The Journal Star has Jehan Gordon’s reaction to Joan Krupa’s press conference yesterday, during which she accused Gordon of lying about her attendance record. Krupa said Gordon missed 40% of the Pleasant Hill School District 69 board meetings.
But an attendance report issued by District 69 Superintendent John Bute on Friday shows that Gordon actually attended 68 percent of School Board meetings. The “40 percent” figure comes from a Freedom of Information Act request that the Krupa campaign filed.
Dates used to analyze Gordon’s attendance record, however, are not the same as those provided to the Journal Star by Bute’s office. For instance, Bute’s office recognizes several non-regular or “special” meetings of the board that occurred between June 20, 2007 – Gordon’s first meeting – and the most recent, Sept. 3.
The information Krupa’s campaign is using does not include the June 20, 2007, date, nor does it include an Oct. 31, 2007, special meeting, as well as a meeting in late August and early September.
Here’s what I wanted to know as I read this story: Why weren’t some of those dates included in Krupa’s analysis of Gordon’s attendance? So I e-mailed Krupa’s campaign manager Steve Shearer and asked. He said, “Those meetings were not in the FOIA response from the school.”
So the next question that I feel needs to be investigated is: Why was pertinent information not disclosed to the Krupa campaign in response to their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request? If Krupa filed a FOIA asking about Gordon’s attendance record, why were different answers given to Krupa and the Journal Star? Why were some special meetings included in the report to Krupa, but not all of them? Was this just gross negligence, or does District 69 routinely omit information from FOIA requests?
Shearer added, “Had we known the number was lower I would always opt for that since a 32% absentee rate is damning when running for another office. There is no purpose in trying to be cute and bumping the figure up from 32% to 40% when the 32% is damning without being questioned. But the 40% figure was based on the FOIA response.”
I’m sorry that Joan’s campaign has to be embroiled in this argument over statistics, etc. I agree with C. J. that the dates of missed versus attended meetings would be more effective–it’s easier to argue about percentages. I do think that a candidate’s job performance record (especially as it relates to public service, etc.) is certainly relevant. I’m learning the hard way that FOIA information is not always reliable–sometimes an FOIA request begets another FOIA request. For instance, I FOIA’d District 150 for information about the 9th Grade “Success” Academy–I wanted to know how many of its students were actually from the Manual area. I was given the addresses of 222 ninth graders. How accurate can that number be if 165 is the enrollment figure given to the media by District 150?
I think the more disturbing charge is the fact that she (Gordon) blew off 2 scheduled debates, giving little or no notice and embarrassing the panel of people that I’m sure worked extra hard to make it happen.
Arguing the percentages of how truant she was at school board meetings tends to understate the significance of the real problem, which is rude and inconsiderate conduct with constituents.
Just admit it diane, Jehan is 27 and beautiful and you can’t stand it.
Yeah, blowing off debates is REALLY BAD. I guess you can’t vote for Aaron Schock then, Diane. :p
Ohh, I’m sorry … he signed up for ten “debates.” Riiiiiiiiiiight. Just keep saying that the sky is pink with purple polka dots, and eventually it will change colors. It’s the Republican Jedi mind trick! “I’m participating in ten debates.” “These are not the droids you’re looking for.”
OK, now that I’ve had my fill of partisan jabbing, I’ll say this … 40%, 32% … who cares? It’s an abysmal attendance record for a public servant whichever way you parse the numbers, and no-call, no-showing for an event like that is completely irresponsible. The local Dems really screwed up when they tried to create their own black female version of Aaron Schock. As I’ve said before, why the heck would anyone want to emulate Aaron Schock?
OK, maybe I wasn’t quite finished with the partisan jabbing. 😉
Come on KoD.. you know as well as I that there is a double standard when it comes to Republicans and their candidates. The Dems are expected to show but the Reps not so much. The Dems are slammed for expensive elitist campaign engagements with has been stars, while the Reps coo over their elitist campaign engagements with has been stars. It is just continuing theme and running problem with Republicans.
Well if you use the Republican formula to vote in this race then you would have to vote for Gordon. She gorgeous, no experience, and apparently lies or twists the truth. It’s the same criteria McCain is using.
I don’t believe that McCain is a convicted shoplifter or has paid any court ordered fines years after they were do, right?
I’m not saying McCain is, but what do we know about Palin?
MDD,
Do we really want to know what politicians as high up the stink ladder as McCain [and Obama] are really guilty of?
Stop telling us how bad / inappropriate the other candidate was / is / will be — just tell us what you are going to try and do — because few if any candidates turned elected officials deliver on campaign promises…..