After reviewing the campaign for the 9-R school board elections, I am disappointed at the process, in our community and the results.

The process where candidates must reside in their district but voters from all districts can vote for them gives rise to political party dominance of the slate of candidates and encourages less diversity on the board. Ample evidence for this is the avalanche of letters encouraging a vote for a slate of candidates rather than for an individual.

The community failed by electing only progressive Democrats. Would it be so bad if other points of view were present on the board? (Maybe it would lead to less disruptive board meetings.) The community also did not demand press coverage of individuals. Press coverage mainly centered on party manifestos rather than on individuals. For example, was there any investigation of one candidate’s assertion that teachers were leaving because of housing costs? (At least one teacher from the Bayfield School District disputes this claim.) Let’s get party politics out of a so-called nonpolitical school board.

Finally, the outcome gave the board a huge vote of confidence and ignored the board’s failure to improve students’ test scores, its dubious bond activities, its lack of support for teachers and the sale of a perfectly good administration building. That is the signal of a failure to serve students and teachers while giving the administration new offices.

Gordon Greve

Durango