Sunday, October 7, 2007

Refreshed School Board Candidate Websites

I thought I'd refresh the website info for the SD 276 Board candidates. My sources are Google and tips from readers. If I'm missing a website for either Wenmark or Everett, please let me know -- I don't intend to omit anyone.

Karen Walcowski:
Lisa Wagner:
Cal Litsey:
Paul Luehr:
Bill Wenmark: no website found
Alice Everett: no website found
Doug Anderson:

Also, the folks over at did a candidate Q&A, where all active candidates but one answered some questions of interest. Go to the website and click on "Candidate Q&A" on the left side.



    Most interesting.

  2. There's nothing there yet, but Wenmark has a page reserved...Tonka Focus links to it:

  3. On TonkaFocus I was struck by Bill Wenmark's statement: "An effective public servant centers on leadership that puts the student, teacher, and the family first. If it takes a fight to provide clarity on those issues-- count me in." William H. Wenmark

    Is that what we teach our children? To fight? I don't think so.

  4. Does anyone think Wenmark is really interested in taking a swing at somebody to prove a point? I realize Wenmark has his detractors, but that's pretty pathetic to pretend the word fight has an evil connotation. Is it the best choice of words? No, but stop acting so petty.

  5. I appreciate Wenmark's intellect and experience. I have yet to hear any reason not to cast one of my votes for him.

  6. I can think of 4 really good reasons not to vote for Bill Wenmark. 1. Cal Litsey 2. Paul Luehr 3.Lisa Wagner and 4. Karen Walkowski. Teachers have told me that Bill Wenmark is too close to the Teacher's union MTA (I think). I also do not like his votes against the IB program.

  7. You have four good reasons to vote against him? I only see two, his history in voting against IB and his association with the teacher's union. If you count the fact that you like four candidates better, that gives you three reasons you want to vote against him. What is the fourth?

  8. Sorry - I was saying that the 4 candidates listed are the 4 best reasons t oust Wenmark. They are impressive candidates. The anonymous posting about Bill's intellect - talk to him for more than 5 minutes and then get back to me. He talks a good political talk for just about that long. I saw interesting postings on lloydletta blogspot too when I searched Wenmark.

  9. I have seen a public document on that states Mr. Wenmark is asking for $20,000 reimbursement of legal fees from the district. $20,000 that would be taken away from our children because Mr. Wenmark got into hot water and had to pay for lawyers to defend himself? I don’t understand why he thinks it is OK to now ask the district for the cash back. $20,000 could pay for a paraprofessional to work in our district, technology endeavors, or gas for our busses. It certainly should not be reimbursed to a person who acts out for the betterment of himself and not for our children. If I were you Mr. Wenmark I would leave why you still can. The public should speak loudly in the voting booth – casting a vote for Mr. Wenmark and his $20,000 is a wasted vote.

  10. Anyone who appreciates Wenmark's "intellect" might want to do a little research on his honesty. Go to the Lakeshore Weekly News 10/23/07 article: It seems Mr. Wenmark has lied about his education, stating and listing the US Naval Academy as his alma mater. The reporter at the LWN called the Academy, only to find that he never attended. He will definitely NOT be getting my vote.

  11. The moderators need to point out that the above posts have not been validated or verified by this Blogger.

    While our preference is to keep the discussion focused on the issues, we decided to not screen out these comments because they site sources.

    This blog does not claim to have authenticated the claims made above (or any claims made in the "comments" sections).