By Scott Tibbs, August 17, 2005
Responding to a letter to the editor in today's Herald-Times, Jaffee makes an interesting here. Her letter would really expose Kilmer's hypocrisy... if only it were true. Unfortunately for Jaffee, it isn't.
Yes, the MCCSC School Board did vote to change the districts in 1994, and yes, Herb Kilmer objected. However, Jaffee leaves out the context of the dispute.
Kilmer objected because he believed that rural residents should have a better chance at having a voice on the School Board by making sure someone from rural parts of MCCSC was on the board. The February 2, 1994 Herald-Times reports that Kilmer objected to the plan on the grounds that "it would dilute the influence of rural areas and make it more likely that the residents and people with ties to Indiana University would control the schools."
Jaffee's assertion that the districts represented "an obvious political advantage" for Kilmer is more than just dishonest. It is a lie. Read the following quote from the January 26, 1994 Herald-Times:
Quite simply, as far as election results go, it does not matter how the districts are drawn because each candidate is voted on by all voters residing within corporation boundaries.
|Voters in the entire MCCSC district vote for candidates in each school board district. So, while the rural school board districts are less populous, everyone's vote counts the same.|
County Council districts are quite different. Four Councilors represent a different part of the county and are elected only by voters that reside in their districts. The maps can be drawn to put heavily Democratic or heavily Republican areas together to give one party an advantage in the election.
Before the 2001 realignment, the district Mark Stoops' represents was much more balanced. Now District 4 is overwhelmingly Democratic. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that Brian O'Neill and Iris Kiesling did not want to take care of Stoops?