I, too, am pleased that the board voted for the more restrictive nepotism policy, which will require a public vote of the board to hire family members of the superintendent and administrators. This policy is in line with the current policy in place for board members.

I am not in agreement with Mr. Ahmann’s assertion that a blanket prohibition on the employment of family members is necessary or desirable. Perhaps my views will evolve as I gain a greater understanding of the system, but at this time it appears that the current policy is working well. I am in favor of policies that require transparency and accountability but that also allow case-by-case examination and judgment. I have faith in our elected leaders to apply the policy and faith in our community to vote them out if they fail to do so!

Another piece of the conversation included how a prohibition policy might be applied and the potential for legal action against the system. Mr. Ahmann asserted that it was unlikely for a family member of the board or administration to bring suit against CSD, and that if one was brought, the case should be settled and the policy then changed. I was dismayed at the flip nature of this comment which trivialized the possibility of costly litigation and its detrimental effect to the system.

I am looking forward to hearing more about a nepotism policy that covers vendors. I would again hope for a policy that both ensures ethical vendor contracting without unnecessary blanket prohibitions and has been thoroughly reviewed by the staff and legal counsel.

In case anyone is wondering, I do have a child in CSD schools, but otherwise have no stake in CSD, the board, or either of the District 1 candidates. In fact, I am currently undecided between the two. I enjoyed meeting both candidates at last week’s forum and am happy to have a choice between two solid candidates.

I’m not saying that reducing fossil fuel use isn;t a good idea. I think it is for many reasons. But I don’t think we’re at any real threat of running out of them.

I recall reading a speech (with powerpoint) Michael Crichton gave years ago, where he flashed a large group of words on a screen. He then said something like “here are dozens of words we use every day that a person from 1905 would not even understand. Tell me now that we can predict the future, or that it is even worth talking about.” I think he was right.

A simple but useful example is: think about how many incredibly smart people are engaged in economic forecasting and how awful their record is. Despite decades of practice, the forecasts are almost always wrong. in 2009 the administration’s top economists could not come close to predicting the unemployment rate two years hence. Every day highly paid analysts try to predict future stock prices. More often than not, they’re wrong. Highly paid fund managers rarely beat the S&P 500. The financial crisis of 2008 that seems so obvious in hindsight was predicted by almost no one. The best and brightest tried to predict the cost of Medicare when it was passed int he ’60s. 12 years later their projections were off by 100%.