"Rice runs his own company, Rice & Gardiner Consultants, which has undertaken numerous school building construction projects for school districts, including the Fort Bend school district."

Do we really need to elect a district vendor to the school board? Go Alumbaugh!

The notion that a "vendor" is unqualified to be on the Board because he is a vendor is absurd. Quite by coincidence, I know both Mr. Rice and Mr. Alumbaugh well and both have good qualities that make them qualified to serve. Cetainly, neither one has ever behaved inappropriately in his professional or personal life.

Therefore, if someone doesn't believe either man is qualified, give a good reason and let the voters know. Otherwise, to prejudice the vote agaisnt either one because of personal or political dislike serves no one.

I think that stating the only attribute that Mr. Alumbaugh has as being "retired" is not giving him his due. While he is retired, it should be noted that he worked in FBISD for over 27 years as a teacher, a counselor, and then a registrar. He devoted himself to his job and his students. He is better qualified to identify issues and pursue solutions having his background then certainly a vendor would be.

I'm sorry spent taxpayer, why wouldn't electing vendors to any elected body they do business with, especially one that has just announced a financial emergency be problematic or a potential conflict of interest? If these are the companies that are spending our tax dollars and debt, aren't they also the ones we should be keeping an eye on?

Sorry, but I don't agree, even if they are personal friends and have outstanding character. We should not be handing the henhouse over to the foxes (metaphor).

Rounders, your argument against voting for Jim Rice is based on his being a vendor and, thereby, not to be trusted with the taxpayer’s money because he will misappropriate the funds to enrich himself. This is guilt by association – the proverbial double–edged sword I could use to argue that Clay Alumbaugh, a former teacher, will misappropriate the funds to give raises to his cohort of working teachers, i.e., chickens guarding chickens.

In either case, as anyone who is willing to look at the issue objectively will recognize, the argument is fallacious because it presumes that an individual is incapable of acting honestly because of what he does or did for a living, i.e., a wolf can change clothing but it cannot keep from being a wolf.

I know that neither Jim nor Clay is such a self–serving individual – until you can prove otherwise. For my part, I believe Jim Rice will refrain from doing business with the District while he serves on the Board, should he be elected, and eliminate a conflict of interest. He's that kind of person, as is Clay.

The financial problems facing the District have not been realized because of underhandedness by nefarious vendors. Properties are being foreclosed and revenue to the District is falling; the State underfunds schools; salaries for administrators and teachers go up to keep pace with inflation, and on and on. Therefore, what can the Board do about the State of Exigency it has declared?

"In either case, as anyone who is willing to look at the issue objectively will recognize, the argument is fallacious because it presumes that an individual is incapable of acting honestly because of what he does or did for a living, i.e., a wolf can change clothing but it cannot keep from being a wolf."

Actually I would argue that your opinion offers the "fallacious" argument because it refuses to recognize the 900 pound gorilla in the room. Allowing a vendor company owner to sit on the board sets up several potential problems and potential situations that even the best of us would have problems with and since I am a taxpayer in the district and do not want such a situation set-up to begin with and share this opinion with many others, we will work to defeat this option and support Clay.

I've discussed this with a friend who was on the board and knows the problems it entails. The only requirement for Mr. Rice will be that he not vote on project directly impacting his company but it doesn't require him not to vote on possible sub-contractors or other former associates or even competitors. It presents far to many scenarios for second guessing.

As for the red herring argument regarding educators, there goals for our children and learning is not being questioned. What is being questioned is can a company owner whom has done regular vendor business with the senior administrators and the district in a for profit mode serve the same public interest and forget their own corporate agenda?

I have no problem with a man that you say is honorable, but I do not create unwanted situations in advance that lead to such issues and concerns. We have seen these problems far to often at the national level as well as the local level.

I wish you luck in your race though but I will be working for the other side.