There are many in town who are saying that the commissioner’s race is simply a continuation of the referendum and the last BoE race. This is not an inaccurate take, for that is exactly what it is. This is a race about judgment and priorities.
It may be a cliché to say as go the schools, so goes the town-- but that is also true. The part that occasionally gets left out is that as go the teachers, so go the schools. The fact of the matter is that our teachers have been operating without a contract and are in a long running dispute because of the intransigence of a majority of the BoE. Collingswood teachers are lower paid than teachers in neighboring districts, and have been leaving at an unprecedented rate over the last few years. Some have been leaving for adjacent districts with the same financial hardships from state funding, but they feel more appreciated elsewhere.
The majority of the BoE and the Superintendent’s response to this crisis was to have a referendum to buy a questionable property, reshuffle all the students, and close two schools—creating a transportation hardship for families. The voters of Collingswood rejected this idea by a 2-1 margin.
The entire slate of Collingswood Forward strongly supported this referendum.
It doesn’t mean they are bad people, but it calls their judgment into question. I have witnessed the mayor and the current commissioners try to engage with the BoE, but the BoE has very stubborn and authoritarian leadership that is thoroughly uninterested in dialog. This is not behavior that should be unchallenged, let alone placated or rewarded.
We have a fairly successful borough, in part due to the policies previous administrations have enacted. I have publicly disagreed with Jim Maley on a lot of things—and doubtless will in the future— but I believe he and his team have this issue right. If we lose the teachers, we lose the attraction of Collingswood Public Schools. We lose the attraction for families moving in, and after a while, we lose the population that sustains local businesses. We lose money, we lose infrastructure.
On May 13, this progressive Democrat is voting for Team Collingswood. I encourage all of you to do the same.
There is a concerning trend in Collingswood politics that has emerged over the last few years. There has been a trend of people advocating for marginalized children while not seeking the opinions or input of adults who are marginalized in the same ways. These people are almost always not marginalized in the same way as the people they try to speak for. Right now, there are non-trans people who are weaponizing the danger that transgender children face in order to smear a candidate for borough commissioner. As a transgender woman who was once a transgender child, I find it necessary to speak out.
Recently there have been “concerns” presented about the candidacy of Becky Sieg, due to her non-profit receiving substantial funding from Laura Overdeck, who apparently has made comments or contributed funds to something that is anti-trans. I have not been able to find this connection, though I admit to stopping at a comprehensive google search, as I have a great many things that occupy my time. This connection has led to desperate cries about how scared the parents of trans children are and how this gives them nebulous concerns about what might be possible if someone tainted by proximity is in charge. This has been over and above the voices of actual trans people who were skeptical of the accusations. Rather than engaging with the people those trans kids will grow up to be, these so-called advocates accused them of bullying. That’s right. The marginalized person bullied the privileged person by disagreeing with the saviors about that person’s life. Imagine the audacity it takes to tell a fully grown adult “I know better than you do about your own life.”
This is not the first time that accusations of transphobia have been used to sink a political campaign in this borough. In the board of education race in which Roger Chu, Matt Craig, and Sarah Sherman won their seats, accusations against the husband of a candidate was used to swiftboat an entire slate of candidates. Much like now, there was a lot of sound and fury but when I finally saw the “joke” that everyone was describing as disgusting and a sign of dangerous things, I found a mild, and not particularly clever joke. Not the vile bigotry I had been led to expect. Certainly nothing that warranted the wild speculation that surrounded the entire slate of three candidates, always fueled by nebulous concerns.
What is most damning is that in both of these instances, not a single position of a candidate or issue in the election had anything to do with transgender issues. Transphobia was sought out in order to smear a candidate. I want to be clear, this is not allyship, this is not support. This is using my community and our oppression to push forward candidates for office while not addressing the actual issues at stake in an election.
In the 2023 Board of Education election, I was led to believe that I was voting for a slate that was committed to progressive values, and who cared to support my community. What I got were three people who stood stanchest in support of a referendum that targeted the only school in the district that isn’t majority white, as well as a current board president who seems to think that his position grants him authority to ignore the voters. As a trans woman with a child who has attended school in this district, hearing an elected official claim that my vote gives him autocratic power while knowing that my vote was coerced via misinformation and fear mongering is the same bait and switch I have been getting from those in power my entire life. The same ones that use the threats I face to win elections do very little to actually do anything to lessen that threat once they come into power. I refuse to be bamboozled again.
Becky Sieg should not have her campaign torpedoed because she accepts money to improve math education from someone who doesn’t have perfect progressive politics. The work of her non-profit should not be threatened just because a bunch of white, non trans people want to win an election. Especially not a non-profit devoted to math education during a time in which education policy is critical nationally. Are we to expect that anyone running for office has to answer for the sins of their employers? How many other candidates have quit a job on principle? Is everyone expected to do a comprehensive survey of potential employers to ensure that they only work for people or organizations that are perfectly in line with all of their values? Do all of the candidates even know what their current employers do? It’s very easy to expect someone else to make a huge sacrifice for your values, but we can all see when you won’t take that sacrifice yourself.
Manufacturing controversy and outrage politics are not the tools of allies. These are not the actions of allies. These are the actions of people who want to be heroes. They don’t want to help, they want to win. With “allies” like these…
The funding situation in the Collingswood School District should be deeply concerning to anyone who cares about fiscal transparency in government. If the funding situation in the district is so dire that it requires gutting the district like a private equity firm gutting a retail chain (RIP JoAnne fabrics and Toys R Us) then no tax neutral offer of help should be off the table. Especially not when the offer in question is coming from another governmental entity that is already collaborating on shared resources and serves the same community.
Budgets tell a story. They identify priorities and are full of the moral and ethical choices of the budget’s authors. That story can be told even with the redaction of information that is legally required to be confidential.
What story does it tell when an entity entrusted with our tax dollars hides those moral and ethical choices to the direct detriment of their stated goals? What story does it tell when an elected official states that he has the right to astronomically raise your taxes without your input because you voted for him? What story does it tell when that entity doesn’t even allow all of it’s own representatives to see those choices before voting to adopt them? What story does it tell when an unelected bureaucrat refuses to let our elected officials who are accountable to the voters see what they intend to do with our tax money? What story does it tell when we are taxed and our representatives are not given the opportunity to represent us when those taxes are used?
I’m pretty sure we know which story the last point tells.
So my question for the board members individually is, which story do you want to tell? Which story do you want to be your legacy? As soon as you vote for or against this budget, it is part of your story. Make sure it’s the story that you want it to be.