Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > November > 08 > Entry
Bohardt back as school board applicant
David Bohardt
UPDATE: Bohardt and Lee were the only applicants by the school board’s 4:30 p.m. deadline today. Interviews will be held Tuesday.
UPDATE: As of 10 a.m., Bohardt and Lee are still the only applicants. The deadline to apply is 4:30 p.m. More later.
I just confirmed with the school district that former mayoral candidate and Preservation Dayton president David Bohardt has applied for Gail Littlejohn’s open seat on the school board. Bohardt was an applicant for an open board seat in 2006 but was passed over for Ronald Jackson.
The only other applicant so far is Ronald Lee, a retired GM worker and city volunteer who applied but was passed over this summer for Jeff Mims.
With the deadline to apply the end of the day on Friday, this should get interesting.
Bohardt sought a board seat in 2006 at the urging of Joe Lacey. They share an interest in preservation, which could mean changes in the school construction program if Bohardt is picked, since board members-elect Sheila Taylor and Nancy Nerny also have expressed interest in preserving more old schools.
While we are on the topic of the upcoming board appointment, I feel like I should soften some things I said previously about possible appointments to the school board.
When I asked original Kids First member Doniece Gatliff two weeks ago if she had interest in returning to the school board, she said no. But that was two weeks ago. I’ve been told she has been asked if she would reconsider and I can’t say for sure that she would not, given all the change on the board. The school board faces a totally different reality today than it did two weeks ago.
Likewise, when I said previously that a return to the board by Gallin or Massoud was unlikely, that was based on election night conversations with the two of them and it was only my impression. The fact is that neither said for certain they would not consider it.
Again, in retrospect I don’t know if that is good enough for me to say it is “unlikely” either would consider a return. It would be tricky to do so. If one of them wanted to seek appointment, she would have to resign from the board and apply by tomorrow. Some might consider it bad form for the board to follow this route and pick someone to replace Littlejohn whom voters just rejected at the polls. But that would be open to debate.
If one of them could be convinced that it was in the best interest of the school district for them to stay on the board, it might not be so far fetched that they could follow this path.
Stay tuned. We will know more tomorrow.
Permalink | Comments (22) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Comments
By Mary
November 11, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this
“Been there, done that”, I have a problem identifying the most disgusting part of what you describe - the citizens who expect and go along what is promised (outdoor basketball hoops?) or the politicians doing the promising. A few years ago, I sat in disbelief as I saw a school board candidate say our district was the envy of the world. Even more shocking, some voters fall for those ridiculous lines instead of laughing that ridiculous propaganda out of the election process.By Rick
November 11, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
I see a lot of comments concerning Mr. Bohardt but none about mr. Lee. Scott says he is a retired GM worker and a city volunteer. Anyone got more information? A retired GM employee could mean anything from a retired line worker to a Strategic Business Planner. What has he volunteered for? Curious minds want to know?By Oldprof
November 11, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this
Jeffery, I’m always interested in the level of knowledge. You write that it would be nice to have someone with some construction industry experience. Can you name the two board members in the past eight years who have worked in construction? And did you vote for them?By Been There, Done That
November 10, 2007 10:57 PM | Link to this
Scott and concerned citizens! Let me reiterate what I posted just before the Mayoral election: David Bohart, as President of the HBA of Dayton, came to Fairview Elementary School, in his own neighborhood, and made promises to staff and adminisrators that turned out to be out-and-out LIES. He came as a Partner in Ed. for the school, representing HBA. He asked what the school needed. Among the things he offered to us were: landscaping for the entire school footprint, a dozen basketall hoops and backboards, a new playground, and those were just the OUTDOOR promises! Mr. Bohart met with our principal (in my presence) and repeated his snake-oil-salesman promises to her. He said that we would let us know “very soon” about how he would deliver his word. He asked me before he left, that I poll all of our teachers to find out what they considered to be their “fondest dreams”—in other words, what would we want for the school if money were no object. Mind you, all of this was presented to us as if it were a “done deal”, there was no mistaking that we were to receive whatever we asked for. I am not naive; NO ONE could produce all that David Bohart promised. That is my point. We waited for 3 MONTHS to hear any news from the man who wishes to now be my boss. I figured that even if Bohart were able to provide 5-10% of the things he offered to our students, we would still be better off than we were before! After waiting as long as I did, I called the man. He said then that the group had denied our school any help, but that he planned to bring it up again to the new president of the HBA and that THEN he would call us back. Of course, that call never came and, as you can imagine, we never saw nor heard from the Board President wanna-be again—until we saw his face all over the news, running for his next employment choice—Mayor of Dayton! Now, this same unreliable man wishes to run the School Board! PLEASE listen, those folks who have the decision-making power: Don’t let David Bohart do to the entire district what he has already done to the staff and students at Fairview!By Hmmm...
November 10, 2007 6:42 PM | Link to this
I know for a fact that another application was delivered yesterday morning. I hope that they wouldn’t be that dishonest.By Mary
November 10, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this
“old prof”, while I acknowledge the need for pragmatism, using a newer is always better for buildings educates our children for a throwaway society. Seems to me if the Air Force can upgrade and fly 60 year old planes, we could also upgrade buildings that sit on the ground. Raw materials for new buildings are probably also getting expensive, unless the downturn in the housing market makes them temporarily cheaper.By Terri
November 10, 2007 8:04 AM | Link to this
Harvard compared to DPS? What a joke. DPS’s problems go far beyond old buildings they chose not to maintain through the decades. They need to pay for new buildings and put in new, effective teachers without the contraints put on the teachers as to expectations allowed of the students’ achievement levels—or they don’t pass.By Annie
November 9, 2007 6:05 PM | Link to this
David Bohardt has been nagged by a whole bunch of people to make a bid for the school board since before he ran for mayor. Joe Lacy has very little to do with it. David is a professional association executive. That means he has made a living running nonprofit boards for many years. The school board could use some professionalism, if you ask me. And some intelligence too, if you don’t mind my saying so.By Jefferey
November 9, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this
I agree with Dave’s comment on Bohardt. It will be refresshing to have someone with his background (private sector, and from the construction industry) on the board.By Laura
November 9, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this
How interesting it is to see the complaints about the only two people who have (at the time of the article being written) submitted their desire to serve on the board. As to Mr. Bohardt’s presumed “ego”, I think it takes somewhat of a big ego for anyone to serve on a public board of any kind. Old Prof: I agree with your assessment that architecture has nothing to do with education as it applies to the workings of a school system and functioning on a school board. To say that it is, is really stretching the meanings of the components of education.By Crisp
November 9, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this
Mary, I certainly agree with you. I have a hard time understanding the concept that if you care about preserving historic buildings, you can’t possibly care about children’s education. I don’t want to lose the integrity of my neighborhood by having a building put in that doesn’t “fit” but that in no way implies the education of children should suffer. I can’t believe with all of todays technology there isn’t a cost effective way to preserve an old building. If that is the case….look out Harvard, you’re nothing but bricks.By Elaine Vaughn
November 9, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
Bohart is a joke for the position on the school board. I hope the selection committe has knows what he is all about. Joe Lacey is leading all his jerks the way he wants them led, down Primrose PathBy Oldprof
November 9, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this
Mary, I did not say architecture has nothing to do with education. I said that we need board members who put education before architecture. Moreover I note that the “historical” value claimed for these buildings is specious; tell me, when was the last time any professional historian conducted research by visiting Roosevelt, Building 26, the Arcade, Julienne, or Walnut Hills? Sure, some of those have value as objets-d’art, but Bohardt isn’t stumping for a position on the board at DAI, is he?By summguy
November 9, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this
I heard that a friend of mine, who is a teacher has applied. I hope he gets it. Teachers can offer fresh perspective. That’s just my thought.By Dave
November 9, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this
I am not related to any current or former school board members and I have never met Mr. Bohardt, but I could see some real advantage to having him on the board. The first job of the board is to pick a good superintendent and make sure the public’s concerns are addressed. But the second job is to be a good steward for the huge investment in bricks-and-mortar. With the continuing construction projects, it would be good to have a board member who understands multi-million dollar construction jobs (they are a LOT different than small construction jobs). And a diverse background among the board members is very valuable.By Disappointed
November 9, 2007 7:20 AM | Link to this
Have any of you actually ever met David Bohardt? I worked with him in his role as Dir of DHA and found him to be totally obnoxious and irresponsible with a huge ego. He does not possess the kind of character that any community desires of their leaders and to appoint him to a such an important role at such a critical time him would be tragic.By Mary
November 9, 2007 7:16 AM | Link to this
“old prof”, architecture is real science, art, and history. How can you say architecture has nothing to do wih education?By Rebecca Brown
November 8, 2007 10:58 PM | Link to this
I think Bohart would be an absolute disaster for the DP School Board. Just as he was rejected for the Mayoral position he needs to be rejected by the school board. He is cut out of the same cloth as Joe Lacey and his coharts. There is a true saying “birds of a feather flock together”. God does like ugly.By Oldprof
November 8, 2007 10:57 PM | Link to this
Hey Greener—you don’t have to worry about the “old girls”—but you do have to worry whether Bohardt has done anything to promote education. Note that moaning about “historic” buildings is not education, despite what Joe thinks. And to a great extent, the moaning has little to do with history either; preserving old bricks that few cared about has little to do with a genuine understanding of the patterns of development of our culture. If Dave Bohardt is genuinely interested in education, perhaps he could quit crusading for architecture and instead devote himself passionately to education for a few years instead of architecture.By Rebecca Brown
November 8, 2007 10:52 PM | Link to this
I think Bohart would be an absolute disaster for the DP School Board. Just as he was rejected for the Mayoral position he needs to be rejected by the school board. He is cut out of the same cloth as Joe Lacey and his coharts. There is a true saying “birds of a feather flock together”. God does like ugly. Things have been ugly in Dayton for too long.By greener
November 8, 2007 8:44 PM | Link to this
why dont you let THE GOOD OLE GIRLS DIE WITH DIGNITY. Ifthey come through the back door like this then the whole schl. board needs to resign.regardless of your papers bias towards the democratic party.belcher go to cin.with our x city mgr. that they also let go they should do same for you.By Craig
November 8, 2007 6:38 PM | Link to this
David Bohart is an excellent choice to fill the vacated seat of Gail Littlejohn. I believe he will bring a lot of positive energy to the school board, and share some good ideas.