Even the candidates for the open seat on the Clarkston School Board admit the race has been quiet.
With no major campaigning, disagreements or hot issues for debate between Joseph Armstrong and Renata Erickson, there was little to discuss at the public ‘Candidates Night? on April 11 ? a likely reason why not a single member of the general public attended the event.
Even prior to the debate, little attention has been given to the candidates as the May 2 election approaches. Both Armstrong and Erickson agreed not to spend money on lawn signs or campaigning for this election, stating the money could be better spent elsewhere.
The public debate was the only one scheduled before the election and was moderated by Lisa Bauer, president of the Oakland Area League of Women Voters, a national nonpartisan organization. Members of the audience could submit questions for the candidates to answer. The event was scheduled to run for an hour, but ended approximately 20 minutes early due to a lack of questions.
Throughout the question and answer portion of the forum, the focus quickly became the similarities between the two candidates rather than their differences.
In his opening statement, Armstrong acknowledged both Erickson and himself as very qualified candidates and in closing he joked that if people have a hard time choosing between them, they should vote in alphabetical order.
Both acknowledged they applied for the open seat after seeing nobody else had.
‘In Clarkston, there is no important issue. If there was an important issue, I think someone would come up and have an agenda,? Armstrong said.
When asked if there were any areas in Clarkston that could use improvements, both agreed that budgetary issues need a closer look.
‘One of the problems that every school district has is finances and I see that is a big problem. How we solve that is going to be very interesting. I think there’s going to be some tough decisions,? Armstrong said.
‘I would have to agree with my opponent in that budget items are the biggest hurdle right now for the Clarkston School Board,? Erickson said. ‘Like Joe said, there are going to be some very tough decisions to be made and there are going to have be some cuts made… and it’s going to be a tough choice.?
Though Armstrong and Erickson both listed budget cuts as the biggest concern for the district, neither had any specific suggestions for where cuts could be made.
‘I’m still educating myself in all the areas of the budget… and where cuts can be made. It would have to be after a lot of research and reading materials for me to determine and answer that question. At this point, I couldn’t even venture to say where cuts should be made,? Erickson said.
‘Areas that (the board) could cut are areas they don’t want to, but you have to go to the area that has the least effect on kids? educations. I think the kids come first, but you have to look at other areas that don’t effect the classroom… that’s what I would concentrate on,? Armstrong said in his response.
When asked what could be done to improve the quality of the school board, Armstrong and Erickson emphasized their satisfaction with the current board.
‘I think what they’re doing now is good,? Armstrong said, adding that small actions to emphasize employee appreciation could improve morale.
‘I think the Clarkston schools are award winning schools,? Erickson said. ‘I think there’s always room for improvement like Joe mentioned… little things can always make such an impact.?
The district’s non-homestead millage request was one of the topics selected for the forum, but Erickson did not want to comment at the time.
‘At this time I’m going to reserve the option to answer that. I’m in the process of familiarizing myself more with that issue and I don’t really want to comment on that right now,? Erickson said.
Armstrong did comment, but had mixed feelings about the millage proposal.
‘That’s a tough question because I feel torn between people who aren’t in the school district and we collect their taxes. I don’t know that that’s a fair thing to do. I think it’s a civic obligation that they have by being in the community, but I would support the issue,? he said.
Despite similar responses to several questions, Armstrong and Erickson disagreed about the new high school graduation requirements.
‘I am opposed to the ones they have now. I think they are trying to put everything into the same category,? Armstrong said. ‘I am for improved and upgrading preparation for the future, but I think there’s a better way to do it.?
‘I would agree with the graduation requirements. I think it’s really important to have a baseline of knowledge,? Erickson said, adding that required classes cause kids to ‘stretch? their potential .
Bauer asked the candidates to name two additional issues facing the district they felt were important. Erickson said she was not aware of any other pressing issues at the time and Armstrong said he was concerned about more redistricting in the future and adjusting staff to support new graduation requirements.
Both candidates were asked if they had any specific goals if elected and neither said they did.
‘I don’t have a single issue that I’m trying push through the board,? Armstrong said.
‘I hate to mimic my opponent, but I have no agenda of my own. I just want to do my part,? Erickson said.
Bauer asked the candidates how they were different from each other and both focused on background.
Armstrong said his 34 years experience as a teacher sets him apart from Erickson because he has seen issues from the other side of the table. Erickson, who worked for 20 years in sales and marketing before becoming an administrative assistant at Cooley Law School, said her combined experiences allow her to see things from an academic perspective as well as a business perspective.