|
Post by gatordog on Aug 27, 2008 12:20:42 GMT -5
For further discussion of potential SB candidates..
To me, and I hope the vast majority of the voters, NSFOC membership or even support is a showstopper for a SB candidate. You would never get my vote, period. In that regard, yes there is a litmus-test for my vote.
I as a voter can respect and listen to a candidate who was for or against the third HS, one who was for or against the chosen site, or one who was for or was against the decided-upon boundaries. Those were all things that were put forward in the political process, with the merits pro and con discussed, and then decided. I have no problem at all listening to any and all candidates for what they will do in the future. Even ones who may have made some different choices on the above issues.
However, anyone who thought it was worth pursuing an unprecedented, bizarre, desperate lawsuit shows me very poor political judgment. Such single-issue madness in a person would do the district absolutely no good as a board member, in my opinion.
I can and will respect individual citizens who felt like they had to pursue the lawsuit route. If a citizen was so overwhelming driven by this single issue (an important one certainly) that they felt the legal route was one they needed to try, I will not hold that against them (its over and done with). However, for any candidate who was a supporter of this lawsuit, you would have shown me that you wanted to unreasonably circumvent the political process. In my mind, you have forfeited any chance of earning my vote.
|
|
|
Post by sardines on Aug 27, 2008 12:37:18 GMT -5
For further discussion of potential SB candidates.. To me, and I hope the vast majority of the voters, NSFOC membership or even support is a showstopper for a SB candidate. You would never get my vote, period. In that regard, yes there is a litmus-test for my vote. I as a voter can respect and listen to a candidate who was for or against the third HS, one who was for or against the chosen site, or one who was for or was against the decided-upon boundaries. Those were all things that were put forward in the political process, with the merits pro and con discussed, and then decided. I have no problem at all listening to any and all candidates for what they will do in the future. Even ones who may have made some different choices on the above issues. However, anyone who thought it was worth pursuing an unprecedented, bizarre, desperate lawsuit shows me very poor political judgment. Such single-issue madness in a person would do the district absolutely no good as a board member, in my opinion. I can and will respect individual citizens who felt like they had to pursue the lawsuit route. If a citizen was so overwhelming driven by this single issue (an important one certainly) that they felt the legal route was one they needed to try, I will not hold that against them (its over and done with). However, for any candidate who was a supporter of this lawsuit, you would have shown me that you wanted to unreasonably circumvent the political process. In my mind, you have forfeited any chance of earning my vote. I do have to agree Gatordog. Although I harbor no ill will toward anyone that supported the lawsuit for their personal reasons, I could not support a SB candidate that felt the lawsuit was justified and in the best interest of all of our district's children no matter how "you slice it". They were willing to sacrifice our voter-approved third high school altogether in order to demand one specific location. That's quite a gamble and one I did not feel unsolicited and unelected people should be making in regards to other people's children and their educational futures. Just my honest opinion.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Aug 27, 2008 13:02:49 GMT -5
Very good Sardines. Like you I don't harbor any personal ill will toward anyone involved regardless of how they felt. However the people that were involved and supported the lawsuit didn't give a d**n about the kids. The candidates we need are people who will represent the interests of all of the students of this district. There are some very good ones listed. And there are those who are only interested in running to get the boundries changed. The candidates for the regular election in the spring will be given are good going over.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 13:22:12 GMT -5
Call me crazy, but I'm not holding any of that (regardless of their 'side') against anyone.
All the talk about unity and moving on seems to be just that; talk.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 27, 2008 13:39:55 GMT -5
Call me crazy, but I'm not holding any of that (regardless of their 'side') against anyone. All the talk about unity and moving on seems to be just that; talk. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Again arch, the posturing isn't appreciated. You're doing more than "expressing an opinion". When you take a jab like that at this board, or more specifically, what people on this board say, you, too, are not promoting healing, harmony, moving on, etc. Please stay on topic. Everyone can comment on what they believe the criteria should or shouldnt be, but just because you don't agree with an opinion doesnt give you license to play the "all this talk about unity" card.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 13:47:35 GMT -5
Call me crazy, but I'm not holding any of that (regardless of their 'side') against anyone. All the talk about unity and moving on seems to be just that; talk. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Again arch, the posturing isn't appreciated. You're doing more than "expressing an opinion". When you take a jab like that at this board, or more specifically, what people on this board say, you, too, are not promoting healing, harmony, moving on, etc. Please stay on topic. Everyone can comment on what they believe the criteria should or shouldnt be, but just because you don't agree with an opinion doesnt give you license to play the "all this talk about unity" card. People here specifically talked about uniting the district and putting the lawsuit behind us; but here it is being dredged up again and also being pointed out as a reason to not support someone. I think it is relevant with respect to the candidates because it's being used as a litmus test; as some have already pointed out. Call it a jab if you want, but it's all factual based on historical topics and postings here.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 27, 2008 13:56:17 GMT -5
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Again arch, the posturing isn't appreciated. You're doing more than "expressing an opinion". When you take a jab like that at this board, or more specifically, what people on this board say, you, too, are not promoting healing, harmony, moving on, etc. Please stay on topic. Everyone can comment on what they believe the criteria should or shouldnt be, but just because you don't agree with an opinion doesnt give you license to play the "all this talk about unity" card. People here specifically talked about uniting the district and putting the lawsuit behind us; but here it is being dredged up again and also being pointed out as a reason to not support someone. I think it is relevant with respect to the candidates because it's being used as a litmus test; as some have already pointed out. Call it a jab if you want, but it's all factual based on historical topics and postings here. I happen to agree with gatordog. I am curious though, what makes you think that chosing to state you would not vote for those who were involved in the lawsuit anti-unity? Moving beyond the lawsuit yes; forget it, not likely. That action personally said a lot to many and that is one of the consequences the NSFOC members were warned about early on.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 27, 2008 14:00:17 GMT -5
Very good Sardines. Like you I don't harbor any personal ill will toward anyone involved regardless of how they felt. However the people that were involved and supported the lawsuit didn't give a d**n about the kids. The candidates we need are people who will represent the interests of all of the students of this district. There are some very good ones listed. And there are those who are only interested in running to get the boundries changed. The candidates for the regular election in the spring will be given are good going over. "And there are those who are only interested in running to get the boundries changed" really ? How can one tell that, I'd sure like to know. I hope it's not by where they live.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 27, 2008 14:13:54 GMT -5
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Again arch, the posturing isn't appreciated. You're doing more than "expressing an opinion". When you take a jab like that at this board, or more specifically, what people on this board say, you, too, are not promoting healing, harmony, moving on, etc. Please stay on topic. Everyone can comment on what they believe the criteria should or shouldnt be, but just because you don't agree with an opinion doesnt give you license to play the "all this talk about unity" card. People here specifically talked about uniting the district and putting the lawsuit behind us; but here it is being dredged up again and also being pointed out as a reason to not support someone. I think it is relevant with respect to the candidates because it's being used as a litmus test; as some have already pointed out. Call it a jab if you want, but it's all factual based on historical topics and postings here. It's also a fact that many in the district do not feel that the actions of groups like CFO and NSFOC were in the best interest of the entire district. Since the charter of the SB is to act in the best interest of the entire district, it's not much of a leap to see people not wanting people from these groups to fill the SB vacancy (otherwise, it would be a coyote guarding the chicken coop scenario, for lack of a better analogy). As far as uniting the district goes, each of us can form an opinion on what that really means. I personally don't think forming an opinion on who should or should not be given serious consideration for the SB seat (based on whatever criteria they choose) is mutually exclusive to "uniting the district".
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 14:39:09 GMT -5
People here specifically talked about uniting the district and putting the lawsuit behind us; but here it is being dredged up again and also being pointed out as a reason to not support someone. I think it is relevant with respect to the candidates because it's being used as a litmus test; as some have already pointed out. Call it a jab if you want, but it's all factual based on historical topics and postings here. It's also a fact that many in the district do not feel that the actions of groups like CFO and NSFOC were in the best interest of the entire district. Since the charter of the SB is to act in the best interest of the entire district, it's not much of a leap to see people not wanting people from these groups to fill the SB vacancy (otherwise, it would be a coyote guarding the chicken coop scenario, for lack of a better analogy). As far as uniting the district goes, each of us can form an opinion on what that really means. I personally don't think forming an opinion on who should or should not be given serious consideration for the SB seat (based on whatever criteria they choose) is mutually exclusive to "uniting the district". It's not mutually exclusive, but it is grudge holding. Out of curiosity, how are these people who will be using this as their litmus test going to determine if someone was a member of the group or not? I can understand looking at the plaintiff names as a start; but how else will you decide who else? By meeting attendance?
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 27, 2008 14:47:04 GMT -5
It's also a fact that many in the district do not feel that the actions of groups like CFO and NSFOC were in the best interest of the entire district. Since the charter of the SB is to act in the best interest of the entire district, it's not much of a leap to see people not wanting people from these groups to fill the SB vacancy (otherwise, it would be a coyote guarding the chicken coop scenario, for lack of a better analogy). As far as uniting the district goes, each of us can form an opinion on what that really means. I personally don't think forming an opinion on who should or should not be given serious consideration for the SB seat (based on whatever criteria they choose) is mutually exclusive to "uniting the district". It's not mutually exclusive, but it is grudge holding. Out of curiosity, how are these people who will be using this as their litmus test going to determine if someone was a member of the group or not? I can understand looking at the plaintiff names as a start; but how else will you decide who else? By meeting attendance? You're asking the wrong person, since I'm not really spending any time worrying about the SB vacancy - I'll just let the SB do it's job (what a concept, huh?). I'm not sure I understand why you are worried about this, since in the end, it doesn't matter what anyone on these forums thinks about the candidates, as we don't get to vote. ETA: regarding grudges: is it OK to hold grudges against any of the current SB members? I've certainly seen posts that lead me to think that some people do hold grudges against some of the current SB members.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Aug 27, 2008 14:48:32 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, how are these people who will be using this as their litmus test going to determine if someone was a member of the group or not? I can understand looking at the plaintiff names as a start; but how else will you decide who else? By meeting attendance? Ask them.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 14:50:06 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, how are these people who will be using this as their litmus test going to determine if someone was a member of the group or not? I can understand looking at the plaintiff names as a start; but how else will you decide who else? By meeting attendance? Ask them. You were one of them who stated it as such, so consider this the asking.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 14:52:17 GMT -5
It's not mutually exclusive, but it is grudge holding. Out of curiosity, how are these people who will be using this as their litmus test going to determine if someone was a member of the group or not? I can understand looking at the plaintiff names as a start; but how else will you decide who else? By meeting attendance? You're asking the wrong person, since I'm not really spending any time worrying about the SB vacancy - I'll just let the SB do it's job (what a concept, huh?). I'm not sure I understand why you are worried about this, since in the end, it doesn't matter what anyone on these forums thinks about the candidates, as we don't get to vote. ETA: regarding grudges: is it OK to hold grudges against any of the current SB members? I've certainly seen posts that lead me to think that some people do hold grudges against some of the current SB members. Oh, there's no 'worry', trust me. The difference with the grudges, I think, is the lack of pretenses and those 'grudges' are based on PERFORMANCE or lack thereof ON THE BOARD. You know.. after they 'got their chance' to prove themselves as a SB member.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Aug 27, 2008 14:55:31 GMT -5
You were one of them who stated it as such, so consider this the asking. I mean...ask the candidate directly. Pretty simple, really!
|
|