|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 15:17:38 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! And when is the Q&A session the public gets to have with them?
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 27, 2008 15:18:02 GMT -5
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. So, let me make sure I understand: nothing about people's pasts should enter into the equation when determining their qualifications for an SB position? If someone was a strong supporter of a group that went against what the SB was trying to accomplish, and in fact, may have jeopardized the district in some fashion, it seems reasonable for me, or anyone else (inlcuding an SB member) to hold a grudge aginst that person & not want them on the SB.... IMHO
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 27, 2008 15:35:22 GMT -5
I mean...ask the candidate directly. Pretty simple, really! And when is the Q&A session the public gets to have with them? Candidate forum(s). IPPC has one for every SB election.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Aug 27, 2008 15:37:55 GMT -5
I don't think there is a right or wrong litmus test necessary in judging a candidate. It is an individual decision. Some people feel they don't want a "puppet" in office while others don't want the school board to end up like the Park District board where no one can get along. I guess some people feel it's OK to take the SB to court and then turn around and apply for a vacancy while others can't understand that. (I am saying this hypothetically of course) Everyone has their own criteria. I'm glad these names have been thrown out publically now. Even though we won't get to vote on the next candidate right now, we will be able to examine these people for many months to come and make informed decisions.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Aug 27, 2008 15:48:42 GMT -5
.....If someone was a strong supporter of a group that went against what the SB was trying to accomplish, and in fact, may have jeopardized the district in some fashion, it seems reasonable for me, or anyone else (inlcuding an SB member) to hold a grudge aginst that person & not want them on the SB.... IMHO I disagree with this, WP (even though we end up in same place.) In my mind its not the fact that they "went against what the SB was trying to accomplish". There is nothing wrong with that, per se. It can be healthy! You make your arguments, state your case, and sometimes when votes are counted you end up losing. Then, in our democratic system, you submit to the will of the majority, as determined by elected representatives and referendum votes. Its the tactics some used. Which in this case was to take it to the extreme of going (or supporting going) to the judicial system, to over-rule a decision made by voter-elected representative government, on a flimsy (never before tried?) Constitutional argument (so said the judge). And then try to say "wait...I changed my mind...let me be PART of that representative public service process." I say, no! For me its not about holding a grudge. Its a matter of a principle to me.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 27, 2008 15:49:32 GMT -5
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. So, let me make sure I understand: nothing about people's pasts should enter into the equation when determining their qualifications for an SB position? If someone was a strong supporter of a group that went against what the SB was trying to accomplish, and in fact, may have jeopardized the district in some fashion, it seems reasonable for me, or anyone else (inlcuding an SB member) to hold a grudge aginst that person & not want them on the SB.... IMHO Maybe the word "grudge" is a bit strong.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 16:12:14 GMT -5
They used a 'legal process' to file a grievance and had their day in court.
They made their arguments and stated their case and the judge rendered a decision. Subsequently, they also stopped the process and did not file an appeal, thereby respecting that decision.
GD, What specific 'principle' is in question for you?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 16:15:13 GMT -5
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. So, let me make sure I understand: nothing about people's pasts should enter into the equation when determining their qualifications for an SB position? If someone was a strong supporter of a group that went against what the SB was trying to accomplish, and in fact, may have jeopardized the district in some fashion, it seems reasonable for me, or anyone else (inlcuding an SB member) to hold a grudge aginst that person & not want them on the SB.... IMHO EB204 said it best: "Their performance should dictate whether or not they get voted in, not their name or supposed allegiance to any one group." Amazingly, I agree with her. I think the same should go for qualifications for an appointed SB position.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Aug 27, 2008 16:22:57 GMT -5
So, let me make sure I understand: nothing about people's pasts should enter into the equation when determining their qualifications for an SB position? If someone was a strong supporter of a group that went against what the SB was trying to accomplish, and in fact, may have jeopardized the district in some fashion, it seems reasonable for me, or anyone else (inlcuding an SB member) to hold a grudge aginst that person & not want them on the SB.... IMHO EB204 said it best: "Their performance should dictate whether or not they get voted in, not their name or supposed allegiance to any one group." Amazingly, I agree with her. I think the same should go for qualifications for an appointed SB position. The problem is for any candidate, their performance comes after they are elected when it is too late. That is why people judge on what they can. The good thing about BG leaving and someone replacing him for a few months is that we can see their performance before voting on them again. It's when people say, "if so-and-so gets chosen, I won't reelect them" and they have already pre-judged their performance before they even have the job that bothers me.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 27, 2008 16:27:49 GMT -5
They used a 'legal process' to file a grievance and had their day in court. They made their arguments and stated their case and the judge rendered a decision. Subsequently, they also stopped the process and did not file an appeal, thereby respecting that decision. GD, What specific 'principle' is in question for you? GD can answer for himself, but I'll chime in with my answer: the "information" that has been spread by CFO and NSFOC has contained a lot of half-truths and mis-truths in order to gain support from people that are unwilling or unable to find out the full truth.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 16:31:00 GMT -5
EB204 said it best: "Their performance should dictate whether or not they get voted in, not their name or supposed allegiance to any one group." Amazingly, I agree with her. I think the same should go for qualifications for an appointed SB position. The problem is for any candidate, their performance comes after they are elected when it is too late. That is why people judge on what they can. The good thing about BG leaving and someone replacing him for a few months is that we can see their performance before voting on them again. It's when people say, "if so-and-so gets chosen, I won't reelect them" and they have already pre-judged their performance before they even have the job that bothers me. Perhaps the person making that comment did not prejudge their performance but instead just knows they will hold onto their initial gut feel about someone like others are here saying. How is it bad one way and not bad another? One is chastised because they now feel they won't change their mind later if the candidate gets appointed.. the others are saying they don't even want others in there to start with (thereby NEVER giving them the chance to perform).
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 16:32:57 GMT -5
They used a 'legal process' to file a grievance and had their day in court. They made their arguments and stated their case and the judge rendered a decision. Subsequently, they also stopped the process and did not file an appeal, thereby respecting that decision. GD, What specific 'principle' is in question for you? GD can answer for himself, but I'll chime in with my answer: the "information" that has been spread by CFO and NSFOC has contained a lot of half-truths and mis-truths in order to gain support from people that are unwilling or unable to find out the full truth. To be fair, so did things 'spread' by some voteYES supporters.. A lot of that information turned out to be 'not entirely true' either. I think there were some on the list that helped spread that information out around the community and that information was used to gain support in the form of votes and subsequently money from the taxpayers/voters.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 27, 2008 16:46:38 GMT -5
GD can answer for himself, but I'll chime in with my answer: the "information" that has been spread by CFO and NSFOC has contained a lot of half-truths and mis-truths in order to gain support from people that are unwilling or unable to find out the full truth. To be fair, so did things 'spread' by some voteYES supporters.. A lot of that information turned out to be 'not entirely true' either. I think there were some on the list that helped spread that information out around the community and that information was used to gain support in the form of votes and subsequently money from the taxpayers/voters. for example?
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Aug 27, 2008 16:46:38 GMT -5
They used a 'legal process' to file a grievance and had their day in court. They made their arguments and stated their case and the judge rendered a decision. Subsequently, they also stopped the process and did not file an appeal, thereby respecting that decision. GD, What specific 'principle' is in question for you? I read gatordog's initial post....I don't think there was any hidden info there. his points were very clear.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 16:53:14 GMT -5
To be fair, so did things 'spread' by some voteYES supporters.. A lot of that information turned out to be 'not entirely true' either. I think there were some on the list that helped spread that information out around the community and that information was used to gain support in the form of votes and subsequently money from the taxpayers/voters. for example? Enrollment numbers, boundaries, location, etc. Some of the meeting minutes before the referendum suggest it was known that the enrollment projections were bunk but it allowed for the basis of the split-shift 'scare' as an effort to garner more votes. Ask some fellow mods what was spread around the communities. Maybe some still have some old materials laying around. Of course, if it's for one's "side" it's OK and justified, but naughty naughty if done for the 'other side'.
|
|