We’ve often gotten the impression when listening to public speakers commenting at certain public meetings, particularly school board meetings, that the speakers are living in a different universe from what most Alamance County residents experience on a day-to-day basis.
No where was that more obvious than this week’s procession of lopsidely enthusiastic boosters who felt that former Democratic state representative Ricky Hurtado should be appointed to fill the vacancy left by the February resignation of Chuck Marsh.
Keep in mind that, at least ostensibly, the school board is a non-partisan elected body.
(We would emphasize the word “ostensibly.” As we’ve noted previously, we’re not at all sure but what the commissioners should ask the General Assembly to change the election to a partisan one, as are many others across the state. Half the time, one political party or the other is pushing its “slates” of ABSS candidates from “their” partisan preference, so we might as well put the partisan labels right on the ballot, for full disclosure so that all voters, not just party insiders, will know who’s who.)
This week’s parade of partisans was apparently a subcommittee (whether official or simply self-appointed) of the Alamance County Democratic Party. (All of the seven public speakers spoke in favor of Hurtado; six, we couldn’t help but notice, are registered Democrats, the seventh, a former president of the county teachers’ union.)
Almost as if in unison, they voiced their desire (several in terms of “demand”) that Hurtado be appointed in order, somehow, to show emphathy, sympathy, or otherwise identify with, or “represent,” the Hispanic school children in the ABSS system.
Apparently, local Democrats are as enamored of lobbying for DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) as are national ones.
Here’s an obvious problem.
The underlying premise that he should have been selected because he is Hispanic is bewildering, indeed.
Neither elected nor appointed positions are supposed to be decided based on race.
Hurtado was a controversial representative even during his single term.
Some local officials complained that he wasn’t very attentive to their needs.
But aside from his leftwing voting tendencies in Raleigh, we are especially perplexed by the attempted or manufactured groundswell that he should become a school board member.
What are his credentials for a local education post? Why hasn’t he run before for the board?
Most importantly, he doesn’t have a child in the ABSS system, which in our opinion should be a major factor in any decision about school board service.
We’ve long believed that having children in the school system is a useful prerequisite for school board service. And we’ve been surprised by how few recent members have had children in ABSS schools.
Most of those on the current board who don’t have any children in the system either used to: Sandy Ellington-Graves’ daughter graduated in 2024; Avery Wagoner’s children have also graduated from the system; Dan Ingle had children (two who are now teachers), and has grandchildren, in the system. Or do currently: Dr. Charles Parker and Tameka Harvey, as well as the new member selected by the rest of the board, Dr. Eric Hall.
Seneca Rogers does not and has not. Which is another anomaly of why he wanted to serve.
But the idea, as several speakers intoned, that there was almost a righteous duty for the school board members to select Hurtado is at the same time both laughable and deeply disturbing.
He could have run, and perhaps he will in the future.
Because that’s one of the other obvious alternative universe omissions from the Democratic public speakers.
No Hispanic person, other than Hurtado himself, turned out to advocate for selecting a Hispanic board member this week.
If it’s so important, so vital, where were they?
But, more importantly, no one of Hispanic ethnicity, as best we recall, has ever even run for school board. Not in 2024, not in 2022, not in 2020, nor any previous year that we can remember.
The hyperbole used by the speakers in advocating for Hurtado, and the venomous response (when leaving the meeting and afterward toward school board members) when he wasn’t selected, is really appalling.
If members of any particular ethnicity don’t care enough to run for the post in the first place, we hardly see that it was an outrage to appoint someone else.
We have no particular brief for the applicant who was selected.
As we’ve noted previously, we believe the runners-up from last fall’s election (Corrie Shepherd and Peter Morcombe) should have been the obvious leading contenders, with clear public support very recently demonstrated, but neither wanted to do so – even just a few months after their names were on the ballot.
We certainly hope Dr. Hall will be a conscientious board member. In particular, we hope he will bring a greater focus on academic achievement, one that most board members (both past and present) have largely ignored in recent years.
But none of the school board members who voted for him has anything to apologize for – neither for supporting him at all, or especially as juxtaposed to their decision not to elevate Hurtado.
