The Vote YES campaign offers weak excuses about their disadvantages

Before we get to the Whaabulance party going on in the Vote YES campaign, I want to clarify something for voters.

If you vote NO on Tuesday, that means you support school starting after Labor Day. That vote also means you will TRULY get a school start date change.

If you vote YES on Tuesday, that means you like the calendar just the way it is, and there will be NO changes made. There seems to be this myth floating around out there that if you VOTE yes there is a chance of a compromise. I can almost guarantee that will NOT happen. The school board has already said they would not look at it seriously until after the vote, and there is nothing in writing. In fact, only one school board member, Kent Alberty has said he supports a compromise, but doesn’t speak for the rest of the board. Don’t kid yourself, whoever wins on Tuesday, one of two things will be clear. The calendar will remain the same, or it will change to after Labor Day. Let’s not muddy the waters with what ifs.

As for the campaigns themselves, I have been watching both of them very closely. It seems the Vote NO campaign has raised money, they have organized, they have put up yard signs, they have done a mailer and they have done print ads. They have also participated in several forums.

The Vote YES campaign has depended on students to get out their message, have raised very little money, and have really just whined about being hamstrung by state law. This is where I will come in and say “Poppycock!”

When I addressed the school board about state law concerning campaigning and the use of public funds and property I never once said that teachers couldn’t campaign. In fact, the way I look at it, teachers have 16 hours a day Monday-Friday and 24 hours a day, Saturday and Sunday to fully practice their 1st amendment rights and campaign for the YES vote. State law hasn’t prohibited the teachers from organizing, raising money, knocking on doors, talking to friends and neighbors or even holding public informationals, that would be a direct violation of their 1st Amendment rights, and they know it, or maybe they don’t?

State law is pretty clear. You can’t do it on the taxpayer’s dime, that’s it. But I have heard a lot of whining by their side that they have been somehow hamstrung by this law. That is just a bunch of boloney. It almost seems like teachers don’t think they should have to campaign for their cause unless they are getting paid, and that is unfortunate. Or is it that NOT all teachers support the early start? I have talked to several who are looking forward to the longer summer and voting NO. So let’s be clear, nothing has prevented teachers from campaigning on their own time, and some have, and I commend them. But to claim they are being hamstrung by state law is a stretch.

At the end of the day, the choice is simple on Tuesday. If you like the way things are, VOTE Yes, if you want your kids to enjoy summer more, VOTE NO.

This isn’t rocket science folks.



8 comments ↓

#1 Winston on 04.13.15 at 1:58 pm

Vote “Yes” on Tuesday! We cannot legitimize the nonsense and the waste of time which this issue truly represents in our local electoral process by voting “No.”

In addition, to selecting your two choices to serve on the School Board the only other issue, which has not been adequately raised is how the School Board like the City continues to insist on using “Super Precincts” for their elections.

“Super Precincts” are nothing but voter suppression. They are not more convenient (well, they might be for the vote counters, but I thought elections were about the voters and not the incumbent administrators) as some would suggest. Don’t you drive-by or near your old precinct voting place on the way to or from work each day?

Folks, this election should be about the candidates for the Board. I is time leaders in this town from the fourth estate to actual former and current elected officials recognize how “Super Precincts” are only a “Super” idea for those who want to affect the voter outcome through suppression of the vote on election day.

#2 hornguy on 04.13.15 at 2:04 pm

“if you want your kids to enjoy summer more, VOTE NO.”

I would posit that in reality, all that’s happening is that three weeks of Snapchatting and hanging out would be relocated from May to August, and that families may be giving up extended plans around Memorial Day for extended plans around Labor Day.

What we’ve really learned here – and truly, over the last number of years – is that some people really like to force the uneducated masses to vote on stuff. Abortion, marijuana, school start dates, what color the snowplows are, what people can do with private property, who can be featured on a billboard – let’s vote on all of it.

Sioux Falls – we heart direct dumb-ocracy.

#3 anonymous on 04.13.15 at 4:20 pm

hornguy, do you demonstrate as much interest in your current place of residence as you do in your last (SF)?

#4 hornguy on 04.13.15 at 9:18 pm

Indeed I do. But admittedly, given my prior employment in Sioux Falls – at a non-profit dependent on the goodwill of the bourgeoisie – I do enjoy my liberation from those constraints from time to time.

And this blog is a good read whether I agree with the host or not. Plus, it sure as hell beats the Argus, where I have to read the ex-mayor’s PR hack write sloppy BJ articles about whatever new company is bringing more $12-an-hour jobs to your town.

#5 Dan Daily on 04.13.15 at 10:23 pm

Vote other than Huether directive. It’s automatically what’s best for Sioux Falls.

#6 Nemesis on 04.14.15 at 9:03 am

Hornguy, keep us up to date on the frivolities of your current location. Knowing a bit more about the Twin Cities never hurt anyone.

#7 teatime on 04.14.15 at 10:50 am

hornguy: did you ever live IN Sioux Falls?

#8 anominous on 04.14.15 at 11:27 am

I feel bad for the families who can still afford to take summer vacations away from this place. 🙁