this is not about Ms Stottler personally, but about appearance of any one having too many elected postions. I would feel the same way if any other elected official were in her situation.

It is wonderful that Ms Stottler, as well as many of the other candidates for council or board, volunteer in several other capacities. We need more citizens willing to do the same.

School board or citiy council tends to require a significant amount of time if the board or council member is going to do the job well, as I'm sure the clerk's job must. The current & newly elected board will have contract negotiations and likely budget cuts, in addition to searching for & hiring a new superintendent. Then there are the clerk duties. I believe it's spreading too thin--whether that candidate is Ms Stottler or anyone else, for that matter, to hold 2 elected positions.

Is there really something "fishy" about a woman who started out passionate about education and ran for an UNPAID seat on the school board - and then applied and was chosen by the county board to be appointed to that position two years after being elected to school board (which she just won re-election to)? She still has to prove that she knows her stuff and can handle both jobs. (She also sits on other nonprofit boards and does volunteer work)

If they were both paid positions, maybe she should think twice...but if she believes she can make a difference and is willing to step up and do both jobs, then more power to her!

It's December 11 and there are only five candidates in the pool for a deadline that is 26 days away. If more don't jump in, she should go for it!

true, there is no statutory bar. It is for the same reason some didn't vote for Mr Rashkin for city council, because his wife was currently on the school board. (This election was, of course, before they separated) No statutory bar, but still, looks fishy.

Should any family member of the current candidates for either board or council choose to run at the same time, or for an additional local office as in the case of Ms Stottler, in good conscience, I could only vote for one office or one family member.

There is no statutory bar to Stottler holding two elected positions for different, unrelated governmental bodies.
.
I don't know if it holds true for school boards, but teaching is increasingly a female job, while school administration remains more gender-balanced. I think this reflects societal valuation of education as a job. The school board ideally would fluctuate between 3-6 members of either gender, all other things being equal, but there's no real way to impose that balance. We can squawk all we like about a gender-blind meritocracy but in practical terms the point of a body like the school board is to reflect and represent the wishes of the community. There are many, many citizens who would be qualified and increasing the pool of people who participate is always good.

since Ms Stottler holds another elected position, I question whether she should hold two at that same time

I just hope that Lori Stottler runs again. She has provided a wonderful balance of common sense and practicality and doesn't talk just to see herself quoted as a couple of the others seem to do.

yes, most qualified should be the criteria. Gender,creed, etc does not make one more-or less-qualified for any elected position.

Janie7 - I'm quite certain that the Gazette was reporting a fact of observation. There are currently three and there will be one - that's all. I will say as a woman who has sat on boards, we do bring a nice balance to the decision making process and in education, a gender balance would be nice. They work on items like finding more male teachers, closing the gap on diversity deficencies, negotiating, etc. and having all genders, colors, creeds and religions help serve the masses with balance. I just hope that the public seeks the most qualified not the most popular when April rolls around (we have homework to do!)

so what if Ms. Sheridan ends up the only woman on the board...wasn't the lesson learned from the November election supposed to be that the public doesn't care about the skin tone or gender of any particular candidate, but rather that any given candidate has the neccesary skill set to fulfill the duties of the office s/he is seeking?