermining constructive solutions being pursued by the current superintendent, leading to her firing would be a bad thing.
No, if you think welcoming bright new ideas like texascan charter schools and replacing a discredited superintendent with someone more competent would be a good thing.
kjoe
8/08/2007 8:23 PM
kojoe your love affair with Bourisaw makes you suspect. Who are you and do you really know. It is simple if the board is gone so should Bourisaw. She has proven herself to be a self deserving person after money and fame. Time to get a real superintendent in this district and a real board.
8/09/2007 1:27 AM
Anonymous---we disagree about Bourisaw. That does not make you suspect to me---it just makes me think we disagree, and that could stem from you witnessing things which I have not.
I have to wonder---if you want Bourisaw gone, you have probably favored the takeover. If the takeover board does not fire Bourisaw---does that make them suspect? Does that cause disappointment? kj
8/09/2007 1:47 AM
No did not favor the takeover but can see what kind a person Bourisaw is. She is now working against the elected board. The lady has no ethics.
8/09/2007 2:44 PM
Oh, come on...no ethics? Even the elected board has faced the facts that they are no longer in charge and have not placed any blame on Dr. Bourisaw. Dr. Bourisaw works for whoever is in charge and she has no control over that. Seems to me that she has stayed out of all of this BS (at least in public) and rightly so. She supported the elected board up to a point and when we (all of us who support the elected board) failed to keep them in power she went to work for the SAB. It is not the Superintendent's job to choose who she works for. The Superintendent's job is to set educational policy for the district.
Ok haters, feel free to attack.
8/09/2007 6:47 PM
Kjoe, the state board that decreed the takeover did not include Blunt appointee Gambaro.
Also, the "newly constituted" elected board only included two new members, whose addition to the board did not change control of the board, since both are allied with what had been a 4-3 pro-420 anti-Slay working majority. City school problems are an accumulation of mismanagement by several successive boards, and two new members weren't going to change anything.
8/09/2007 7:53 PM
Oracle,
There was somewhat of a shift when Wessling and (David) Jackson were elected because Flint Fowler's vote was made less significant. Up until that time Fowler was the swing vote and was never a "sure thing". Some who followed closely (myself included) feel that certain votes/changes were never attempted because it was felt that Fowler would not support them. As it happened, Fowler's vote was never really tested on controversial items.
8/09/2007 8:00 PM
One other thing, 420 did play a large part in helping get what was then called the "new majority" elected. (O'Brien, Purdy, Downs, Jones, Wessling & D. Jackson)
But what advantage has 420 gained?
8/09/2007 8:06 PM
420 also endorsed three of four of the first "new majority" (Schoemehl, Clinkscale, and Jackson) back in 2003.
8/09/2007 10:07 PM
"""Also, the "newly constituted" elected board only included two new members, whose addition to the board did not change control of the board, since both are allied with what had been a 4-3 pro-420 anti-Slay working majority."""
That is part true, part not true.
Purdy, Downs and Jones were clearly opposed to Slay. Archibald, Ron Jackson, and Fowler were supporters of or by Slay, and after the big event, Ron Jackson and Archibald were very bitter, almost to the point of being destructive. Fowler was not that way.
Veronica O'Brien was chosen by Slay, re-elected on her own, and caused Slay to say he had made a terrible mistake in choosing her.
The big event of which I speak is when Downs, Purdy, Jones and O'Brien knocked down the stonewall of Creg Williams protecting Floyd Irons. That alliance of four took very significant action, but it was a short-lived alliance.
Whether it had something to do with the frightening execution of Tim Bacon, or Bourisaw's intervention regarding the salary of new coach Bonner, or other feelings of betrayal, Veronica was soon aligned with Ron Jackson, Archibald, and Fowler. She ended up supporting the takeover, and she seemed to have very negative feelings toward former allies Downs, Jones, and Purdy, and of course, towards the superintendent she had helped to choose.
The five or six united members which compose the elected board had some intelligent people with a possibility of improvement over previous boards---
There is a bit of history about which I am curious---and it can have many subjective answers. Why did Purdy leave the board---though he had contributed much, even he thought it was time for new blood? He has told us why he came back---some will doubt him and have less positive reactions than mine--it rings true for me that he was genuinely concerned about damage which was being done.
8/10/2007 2:11 AM
Back to Gambaro - he received a chunk of change from the right-wing nut "Voucher" proponents in
the senate race. He has no business
sitting on the Missouri State Board of Education. That would
be "public" education. Incidently
the same folks are already doubling
their monetary efforts to shove
"vouchers" down the taxpayers throats.
8/10/2007 4:57 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home