Posted on 10/08/2005 12:02:58 PM PDT by TaxRelief
When it comes to District 1 school board candidates, the Republican Party's choice is Larry Gauvreau.
The Mecklenburg County GOP's executive committee voted 84-11 Tuesday night [Oct 6, 2005] for Gauvreau, the incumbent, over his challenger, Rhonda Lennon. "I'm glad I got it," said Gauvreau. "I'm not much on endorsements in general, but this one I wanted because the party does match more core values."
The GOP decided to endorse candidates in the non-partisan race when it became apparent that in two districts, two Republicans were running against one Democrat. That was in districts 5 and 6.
That wasn't the case in District 1 and Tuesday's special committee opened with pleas from several [actually just one: Lennon's friend, Bensman] Republican elected officials to avoid endorsement fratricide in District 1 where a Republican was going to get elected no matter what. But those pleas fell on deaf ears.
Both Lennon and Gauvreau addressed the committee which then voted on the matter.
(excerpt from Charlotte Observer) "Lennon held a news conference Wednesday in front of the site where crews are building Highland Creek Elementary School -- construction that she said would not have happened without efforts by her grass-roots group. Lennon was joined by seven mothers and a dozen children. She said the small group was enough to outnumber the District 1 voters who attended Tuesday's meeting, which she called a 'contrived primary.' "
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/breaking_news/12829461.htm
Ping for that extra info that you have.
Gauvreau is the only one on the school board who ever makes any sense. It doesn't seem to help at all, but at least the truth gets out to the handful of voters who care. I can't see what would be gained by the GOP's endorsing a challenger.
GOP endorses school board candidates--snip:
School board races are officially nonpartisan, but GOP chairman John Aneralla said the party felt obligated to get involved.
“There is nothing nonpartisan about this school board,” he said. “It is the most partisan entity probably in the state, and it’s time to ‘fess up to that. And we, as Republicans, need to get onto that school board and make changes that are necessary.”
---end snip.
I think I like this man, John Aneralla; I really cannot imagine any such thing as a "non-partisan" schoolboard, given my past in CA. I have yet to EVER meet a schoolboard that wasn't purely stacked with partisan Democrats and liberals.
Sounds like maybe the Charlotte schools are becoming more and more like CA schools -- Democrat, liberalism to be oozed in as parents are not looking?
...Alia
***
OPEN LETTER TO MECKLENBURG REPUBLICAN PARTY CHAIRMAN JOHN ANERALLA
Dear John,
Based on the results of the Executive Committee meeting last night, it is clear that a majority of key, active local Republicans have no confidence in your leadership.
First, you abdicated your responsibility to preside over the Executive Committee meeting because, apparently, you wanted to take a side in the deliberations. Second, in taking a side, you made a motion to not endorse any Republican candidate in the District 1 school board race, while presumably allowing such endorsements in other districts. Finally, the side you took as to District 1 failed miserably, and the Executive Committee rejected your motion -- the motion of our top local leader -- on a vote of 25 (in favor) and 62 (against).
If you can't lead your side in the local GOP Executive Committee to victory, how can you lead future Republican candidates running in tough general elections to victory?
As a delegate to the last County Convention, who supported your election as chairman, I call on you to resign. There are many other ways for you to contribute to the party, and many do appreciate the hard work you have put forth in the past.
But clearly, by virtue of the judgments you made last night and the substantial lack of support you had from your fellow Republicans in those judgments, you are not in a position to lead a unified, energetic, and principled party going forward. If your priority is to support a single Republican candidate in a nonpartisan district school board race, you can better accomplish that goal, not as party chairman, but simply as an active individual Republican Party member.
Thank you for considering this letter and for your past work for the Republican Party.
Sincerely,
Tom Ashcraft
I'm not in Mecklenburg County, so I only know about John Aneralla from the news, but the impression that I get is that his fits of firmness are few and far between.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school board ... well, it reminds me of the scene in "Men in Black," where they show all the famous people who are aliens. Larry Gauvreau appears to have the personality of a bulldozer, but at least he's not from Planet Zongo, like the rest of the board.
(Full disclosure - I'm saying this based only on news reporting, not having met any of the folks personally.)
I was at an event today where it was hard to spot who was who. Then I met the "power brokers". Yep. Democrats. The suits, the look, the photogs, etc.
Thanks again, for your input on this. (And your full-disclosure caveat. :)
My point being.. I met a more modernized "pubbie" and another "pubbie" running for the same office. The "non-modernized" guy was a doll; wonderful, civil, down-to-earth man loved by his town. The modernized "pubbie" was dynomite, and knew the score, exuded more of the "power" thing. I'll be watching that race closely.
The Dem is the favored.
To shed some light on the situation. There were three districts in Charlotte where more than one registered Republican was on the ballot. (These are what the Dems like to call "non-partisan races."). After much debate at the executive board (the inner, inner circle) the leadership agreed to endorse a candidate in each district. In district 1 Gauvreau, a consistent conservative, had become the subject of derision by the parties moderates, who wanted someone that they felt could work with th Democratic majority on the board. Gauvreau's challenger, Mrs Lennon, was acknowledged to be a formidable organizer and someone who would be less ideological (their words, not mine). There was no Dem challenger in district 1, so Lennon was the candidate likely to be endorsed by the Observer, et al.
At the meeting, Anarella opted not to chair the meeting and had Carson Daves act as meeting chair. Anarella then proceeded to make a motion (in opposition to the rules decided by the executive board that he had just chaired, to only recommend candidates in every district BUT district 1.
Does the letter make more sense in this context? The author is a very promient local conservative who writes occasional columns In the Observer and who argued as the attorney who defeated forced bussing in Charlotte. The letter is going to leave a mark.
Let me sum (to see if I've got it right): At the executive board meeting it was agreed that Repubs would endorse a candidate in each district.
At this same meeting, Anarella did not chair the meeting so that Anarella could then proceed to make a motion for "party endorsement" of all but one district, District 1.
District 1 had only two Repub candidates running for office.
Repubs endorsed Gauvreau; Dems endorsed Repub Lennon.
My question: If Repubs had NOT decided to endorse candidates, across the board, do you think Dems/Observer would have still endorsed Lennon?
At the meeting, what reasons did Anarella give for this caveat concerning District 1?
The observer has not made its endorsements yet. However, they are pretty predictable. Additionally, they would probably make the same endorsement regardless of any executive committee endorsement. Also, it is unlikely that the Dems would formally endorse any Republican, however that does not mean that they would not vote for Lennon over Gauvreau in a heartbeat.
Anarella's ststed reasons amounted to 1. No dem opposition in this race so a Rep wins either way, and 2. Two great candidates, so why choose.
Okay, so it's what I figured. It makes sense.
What about the letter demanding/requesting Anarella step down. ? ?
I haven't spoken with Tom, but here is my guess as to his rationale for calling for Anarella's resignation::
1. Lack of consistency and going against his own hand picked leadership team. Yhe inner leadership team had already voted on a course of action. Anarella's subsequent actions to change the outcome may hjave been perceived as an act of bad faith.
2. Lack of commitment to conservatism. Apparently acted to implement an exception only in the race that would have positioned a moderate to remove a conservative who has proven to be an effective thorn in the side of the Mecklenburg big government cabal.
3. No confidence in his leadership as evidenced by the overwhelming outcome of the vote.
So, absolutely none of his inner team knew he was going to do this? If not, then that explains your item 3: Obviously there wasn't much trust going in either direction.
2. Lack of commitment to conservatism. Apparently acted to implement an exception only in the race that would have positioned a moderate to remove a conservative who has proven to be an effective thorn in the side of the Mecklenburg big government cabal.
Do any of the inner team have any idea why he did this? What is going on behind the scenes? Have any asked him to explain himself?
3. No confidence in his leadership as evidenced by the overwhelming outcome of the vote.
hmm. Sorry to hear it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.