More about the elections

OK I am just obsessed with this process.

Today I learned that after the first round of voting staff members can revise their hour requests. Also, only candidates who are already on staff can vote. Candidates who are new to the school cannot.
Also, people can submit as many different slates as they want. I don't know if credit is given when the slates are published or if it is anonymous.

Did I mention that when the kids vote about whether they want someone on staff they can vote yes, no or no opinion. No opinion is not the same as abstaining. I'm not sure why someone would abstain. But no opinion doesn't seem like a great choice either. There happens to be one staff member with more no and no opinion votes than yes votes but since there were more yes votes than no votes they made it through to the slate round. I'm not sure if I agree with this especially since this staff member has been there for a year now. To me, that is a vote of no confidence. The interesting thing about this situation is that I have heard this individual make some very insightful remarks when it comes to the philosophy or more abstract discussions. Which makes me think about what makes for a good staff candidate?

I'm probably following this so closely because I have thought that I would like to run. Not right now of course because I don't know what I would do with Cady and Finn. I'm also not sure if I have a deep enough commitment to The Philosophy. There have been some discussions and people will refer back to how things are done at Sudbury Valley and I think to myself "Who gives a shit how they do things there?" and then I remember that we do. That's why this is a Sudbury school. Duh!