No, really, this is a watershed election
Beyond the pettiness of the campaign just ending lies the potential emergence of a whole new mood in Seattle-area politics. It would start with a muting of the cultural wars that have bedeviled Seattle politics ever since 9/11. Call it the revenge of the center.
Tuesday's election, following a dispiriting campaign loaded up with petty issues, is actually a kind of watershed election. Or it might be, depending on the results. Permit me to explain, as we head to the voting booth, those few of us who still enjoy the face-to-face experience at the polls.
The first thing you have to do is look past the phony issues. Among the bogus ones that seemed to catch our attention and distract the voters from the underlying issues are these: Can we vote for somebody, even for nonpartisan office in Seattle, who on rare occasion favors a Republican? How well did Venus Velazquez apologize for her DUI arrest? Do we prove our manhood by finally voting for rapid transit, after the setback of 1968 (oh the shame!)? Or by slapping down Tim Eyman yet again? Should you trust what insurance companies say? Can we expunge white racism from Seattle? Does fixing the S-curves on Interstate 405 endanger the planet?
Give me a break!
Far more important than those mildly diverting stories is the larger narrative of this election, which I would define as the attempt by a pragmatic politics to transcend the culture-wars liberalism of the past four years. Cultural or symbolic liberalism is concerned about hot-button but second-tier issues and the perpetuation of false dichotomies over these issues. Examples are: rail versus cars, punishing affluent parents who help their schools with cake sales, saving the port for old-fashioned jobs, defining all transportation issues in apocalyptic terms of endangering the earth, bashing all suburban values with the catch-all slur of sprawl, and describing anyone who has worked in the private sector as the evil twin of Karl Rove or Dick Cheney's Haliburton.
Against all this posturing on the extremes is a counter movement that has gone largely unnoticed in the election. Call it the revenge of the center.
First chapter in the deeper narrative is an attempted legislative revival. The legislative branch of local government is in a decadent state, scrapping over marginal issues and giving the mayors, port executives, and school board superintendents fits. We're coming off an indulgence of this kind of activist agitation on many of these bodies, and it will be interesting to see if the seasoned pragmatists prevail.
The revival is most apparent on the Seattle School Board, where a group of parents, business leaders, and some politicians (including, to his credit, Mayor Greg Nickels), fed up with the shenanigans of the current board, fielded four strong challengers, most with real-world experience. The same theme is strong at the Port of Seattle, with two veterans of international trade and large enterprises, Gael Tarleton and Bill Bryant, running to replace Bob Edwards and Alec Fisken. Fisken in particular has tormented the current commission with his narrow conception of port business (boats and planes). The key figure in the Seattle City Council races is Tim Burgess, also a successful businessperson and a moderate, daring to challenge David Della, an incumbent whose main claim to office is loyalty to unions and advocating for minority issues. The council may be able to move from taking pot shots on the margin to working effectively with a strong mayor on some bolder initiatives, though it still has a long way to go.
Second chapter is the search for a regional coherence, as epitomized by Proposition 1, the multibillion-dollar roads-and-transit measure. Merits of the proposal aside, what intrigues me is its potential to provide a framework for regional cooperation, mixing rapid transit with more roads, spreading congestion relief across three counties, and empowering new regional entities such as the Prosperity Partnership (an economic development consortium of leaders across four central Puget Sound counties), the Regional Transportation Investment District (created by the state to sort out transportation solutions at the three-county level), and Sound Transit.
Again, in the recent past, we have indulged ourselves with feel-good but unbuildable transportation proposals (such as the Seattle Monorail Project and the waterfront tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct) that split the region and pit city and suburb against each other. Meanwhile, the state and outlying politicians have grown heartily sick of these Seattle-driven ideas and the vacillation and isolationist style of the Nickels administration. If Prop 1 passes, or comes close enough to encourage the new regionalists, we may be witnessing the birth of a new generation of regional statesmen with the clout to make Seattle act its size.
Related to that, in my third chapter, is a revival of bipartisanship, at least at the local level. Here the key symbolism has been around the King County prosecutor's race, where it has seemed fine for Bill Sherman to run as a proud Democrat but wrong for Dan Satterberg (the very soul of a moderate independent) to accept a dime from the GOP. Similarly, Tim Burgess has been waterboarded for once or twice giving money to a Republican, as if being able to appeal to Republicans around the county and in Olympia could not possibly be an advantage. This intense partisanship has started to turn off people, I suspect, even as the Bush aversion remains strong at the national level.
The real significance of a muting of partisanship will be an ability to work across the aisle, across the Lake, and with the Frank Chopp Democrats (who want to mute all the cultural wars that cause Democrats to lose outside Seattle). It's a lesson that neither Ron Sims nor Dino Rossi, seemingly intent on energizing the extremes, have yet learned.
Peter Maier, one of the attractive insurgents running for Seattle School Board against diehard activist Sally Soriano (launched into local prominence by the World Trade Organization barricades she stormed), says this election is about "leadership and change." Sherry Carr, another challenger running against Darlene Flynn (whose main theme, pushed very aggressively, has been to stamp out institutional racism in our schools), says the election is about "winning back confidence" in the schools.
"Leadership and confidence" seem almost quaint after these years of tearing down trust in our governmental agencies – the Iraq Effect, if you will. Take away trust and leadership and you have well-organized interest groups flourishing and making off with goodies where they can. Restore it across the region, and especially in the faltering legislative branches, and you restore the promise of grappling with the big issues of our time.
Until that day, you get elections like the current one where you can't really talk about the big topics: Viaduct, 520 bridge, keeping the Sonics, tax reform, lasting school reform, congestion pricing, saving Seattle from turning into "an urban resort," true public funding for the arts, and effective programs to cut the carbon count. If this really is a watershed election, or an important start of that momentum, those big issues will once more be up for resolution.
Comments:
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 7:08 a.m. inappropriate
CONSENSI / AE/ SUSES ??: A 150 years or so ago it was the pragmatic consensus to string up Indians
to show them who was boss....
Then it became the pragmatic consensus to break the treaties with them, which could a street such as Stevens Way get named after you...
The names of the original thieves and robbers are Yessler, Denny, etc. and they arrived on their pragmatic boats at Alki beach
Those bitches did...
and their pragmatic descendants are amongst us still...
Then it was consensually agreed to run the Chinaman out after he had dug the "ship" [yes "ship" not" birth"] canal to Lake Washington…
That lowering of the water table by nine feet nor the chasing of the Chinamen lowered the self-esteem of the so pragmatic thieves...
And opened up a huge marsh morass… And it was consensually agreed that's where we will dump all that industrial pragmatic shit that we pragmatically no longer need... since we have learned to buy something new every year or so..
It also became the consensus to hose down them thar obstreperous hills and make a lot of landfill for something called Harbor Island... occupied by SSA MARINE...
Then it became "the consensus" to drive automobiles and submit to the cement and rubber and oil industry and then to eliminate the street cars...
Now it is the consensus to be green...
I canoe across the waters or take my bridle path the 520 with my mule Durango...
These are the bad old times to come as the consensi / ae/ uses/ keep piling on and up...
We travel along the avenues of cement
We travel along avenues of platitudes in our heads that have been placed there by the likes of our editorialists....
Here's a platypus to you and your platitudes...
Michael Roloff 2007
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 7:33 a.m. inappropriate
The best thing about a return to pragmaticism: For me personally, the best thing about a return to common sense and pragmatism to politics is that I can go back to being politically apathetic. With Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton, I may not have agreed with everything they did, but they were all competent and sane leaders who afforded me the luxury of being able to tune out politics without having to worry that they were running the country into the ground.
It may be a bit premature to pronounce the end of post-911 radical partisanship, but I do share your optimism.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 7:58 a.m. inappropriate
You Oversimplify the Vexing Nature of this Election: I think you oversimplify Mr. Brewster. It is not that Burgess has contributed to Republicans once or twice (actually many times) it is that he made a handsome living for a number of years promoting hate mongering organizations. And it is not simply that Della caters to unions and minorities, it is that he is not very bright. As a friend of mine put it, it is a choice between stupid and scary. The Harrell-Velazquez choice is also very difficult, but I won't go in to all the reasons.
As to the School Board races, they also perplex. Remember it was the "adults" Don Nielsen and Barbara Schaad-Lamphere who gave us Joseph Olshevsky, the $35 million deficit, and the ensuing chaos. It is Raj Manhas and the current board that got the District back on track financially and the current Board that brought in the promising new Superintendent. Do we really want two or three more "know-it-all blowhard Nielsens" on the Board? Some of the current Board members are not personally appealing to me either. I find the choices very difficult.
And so it goes one race and one issue after the other. I've been voting since 1962 and I can't remember a local election with so many truly difficult choices to make. I don't think it has anything to do with moving to the center or the extremes.
Of course "slapping down Tim Eyman yet again" is a no-brainer.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 10:21 a.m. inappropriate
Vive la compromise!: Refreshing point of view. What a novelty, in our political climate, to contemplate a centrist politics that accepts the need in a democracy for compromise. And what a pleasure it would be to send the ideological fanatics from both ends of the spectrum - including Kemper Freeman and the local Sierra Club - on a one-way trip out of town (on the transportation mode of their choice).
I'm praying that the center actually wins - defeats of Prop 1 and other consensus-based positions will, unfortunately, refute the hopeful thesis of the article.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 10:38 a.m. inappropriate
One disagreement: I will address just one area of disagreement with your essay. When I read essays like this, I look to see if the writer is part of the cabal to oust Sally Soriano from the school board. When she is attacked, I look for other indications that the powers-that-be are trying to retain their strangle hold on Seattle politics. Editorials that attack Soriano because she is not a rubber stamp with the majority of the board are pretty revealing of a bias that says the board needs to have no dissent, no principled argument of discussion, and such a bias is a fundamental attack on democracy.
I would argue that more than any other board member, Soriano has earned right to re-election, and she has done so in her open and public perspectives on issues. More specifically, though, I wonder if any of the political "thinkers" represented by this essay ever watched a single meeting of the School Board over the months leading to school closures. We turned on our tv and watched every one, and in our opinion a depressing truth was more than evident. Only two board members actually listened to the regular citizens who came to speak to the issues of closure for the neighborhood schools. Mary Bass and Sally Soriano actually showed interest and empathy with the pain being expressed. They were seriously involved in every issue before the board. The rest of the board ignored, refused to respond, looked at their watches and utterly disdained the people who took time to go to the public hearings. They did so because for all the rest of the board the public hearings were closed issues. They did not want to listen, because nothing was going to be said by the people that could change their minds. Only Bass and Soriano behaved like representatives of the people in those meetings.
I find it depressing that Crossfire joins the Power People of Seattle in trying to remove Soriano from the board. Is there no room for an actual citizen advocate in our politics? Instead you support another faceless rubber stamp, someone who will stare at the citizens with the same bored and rejecting look the majority of the current board had when people were speaking before them.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 11:50 a.m. inappropriate
RE: One disagreement: The fact that Sally Soriano is beholden to a small, obnoxious group of paranoid conspiracy theorists who have nothing better to do than disrupt school board meetings, and who are under the delusion that anyone who disagrees with them is an accomplice to "the man" is precisely why I did not vote for her.
Furthermore, democracy has nothing to do with opposition for opposition's sake. Democracy is about electing people who best represent the interests and views of the community. That Soriano is about to lose her job is wonderful example of the democratic process at work.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 12:24 p.m. inappropriate
Well, working together is grand... but I question what makes a big topic...: the big topics: Viaduct, 520 bridge, keeping the Sonics, tax reform, lasting school reform, congestion pricing, saving Seattle from turning into "an urban resort," true public funding for the arts, and effective programs to cut the carbon count...
Hmmm... The Viaduct and 520 are big, pricy and will impact the region...
But The Sonics? As big projects go, we almost could have fixed the Viaduct, or funded a fourth of fixing 520 for what we spent on Quest Field and Safeco Field... and now, after spending millions to build a playcourt for millionares owned by billionares does not count as big.
A world class city without an NBA team... is called London, Tokyo, Paris, Moscow... Not that I don't like the game, but:
Average salery in Seattle cannot afford average home price.
520 has a 1 in 20 chance of sinking in the next quake.
On a one to 50 scale, the Viaduct pulls a grade 9.
In 2006, just 61 of Seattle School Kids graduated on time.
We have only retro fitted 10 percent of our vital arterials and infrastructure while sitting on 7 earthquake faults, and 4 hours drive of 5 volcanos, not counting how Global weather changes will impact our water supply, and abiltiy to generate electricty.
A good shake or eruption could destroy the docks of Seattle and Tacoma... the region is no where near ready to face the reality that both are not a matter of IF, but a matter of when.
Sorry to say, Sonics stay or go is not in my top 10 of issues... We have already invested millions in Key Arena, and Billions for sports... The Hotel- Motel tax USED to support the arts, but was hijacked to pay off the mortgage for the Kingdome we blew up with 25 years payments still left to pay... I am sure the Sonics can afford the Air Conditioners they will now need. We have bigger issues to attend to.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 12:46 p.m. inappropriate
conspiracy, eh?: Well we certainly do get a good example of what you are attacking, don't we? No one talked about "conspiracy" until you showed up with the "small group" "beholden" business. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? I haven't the vaguest idea who the small group is. I did in fact watch the board public meetings and I know what I saw. The point stands. She and Mary Bass were the only members of the board who listened and responded with any respect to the actual people (yes, real citizens who are not part of the ruling class) express their opinions. I also happen to think that her positions on various issues are far more responsive to the needs of the District, but that is not what swings my vote for her.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 12:56 p.m. inappropriate
Brewster's pragmatism: Shut up little people! Brewster is right! The pragmatic thing to do is allow our betters, the wealthy elite who run this town use the politicians and media they control to get things done. Our role is to pay the corporate welfare that funds their grand schemes. And if we end up with a city you little people can't afford to live in-well just move.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 1:44 p.m. inappropriate
RE: conspiracy, eh?: To clarify, I'm refering the ax-grinders who disrupted the school closure meetings with angry rants, threats, and a woefully misplaced rendition of "we shall overcome", hurled racial epitettes at the superintendent, and are trying to sue the district based on the paranoid and baseless theory that the closures were a racist attempt to disenfranchise black people.
I don't know what makes this bunch any more "real" than the rest of us. I'd say "surreal" is a more accurate term. I believe the election results will show Soriano and her band of Marxist protestors to be quite on the fringe, even here in red Seattle.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 2:41 p.m. inappropriate
the school board meetings.: Well, this is interesting. I wonder if we saw the same meetings. There were indeed angry people at the meetings, and words were slung around, some unacceptable in civil discourse. What I saw, though, was ordinary citizens trying to talk to the Board, mostly in reasonable terms. Essentially, they were asking for an open and understanding response. Only Bass and Soriano gave them a sense of openness. When these people were stone walled by the majority, often in the most infuriating ways and with a hauteur (my reading) unacceptable in the setting, these people lost their tempers and showed an appropriate anger in inappropriate ways.
Look, the "little people" comment in this thread comes from a strong reading of the powers-that-be, and when Crosscut joins the newspapers in attacking Soriano because she isn't a team player (instead of praising her for having some principles of her own), then the classism in Seattle starts to be noticeable. The only part of Crosscut that bothers me is its strong tendency to be one of the boys, part of the ruling business class and its willingness to slam someone like Soriano in the process. (The opposite side of that Crosscut coin was the tear jerker piece on the yacht that burned up. How nice to know that the poor working class slobs who built her loved her beauty. Did they ever get to go on a cruise on that creation? Ah, well those workers were honored to build a fantastically expensive boat for a fantastically rich man.) Even the occasional comment by someone not in the group of buddies is treated like an invasion of the unwashables, which is why I don't comment more. Too often a new speaker is shunned, or as with my comment here, stomped on for not following some "party" line.
Look, Soriano is not bought and paid for. She is an interesting and independent woman. Why is there no room for her in our political system? Why do the moneyed classes go out of their way to find a smooth replacement who will never rock the boat as the Board goes on Not Listening to the people who live in Seattle?
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 3:07 p.m. inappropriate
Isn't every election?: The first ballot I ever cast was in the first election held after my 21st birthday (I am that old!). Just returned from living for several months in Britain, it was in a school board election in the Northshore District. I drove - absentee ballots weren't easy to get - from Bellingham to Bothell and back again just to vote.
Since then, I can count on the fingers of one hand with fingers left over the number of elections I've missed in over 36-years.
Every election is important. And so is every candidate, campaign, and issue - they're all important; so important, in fact, that it ought to be important to us such that we're willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to make sure our votes are cast and properly counted.
To those who trivialize the process or claim that their vote won't or can't count because of "elites" or whatnot, all I can say is remember 2004. To those who complain about the tawdry or monied nature of the process, ask yourselves if you'd rather live where there are no elections or campaigns?
Election season is the best of times...And we who troop to the polls (I still troop - absentee ballots are for the slothful) honor those who went before us to secure our right to do so in relative peace and without interference or the thud of the constable's trunchon on the back of our heads.
The issues today: Heroic and necessary I-25, long overdue I-690, the wise and prudent SJR 8206, the ugly and sinful Prop 1, shameful R-67, disgraceful and disingenuous HJR 4204...and the candidates: The distinguished Dan Satterberg, the dismal bill sherman...
This is a season to celebrate, just as every election that has gone before and every one that will come after deserve to be celebrated. Democracy, baby...it's what's happenin' and shakin'.
The Piper
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 3:21 p.m. inappropriate
Too, regarding the Seattle city council, I think it's very possible for people to support Tim Burgess in the hope of replacing a dull pencil with a sharper one, yet at the same time be supportive of the kind of integrity and smarts council members like Nick Licata have. In other words, not all Burgess voters are looking for a city council that will immediately undertake moving forward the mayor's agenda. The council needs smart, strong people who can match the mayor; more Nickels poodles we don't need.
Likewise, I don't think a sensible regionalism need embrace Prop. 1 or the Prosperity Partnership in order to be credible. In fact, I think the failure of Prop. 1 could possibly lead to a re-imagined, re-energized regional model that transcends gerrymandering and shoveling pork to local pet projects in favor of a more cooperative, greener model that moves in affordable increments. A defeat for Prop. 1 wouldn't signal the end of regionalism; and it's success would likely reward the dysfunctional old model of sausage-making.
Lastly, one could argue that the election of Bill Sherman would be a return to bipartisanship since the prosecutor's office, as you pointed out in an earlier piece, has been held by Republicans for the last half a century. I think the office should be non-partisan anyway--throw in the auditor and sheriff too. But I agree with your larger point and fear the city and eventually the county falling into one-party rule.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 3:46 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Not so fast on that watershed....: "Throw in the auditor..."
Is that an implicit endorsement of I-25?
You might want to check with the Democratic employees, both attorneys and otherwise, in the KC Prosecuting Attorney's Office, to see who they think will do the best job of running the office in a nonpartisan fashion. The answer might surprise you, but then again they've had the most day-to-day experience with both candidates.
But as to Seattle? Sad to say, the contests are between the left and lefter.
The Piper
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 3:55 p.m. inappropriate
School Board elections: We really do need to stop doing this "field" or "slate" of candidates stuff. There wasn't a slate last time and I doubt there is this time. I have to say that it gives one pause when you see the kind of over-the-top donations by a few venture capitalist/business leaders to certain races. Farewell to grassroots elections. (And don't say oh but there's lots of people giving $10; c'mon, compared to a $10,000 contribution?)
Do I think anyone is trying to buy the SB elections? No, and the proof is how many of them tried to get charter schools in Washington and couldn't get it done 3 times despite their money.
But do I think it will buy some degree of access? Sure.
Do I think there were "shenanigans" at the School Board meetings? Not really. They are pretty dry affairs for the most part.
Vote for individuals but remember that going along to get along is not necessarily a good thing. That there is such a thing as "group think" where people from similar work backgrounds all agree without considering the alternatives. And don't ever, ever forget, it was Mr. Finance (Olchefske) and his passive School Board (business people and lawyers) who got us into our dire financial straits and the current Board (and Raj Manhas) who got us out of it.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 4:03 p.m. inappropriate
PROOF IN PUDDING: I think what Mr. B. is saying is that if his favorites win
it's pragmatic. I can't argue with that.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 4:12 p.m. inappropriate
RE: the school board meetings.: I'm sorry if you think I'm stomping on you. Though my style isn't quite as diplomatic as Mr. Brewster's, my aim is simply to express my views of Soriano's performance on the school board, particularly her inability to stand up to the bullies who show up to school board meetings and effectively shout everyone else in the city down. I believe her main priority should be running the schools, not sitting around in endless meetings endulging people who like to hear themselves talk.
A good leader knows how to rock the boat or hoist the sails and forge ahead as the situation demands. Most people in Seattle can see that with any more rocking the schools are going to capsize. Unfortunately, that seems to be the only thing Soriano knows how to do, and that's why we're tossing her overboard.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 4:37 p.m. inappropriate
the school board election: I don't know what you would call your style, but when the language reaches "Soriano and her band of Marxist protestors" there is something going on other than lack of diplomacy. Nothing you say rings true with what I saw going on at the public hearings. At no time was she chairing the sessions. At no time was there any indication that she was doing anything other than listening and trying to hear both the text and subtext of what regular citizens were saying in a hearing intended for input by the citizenry (but which showed from the first gavel was nothing more than a tedious legal nicety for decisions already made by the majority). Your criticism of Soriano is savage and unjustified by anything she has stood for, and it seems based only on her disagreement with the Establishment members of the Board, or the majority, if you will. She is clearly not the source of the angry public; she showed no leadership of the words or the style of the public, merely respectful attendance. How you can transform that into a leadership of a Marxist revolt is just beyond comprehension. And haven't we some time ago quit calling liberals "Marxist" and conservatives "Nazi"? Are we back to the old scare days? If she is re-elected, are we to expect Lenin posters in the schools? Your words about her are so extreme, I wonder if she won't win after all. I will certainly walk over (like Piper, who is a youngster) and vote for her tomorrow.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 4:40 p.m. inappropriate
and by the way: I met Sally Soriano once at a cocktail party. She was pleasant, amusing, clearly serious about her job, easy to talk to and intelligent. She listened without an eye over one's shoulder looking for more interesting people. I wasn't scared of her at all. Sean's words completely belie the woman I met.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 9:08 p.m. inappropriate
RE: School Board elections: From what I can tell, Mr. Manhas deserves most of the credit for getting the district's books in order. Yet when it was time to make the tough decisions, the board (especially Soriano) left him alone to be chewed up by Seattle's kooky and vicious identity politics.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 9:23 p.m. inappropriate
RE: and by the way: I'm not at all surprised to hear that she is a great person. In fact, of all the current school board members, she's probably the one I'd be most likely to socialize with. For all I know, she was standing next to me at the WTO protests. (For the record, I was protesting the horrible conduct of the police in my neighborhood, not the WTO itself, which I have no strong opinions about one way or the other).
My comments are about her decisions as a school board member, which are all on the public record so everyone can come to their own conclusions. I am not commenting on her character, intelligence, or integrity.
Posted Mon, Nov 5, 9:40 p.m. inappropriate
and further by the way: I am sure she would appreciate your words that you do not intend personal attack. Yet, your conclusion based on her votes is that she is the leader of a band of Marxists? Hmm. I just watched her vote repeatedly, and what I saw was someone regularly in the minority of the board voting on the side of principle and compassion. I saw nothing that would call forth the invective I have read here, nor the critical comments in other media. It is her independence that causes the antagonism, not the substance of her votes. You yourself have said nothing about her actual stands on any issues, though you claim now your judment comes from her record.
My sense is that she did indeed find issues with Manhas' style, but many people found him to be the wrong man in background and skills to lead a school district, perhaps looking rather for someone with a smidgeon of education background who might find other principles than business bottom lines to be of importance? But his problems weren't really with Soriano, as you well know, but with the ruling majority of the Board. So.....your attempt to put the blame on her for the purposes of swaying readers tonight is a bit ingenuous. Not to mention your failure to speak to any of her votes over the years.
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 6:48 a.m. inappropriate
Are you not oversimplifying, too?: Refreshing to hear someone who understands the credit Raj Manhas deserves (along with his former CFO and other senior staff) for returning the district to financial stability, and you sound like a thoughtful voter, but aren't you over=simplifying by thinking one "adult" board member (aka businessperson, lawyer, etc) is just like another?
Not every "adult" is as imperious as Don Nielsen - I find the current contenders bright, personable, capable, earnest and down-to-earth - not blowhards in any way. In fact, I think Sherry Carr's reticence to BE a blowhard has hurt in her race against Darlene Flynn, who is more rhetoric than substance.
And while I think Barbara Schaad Lamphere is a nice friendly person, I don't think her governance capabilities are comparable to the current crop of contenders. I don't know what she did before she ran for school board, but I don't think it was senior financial leadership in the largest public and private companies in the region. (Boeing - Sherry Carr, and Frank Russell Co - Steve Sundquist).
Seattle Schools are a $1/2 billion operation with thousands of employees, operating in a fishbowl and in a compliance environment most organizations couldn't imagine. This is no place for well-meaning amateurs whose talents and passions are better applied elsewhere.
Thankfully I find the choices easy.