Feedback accepted graciously (no violence involved, i swear)
Disclaimer: All events and proceedings related to this site are fictitious. Any association to current affairs is ENTIRELY coincidental...Completely coincidental
(Ha, that'll keep those with libel in mind happy. or dead)
Monday, February 28, 2005
Okay, you rarely ever get these, but I’m afraid today’s blog will be a bit of a rant.
As many of you AHSers are aware, the election season is among us. However, this season of snow brings with it, the winter of our discontent. (Literary language eh? Sibilance, personification, literary references - don’t say this site isn’t educational now.)
The much rumoured "final fifteen" list that has been hanging in the staff room, finally uncovered itself in all its "final eighteen" glory. For those that want to know,
- Chrissy F-B
- Hannah Long
- Laura Hoskins
- Emily Ross
- Alice Stride
- Amber Wilmshurst
- Emma Lauder
- Emma Taylor
- Emma Wood
- Georgia Kelley
- Eve Strong
- Sinead McCallion
- Rosie Griffin
- Laurie Siddell
- Chantelle Henderson
- Katherine Stonham
- Josie Lake
However, it is my view, that this system is slightly flawed. It not a true representation of how the Year 12 body at AHS stands. There are so many people that I would have expected to be on that list that aren’t. People that have done so much more for our "school community" – those that have started clubs of their own initiative, those that sacrificed their own time working on voluntary projects like the newspaper, fundraising week and of course, any chance to promote the CITIZENSHIP CONFERENCE JULY 2005! WOOO!
(Bottom line – this system sucks arse.)
Okay, in depth research (i.e. asking Mrs Littlemore who we all know is the LANDMINE of knowledge) I found out how exactly 18 people were selected from what is essentially, about 200 students. Or as JimJames likes to call it "the top ten percent"
We were given nomination forms and asked to nominate several people who we thought would be good. We were all under the impression that these nominees would then all be considered by the Mrs C-Wallader (supreme leader of year 12) and then put forward into a shortlist, from which we would all vote on who, in the list would be best at the job.
However apparently, it was only people with 10 nominations or above that got considered by the teachers to be put in this "final 18" – which led to a LOT of muttering and "discussion" in the library.
Obviously those that told the world that they were going up for the job got the most votes, and those that were more conservative about slipping such matters into conversation were at an obvious disadvantage. Should this have to be a disadvantage?
Opening this to "discussion" yet again, what would have been the best solution, or method for such elections? I mean, there’s only so much we can do before it turns into one big popularity contest. And in an environment where geniality is rather hard to come across, how can we determine the difference between someone who’s nice or "nice" as we could say.. and someone who’s right for the job?
My point is, whilst trying to keep a fair and balanced view, is - For the nominations, most of us voted for our friends, not necessarily the people that we think would be good for the job.
Hell, I put Tottle down in one of my spaces! :P