Election takes a bite out of apple ballot

At-large school board winners were not endorsed by teachers union; Le has taken stance against union but filled out its questionnaire

Bad weather also played a role in last week’s election, as a limited number of union members handed out their pre-marked ‘‘apple ballots” to voters entering polling places, a union leader said.

Tommy Le, an engineer who ran unsuccessfully for an at-large seat in 2004 and 2006, has gotten no endorsements this time around because of his public stance against unions, especially the one representing the county’s 11,600 teachers.

Le was largely viewed as an underdog in this year’s primary. No Web site. No flyers. No fanfare. The total cost of his campaign: $20.

Still, he captured 25 percent of last week’s vote and will move on to the November election, upsetting Alies Muskin, viewed by many as a strong competitor for the school board seat.

‘‘I was surprised,” said Bonnie Cullison, president of the teachers union. ‘‘I think we were all surprised by the results.”

Muskin, an association executive with several years of PTA experience, captured some high-profile endorsements, including the teachers and workers unions, but finished a distant third in the primary with roughly 18 percent of the vote.

She, too, was ‘‘very surprised” by the election results.

‘‘I think we’ll be taking a look at this, and analyze to see what happened,” Muskin said. ‘‘I think I had good support. I think I ran a pretty good campaign.”

Le wants the school board to have more oversight over the school system, expand vocational training, and roll out more math and science courses in school.

‘‘I don’t have any committee, a big campaign or any money to print a brochure with colorful things, or to make robo-calls to bother people at dinner time,” said Le, 65, of Silver Spring. ‘‘I will not be vocal during campaigns. I refused to go to interviews with the teachers union, the workers union and the retirement group. The people need to make their own decision instead of picking up a pre-marked ballot.”

Documents provided to The Gazette from the union showed that Le filled out the questionnaire and supported the teachers pay increases for fiscal 2009, which begins July 1.

‘‘He filled out a questionnaire and did an interview, then said negative things about us in the press because he wasn’t endorsed,” Cullison said.

In The Gazette’s online voter’s guide, Le called the union ‘‘an emperor without clothes” that only endorses candidates who support their contracts. But in the union’s questionnaire, he said the pay increases are a ‘‘win-win situation for all concerns.”

In an e-mail to The Gazette on Monday, Le said he filled out this newspaper’s questionnaire at the same time he declined union interviews. He did not go in for a teachers union interview, he said.

‘‘Yes, I did fill out their questionnaires, but later regretted that I did, and I later tried to find an excuse not to interview with them,” Le wrote.

As for the principals union, he took a few minutes to explain his campaign, but they did not ask him questions, Le said.

Philip Kauffman, an attorney with the Department of Veterans Affairs, received the most votes — 50,582 — and took 34 percent of the election. He also did not get the nod from the teachers union, and was still surprised by last week’s results.

‘‘I’m trying to figure out what happened on this,” said Kauffman, 55. ‘‘I think I had better name recognition. I had a good campaign and good endorsements. In the end, it turned out to be more helpful than just getting the teachers union endorsement.”

As for Le beating Muskin, ‘‘I think it surprised a lot of people,” Kauffman added.

Name placement was a big deal, said Muskin, whose name appeared below Kauffman and Le on the ballot. This was also her first time running for the school board, she added.

It is too early to determine whether she should run again for the school board in two years, Muskin said.

Kauffman, of Olney, was endorsed by the principals union and the retirees association. He is no stranger to the school board race, having run unsuccessfully for the District 5 seat against Nancy Navarro in 2006. This year, Kauffman is spending more than $20,000 on his campaign.

‘‘I don’t have money,” Le said. ‘‘If you look at Mr. Kauffman, he has all the money.”

Political hopefuls have long coveted a spot on the apple ballot. During the 2006 races, the teachers union charged some candidates thousands of dollars to have their endorsements highlighted in mailings to voters.

The union is looking ahead to the general election, where it will once again endorse candidates for the school board. For now, union leaders are ‘‘in the process of analyzing the results” to see what went wrong, Cullison said.

She did not know yet how many people showed up to work the polls, but said that more than 300 volunteers signed up to hand out ballots.

Aside from the weather and low volunteer turnout, an earlier primary meant that the union had less time to distribute information about its candidate, Cullison said.

Also in 2006, board members Sharon W. Cox and Stephen N. Abrams claimed that the union lobbied their colleagues to vote Christopher S. Barclay to the District 4 seat, which was vacated by Valerie Ervin after she was elected to the County Council.

After the vote, union leaders denied they lobbied for Barclay to take the seat. Barclay, who is running unopposed in his district, has been endorsed again by the teachers union.

Though powerful, the union’s endorsement does not equal political success, said Abrams, who will battle attorney Laura V. Berthiaume in November for the District 2 seat.

‘‘I never had the endorsements,” he said. ‘‘The teachers union would make a difference in the fact that you had unknown candidates. Tommy’s message was very, very strongly anti-union. One could argue that those voting for anyone, but the union candidates would gravitate to Mr. Le. Kauffman won on name recognition in a multi-candidate race.”