League of Women Voters and the lobby group Excel Bridgeport co-hosting forum?

Aug 16

jonpeltoBridgeport, Education Reform, Excel Bridgeport Inc., Mayor Bill Finch , , , 8 Comments

A controversy has developed surrounding a proposed August 22, 2012 candidate forum, at which Bridgeport’s Board of Education candidates, would have an opportunity to debate and discuss the issues prior to the September 5th special election that will finally ensure that Bridgeport’s citizens are represented by a democratically elected Board of Education.

Yesterday, the two candidates from the Working Families Party, Barbara Pouchet and John Bagley, announced that they would not participate in the forum because it is being co-hosted by Excel Bridgeport, Inc.

The Working Family candidates said that participating would “serve to legitimize an organization whose objective is to eliminate the right of Bridgeport’s parents, taxpayers and citizens to cast ballots for members of our Board of Education.”

There is no doubt that Excel Bridgeport was a leader in the effort to convince the State of Connecticut to take over the Bridgeport School System and remove the democratically elected members of Bridgeport’s school board.  In addition, Excel Bridgeport actively lobbied on behalf of Governor Malloy’s “education reform” bill and the organization has also spent significant resources in support for Mayor Bill Finch’s efforts to change Bridgeport’s Charter, by eliminating the elected board of education and replacing it was an appointed board that would allow stronger mayoral control over the education budget and school issues.

In response to the news that the two Working Family candidates were not going to participate, Maria Zambrano, Excel Bridgeport’s Executive Director, maintained their stance that they are simply seeking “to provide Bridgeport voters and community members an opportunity to hear directly from all Board of Education candidates before the September 4th election. All BOE candidates were invited and encouraged to attend.”

But of course, that argument misses the point.

No one should deny Excel Bridgeport the right to hold as many candidate forums as it wants, inviting and encouraging whomever they want to attend.

The real issue is whether the League of Women Voters should be co-hosting a candidate forum with a group like Excel Bridgeport.

According to their history and mission statement, “The League of Women Voters is a citizens’ organization that has fought since 1920 to improve our government and engage all citizens in the decisions that impact their lives…The League is nonpartisan, which means we don’t support or oppose candidates for public office. However, we are well-known for hosting candidate debates and forums.  We undertake this, and other important election work, because we believe deeply that the public should hear different views on the issues facing our communities and our nation. An honest and respectful sharing of ideas is vital to the functioning of American democracy.”

The League’s dedication to its mission is so great that in 1988, the League actually took the unprecedented step of “withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates.”  At the time, Nancy Newuman, the League’ president, said they were taking this action because; “the League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”

Reasonable people can disagree about whether the Working Family Party candidates should or should not attend a forum co-sponsored by Excel Bridgeport, but there is simply no doubt that Excel Bridgeport has played a leadership role in Connecticut’s “education reform” movement, an effort that is systematically anti-teacher, anti-union and anti-democratic, and instead, dedicated to promoting the corporatization and privatization of public education.

Not only has Excel Bridgeport spent tens of thousands of dollars seeking to persuade public officials to take particular actions, but during the recent Supreme Court on the Bridgeport takeover, Excel Bridgeport submitted a legal brief urging the Supreme Court to allow the state’s illegal takeover to stand, thereby preventing the people of Bridgeport from having democratically elected representatives.

While Excel Bridgeport’s participation is the candidate debate is objectionable and I too would refuse to participate if I was a candidate, the real shock is that the League of Women voters would lower its standards and co-host a public forum with a group that is diametrically opposed to the legacy that has always guided the League and its actions.

The controversy is that the League has yet to withdraw as a co-sponsor or ask Excel Bridgeport to withdraw so that a true League of Women Voter’s based forum can go forward.

For more background check out The Only in Bridgeport blog: http://onlyinbridgeport.com/wordpress/bagley-pouchet-marching-to-working-families-party-drum-bag-boe-candidates-forum-claim-plantation-mentality/#more-36221

Be Sociable, Share!

  • Linda174

    I don’t understand why Excel Bridgeport would be involved at all when they clearly want all to vote yes for the craftily worded referrendum anyway and then there wouldn’t be a need for an elected board? So they are promoting something they don’t support. Other than this being a ploy to make the parents think they actually care, I don’t get it. What am I missing?

    How many of the people involved, either paid, on their board or volunteer, for Excel Bridgeport actually live in Bridgeport?

    This seems like another AstroTurf organization toying with the disenfranchised in order to push their anti-union, anti-teacher, privatization agenda.

    Beware of the slick names: Stand for Children really stand on children..Students First really Rhee first. They are not what they seem.

    Parents, please check out Parents Across America..they support you, your children, teaching and learning NOT testing. I will like below:

  • Linda174
  • guest

    I hope Working Families is vetting candidates throughout the state.  In eastern Connecticut, they endorsed two democrats last November for Windham’s Board of Ed–Luz Osuba and Nancy Tinker.  It turns out that both Osuba and Tinker are 100% behind Special Master Steven Adamowski and his reform agenda.  They have embraced the union-busting TFA idea, even fundraising for them; they have kept critical information from parents; etc.  The State Rep. from the area, Susan Johnson, brags that she helped craft the legislation that created the Special Master takeover.  I believe she was once endorsed by Working Families.
    I hope Working Families does not endorse candidates who promote the school reform agenda and the hijacking of local control of schools.

  • jill

    Jonathan I am a big fan of yours and I count on you for the other side of the story, but I also count on you to be thoughtful, rational, and not unnecessarily incendiary. Below is the entire 1988 LWV statement for your readers to peruse. I do not see the similarities between that situation and the Bridgeport debacle. Wether or not we like it our weak, and cowardly legislature overwhelming approved the measure that has brought us to this place. If we don’t like what is happening then a fair discussion by those legally identified candidates actually seems like a good measure. If a nonpartisan group manages the debate then we do not get to choose, of those legally represented, who gets to speak up. If we did wouldn’t that be partisan? Inform the community and do everything you can to get people out to vote for better representation that cannot be bought and bullied as our current representatives obviously have.
    October 03, 1988 | by LWV

    STATEMENT BY NANCY M.
    NEUMAN PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS

    Good afternoon. I am
    Nancy Neuman, president of the League of women Voters. Thank you all for coming
    on such short notice.

    The decision I am here
    to announce vas not an easy one to reach. It’s the right decision. I know that.
    But not an easy one.

    From its start in
    1920, the League of Women Voters aimed to inform people about the issues at
    stake in elections — to open lines of communication between the electorate and
    candidates for public office. Beholden to no political party, the League has
    for 68 years been looked to for the even-keeled information voters need around
    election time.

    Soon after its
    founding, the League got into the business of bringing candidates and experts
    together in public to discuss and debate various positions on various issues.
    These forums were held at the local and state level — in meeting halls,
    churches, synagogues, schools, and eventually on the radio. All in all, they
    turned out to be an excellent means toward the League’s end of providing voter
    information and encouraging people to vote.

    In 1976, the League
    institutionalized debates at the national level by bringing televised,
    nonpartisan exposure to the presidential candidates’ views, positions and
    priorities. Since then, the American voter has come to expect the League to
    hold presidential campaigns accountable and to keep the candidates accessible.

    1980 and 1984 were
    election years when television’s potential as a campaign tool was fully realized.
    In both elections, the League stayed in the game, and we got the presidential
    candidates to agree to debate. The League is proud that we were able to bring
    Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, John Anderson, Ronald Reagan, Walter Mondale, Robert
    Dole, George Bush and Geraldine Ferraro before the voters in debates that
    proved informative even as campaigns were proving more and more image-driven
    and scripted.

    After the 1984
    election, the League decided that it would go ahead with plans to sponsor a
    full series of primary and general-election presidential debates in 1988. In
    early 1987 — our site selection process and other planning already under way
    – the chairmen of the two political parties announced plans to sponsor their
    own series of debates. They had set up a commission, they said, and they
    thanked the League for all we had done and urged us to step aside.

    We did not.

    Since their press
    conference that day, the League has argued that an organization set up by the
    political parties is not an appropriate sponsor of presidential debates.
    Obviously, the political parties have a huge stake in the outcome of debates
    and elections. And obviously, a political party will not be party to an event
    that puts its titular head at risk.

    Under partisan
    sponsorship debates will become just another risk-free stop along the campaign
    trail.

    We forged ahead with
    our plans for debates in the fall of 1988. We sent proposals to the Bush and
    Dukakis campaigns in May of this year outlining our recommendations for dates,
    site, format end other concerns. As the campaign progressed, however, it became
    clear that the idea of debates sponsored by the political parties had appeal
    with people who routinely squeeze all risk out of their candidates’
    appearances. They prefer instead to leave the American public at risk.

    After a couple weeks
    of negotiations around Labor Day, the Bush and Dukakis campaigns announced they
    had settled most points of contention, including sponsorship. The problem was
    sponsors were not in on any of it. The negotiations ever these critical events
    went carried out by the campaigns alone to serve the campaigns’ interests.

    Throughout the
    negotiation, I asked that the campaigns open the door to the League. I was
    certain that the voters’ interests would be better served if there were a third
    party in the room keeping campaign manipulations in check.

    The campaigns said no,
    keeping the voters’ interest out of their discussions.

    Representatives of the
    two campaigns came to us on September 28
    just two weeks before the debate — with an agreement that we ware told we had
    to sign. The agreement had been reached by the campaign chairmen, end it
    spelled out everything.

    Between themselves,
    the campaigns had determined what the television cameras could take pictures
    of. They had determined how they would select those who would pose questions to
    their candidates. They had determined that the press would be relegated to the
    last two rows of the hall. They had determined that they would pack the hall
    with their supporters. And they had determined the format. The campaigns’
    agreement was a closed-door masterpiece.

    The agreement was a
    done deal, they told us. We were supposed to sign it and agree to all of its
    conditions. If we did not, we were told we would lose the debate.

    Obviously, we have
    been presented with campaign demands before. We have agreed to some, and we
    have challenged and negotiated others. But never in the long history of the
    League of Women Voters have two candidates’ organizations come to us with such
    stringent, unyielding and self-serving demands.

    In Winston-Salem, they
    went so far as to insist on reviewing the moderator’s opening comments.

    It turned out that the
    League had two choices. We could sign their closed-door agreement and hope the
    event would rise above their manipulations. Or we could refuse to lend our
    trusted name to this charade.

    The League of Women
    Voters is announcing today that we have no intention of becoming an accessory
    to the hoodwinking of the American public. Under these circumstances, the
    League is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for
    mid-October in Los Angeles.

    On the threshold of a
    new millennium, this country remains the brightest hope for all who cherish
    free speech and open debate. Americans deserve to see and hear the men who
    would be president face each other in a debate on the hard and complex issues
    critical to our progress into the next century.

    In closing, let me
    issue this challenge: The League of Women Voters is urging you, George Bush,
    and you, Michael Dukakis, to rise above your handlers and to agree to join us
    in presenting the fair and full discussion the American public expects of a
    League of Women Voters debate.

    • jonpelto

      Jill, Thanks for adding the entire 1988 quote. I think you’ve raised a valid point about the difference between the 1988 situation and the Bridgeport debate and I need to go back and make that clear.

      The question in my mind has been that since Excel Bridgeport is particularly strong positions on the Bridgeport issue, it was particularly inappropriate to have them as a co-sponsor. It would be like having the LWV and the Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA) co-sponsor a debate about jobs, unionization and worker rights. A joint debate between LWV, CBIA and a union would provide real and perceived balance, but a debate sponsored by only the LWV and CBIA would be inappropriate — at least on the issue of industry and unionization.

      In the case of Bridgeport, the debate is an important and useful opportunity for the public to hear and question candidates but there fact that the primary advocacy group involved on one side “contaminates” the opportunity for fairness — even if they don’t say or do anything because it is their presence as a co-sponsor that creates the impression the LWV is not neutral.

      That said, after reading the entire remarks from 1988, my analogy is not accurate and I’ll change it accordingly as soon as I can.

      Thanks, again, for providing the information

      Jonathan

    • guest

      Many members of the League are no pun intended “in bed” with many of the project excel board members. That doesn’t mean the League doesn’t do great work, it means that the League has been infiltrated with members with non-progressive ideals.

  • Linda174

    For anyone who doesn’t know the background of Excel Bridgeport please read here:

    Removing the mask from Bridgeport education reformers

    There is always more than meets the eye, particularly when a mask camouflages a hidden agenda.

    Excel Bridgeport, a new education reform group, describes itself in flattering terms on its website. It announces:

    “1. We want every child in Bridgeport to have the opportunity for a world class education;
    2. We build knowledge in our community;
    3. We empower community members to be leaders;
    4. We partner with the district and hold them accountable.”

    Who can disagree with the noble and laudable activity of empowering parents, building knowledge and accountability?

    However, a look behind the mask reveals a different and disturbing reality.

    http://www.ctpost.com/opinion/article/Removing-the-mask-from-Bridgeport-education-3717349.php#ixzz21N9ZjuIp

  • Not Born Yesterday

    According to Wait, What’s earlier blog postings, Excel Bridgeport has long been blatantly and illegally lobbying as an unregistered organization (just where IS our Atty General, anyway?). Its 1% funders make no bones about their desires to charterize Bridgeport schools (though the privately run charters don’t want to serve kids with the most costly learning problems and least manageable behavioral issues), thereby depriving parents, local taxpayers, and any staff employed in those schools of their democratic rights.
    That the League of Women’s Voters should nevertheless partner with this illegal and anti-public schools group to do ANYTHING is sheer madness and blasphemy, given what that organization stands for nationally. But it’s not at all surprising in Bridgeport, where certain local League activists have long been staunch CanCon supporters and presumably therefore at least closet members of Excel Bridgeport.
    But I agree with the other commenters: Working Family candidates need to suck it up, appear, and state their positions proudly and clearly. Not to show up just gives Excel Brigeport what they seek — to squash them fast and easily. And if they sense unfairness or any other tomfoolery in how that event is being moderated, they need to speak up real loudly! And the rest of us need to be there in the audience as Excel Bridgeport attempts to stack the decks with their questions and biased cheering squad.