|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 17:04:29 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. "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" Some who I did talk to thought their voting rights were a matter of principle too and that the switch from the publicized location of the school and subsequent boundaries that were put out to the public BEFORE the vote violated their vote. Popejoy ruled otherwise but the fact remains that many in the group acted on principle. GD's statements above are his opinion and I am curious as to which 'principle' he thinks they violated. I would guess this: "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." Now, if the person honestly thought there was a wrong against the community and supported the suit on the principle that they honestly thought the law was being violated against the voters at large; then they're still in the realm of 'madness' ??
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 27, 2008 17:07:27 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. I agree here too., but like many other things. We usually don't have anything on them that would constitute performance. Some we may have past positions, such as PTA positions, etc that may give us a better idea. Short of that, we (I) use whatever other data I have to predict (to me) what their future perfomance might be. That does include affiliations to certain groups. Granted, what may be a minus to me, may be a plus to someone else. Now as far as who gets appointed, that's up to the sitting SB, but at least with that person, we will now have a little SB track record to glean from for future performance.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 27, 2008 17:11:57 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. Let's be clear, both factions had their moments of less than correct information. I will not go as far as to say either side flat out lied, rather embellished their point of view, while minimizing the other. That is politics.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 17:18:10 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. I agree here too., but like many other things. We usually don't have anything on them that would constitute performance. Some we may have past positions, such as PTA positions, etc that may give us a better idea. Short of that, we (I) use whatever other data I have to predict (to me) what their future perfomance might be. That does include affiliations to certain groups. Granted, what may be a minus to me, may be a plus to someone else. Now as far as who gets appointed, that's up to the sitting SB, but at least with that person, we will now have a little SB track record to glean from for future performance. I suppose you're right. Many on the list definitely have a trail of breadcrumbs around the community and associations can be made by connecting the dots to determine the 'type of crowd' they run with to give people a picture of the person and their line of thinking. I guess that's a double-acting door.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 27, 2008 17:19:04 GMT -5
I read gatordog's initial post....I don't think there was any hidden info there. his points were very clear. "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" Some who I did talk to thought their voting rights were a matter of principle too and that the switch from the publicized location of the school and subsequent boundaries that were put out to the public BEFORE the vote violated their vote. Popejoy ruled otherwise but the fact remains that many in the group acted on principle. GD's statements above are his opinion and I am curious as to which 'principle' he thinks they violated. I would guess this: "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." Now, if the person honestly thought there was a wrong against the community and supported the suit on the principle that they honestly thought the law was being violated against the voters at large; then they're still in the realm of 'madness' ?? I am sorry, but that "voting rights" issue was the weakest of all their arguements, and was the one the was shot down the fastest. Don't know where Collins pulled that angle from, but to hear him talk about it, I was amazed. I read his case law on it and could not even remotely find any similarities....
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 17:22:00 GMT -5
"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" Some who I did talk to thought their voting rights were a matter of principle too and that the switch from the publicized location of the school and subsequent boundaries that were put out to the public BEFORE the vote violated their vote. Popejoy ruled otherwise but the fact remains that many in the group acted on principle. GD's statements above are his opinion and I am curious as to which 'principle' he thinks they violated. I would guess this: "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." Now, if the person honestly thought there was a wrong against the community and supported the suit on the principle that they honestly thought the law was being violated against the voters at large; then they're still in the realm of 'madness' ?? I am sorry, but that "voting rights" issue was the weakest of all their arguements, and was the one the was shot down the fastest. Don't know where Collins pulled that angle from, but to hear him talk about it, I was amazed. I read his case law on it and could not even remotely find any similarities.... On a personal note, I thought it was very weak too... subsequently, I stayed off that train.. BUT, some that I talked to honestly seemed to believe that was what transpired. The question still stands to GD and SD...
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 27, 2008 17:24:01 GMT -5
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'. I don't approve of anyone lying. To suggest that "we don't need a 3rd HS" or "CFO had more accurate enrollment numbers" right now doesn't make sense to me, since nobody could have predicted the housing market fallout over the last 1-2 years. If that hadn't happened, we'd have 100's of more houses in 204 today. So, the buildout in 204 has been slowed down. "Slowing down", as one group suggested would have done nothing but reduce the number of available properties (which was already a small list), and increased the costs to build MV. A judgement on whether or not MV was needed cannot be made for 8-10 years or more IMO. Boundaries and location were not planned in advance to be changed. Stuff happened, and the SB did what they believe was the right course of action.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Aug 27, 2008 17:27:57 GMT -5
I agree here too., but like many other things. We usually don't have anything on them that would constitute performance. Some we may have past positions, such as PTA positions, etc that may give us a better idea. Short of that, we (I) use whatever other data I have to predict (to me) what their future perfomance might be. That does include affiliations to certain groups. Granted, what may be a minus to me, may be a plus to someone else. Now as far as who gets appointed, that's up to the sitting SB, but at least with that person, we will now have a little SB track record to glean from for future performance. I suppose you're right. Many on the list definitely have a trail of breadcrumbs around the community and associations can be made by connecting the dots to determine the 'type of crowd' they run with to give people a picture of the person and their line of thinking. I guess that's a double-acting door. There are a few on the list that that perhaps haven't laid that trail of breadcrumbs. Maybe they would be the "perfect" candidate. I haven't seen much talk about Robert Morales or Cathy Piehl, to name two. Perhaps they don't have the baggage that many of the other candidates do and therefore, have an unbiased opinion of the district.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 17:35:15 GMT -5
I suppose you're right. Many on the list definitely have a trail of breadcrumbs around the community and associations can be made by connecting the dots to determine the 'type of crowd' they run with to give people a picture of the person and their line of thinking. I guess that's a double-acting door. There are a few on the list that that perhaps haven't laid that trail of breadcrumbs. Maybe they would be the "perfect" candidate. I haven't seen much talk about Robert Morales or Cathy Piehl, to name two. Perhaps they don't have the baggage that many of the other candidates do and therefore, have an unbiased opinion of the district. Luckily, people talk.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 27, 2008 17:37:07 GMT -5
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'. I don't approve of anyone lying. To suggest that "we don't need a 3rd HS" or "CFO had more accurate enrollment numbers" right now doesn't make sense to me, since nobody could have predicted the housing market fallout over the last 1-2 years. If that hadn't happened, we'd have 100's of more houses in 204 today. So, the buildout in 204 has been slowed down. "Slowing down", as one group suggested would have done nothing but reduce the number of available properties (which was already a small list), and increased the costs to build MV. A judgement on whether or not MV was needed cannot be made for 8-10 years or more IMO. Boundaries and location were not planned in advance to be changed. Stuff happened, and the SB did what they believe was the right course of action. However the 10,400 number was bogus and known to be so quite a while back- yet it was still in circulation here, on blue and in general conversations very recently. No one was going to attend a 5000 student HS. The original commitee of parents and SD admin had the numbers almost exactly right 5 years ago - for 2009 thru 2012 - yet we chose someone else who it turns out screwed up other districts forecasts also. As 1st and 2nd grade attendances started to drop ( before the economic issues we have today) - some - including those in power ) again brought up split shifts when there was zero danger of these IMHO. As someone Iknowwho hates FUD - thankfully this discussion was short lived as it was silly. Yes the current ( last 12 months ) economics market has caused even further slowdown and no one saw that coming - which is why I believe the March #'s going forward likely will be adjusted downward yet again.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 27, 2008 17:39:38 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. Let's be clear, both factions had their moments of less than correct information. I will not go as far as to say either side flat out lied, rather embellished their point of view, while minimizing the other. That is politics. Or continued to highlight outdated information because it 'sold' well - or played upon people's fear - while not technically lying, I found it very unsavory.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Aug 27, 2008 17:40:34 GMT -5
There are a few on the list that that perhaps haven't laid that trail of breadcrumbs. Maybe they would be the "perfect" candidate. I haven't seen much talk about Robert Morales or Cathy Piehl, to name two. Perhaps they don't have the baggage that many of the other candidates do and therefore, have an unbiased opinion of the district. Luckily, people talk. Not sure what you are inferring by this comment..You've been forthcoming with comments of some others on the list so why hold back with these two now?
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 27, 2008 17:41:12 GMT -5
There are a few on the list that that perhaps haven't laid that trail of breadcrumbs. Maybe they would be the "perfect" candidate. I haven't seen much talk about Robert Morales or Cathy Piehl, to name two. Perhaps they don't have the baggage that many of the other candidates do and therefore, have an unbiased opinion of the district. Luckily, people talk. It just hasn't hit the 'press' yet - but lots of discussions going on -at least on one of these I know.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 27, 2008 17:45:00 GMT -5
Not sure what you are inferring by this comment..You've been forthcoming with comments of some others on the list so why hold back with these two now? Because some information comes at a price and without permission I do not disseminate.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 27, 2008 17:54:35 GMT -5
I don't approve of anyone lying. To suggest that "we don't need a 3rd HS" or "CFO had more accurate enrollment numbers" right now doesn't make sense to me, since nobody could have predicted the housing market fallout over the last 1-2 years. If that hadn't happened, we'd have 100's of more houses in 204 today. So, the buildout in 204 has been slowed down. "Slowing down", as one group suggested would have done nothing but reduce the number of available properties (which was already a small list), and increased the costs to build MV. A judgement on whether or not MV was needed cannot be made for 8-10 years or more IMO. Boundaries and location were not planned in advance to be changed. Stuff happened, and the SB did what they believe was the right course of action. However the 10,400 number was bogus and known to be so quite a while back- yet it was still in circulation here, on blue and in general conversations very recently. No one was going to attend a 5000 student HS. The original commitee of parents and SD admin had the numbers almost exactly right 5 years ago - for 2009 thru 2012 - yet we chose someone else who it turns out screwed up other districts forecasts also. As 1st and 2nd grade attendances started to drop ( before the economic issues we have today) - some - including those in power ) again brought up split shifts when there was zero danger of these IMHO. As someone Iknowwho hates FUD - thankfully this discussion was short lived as it was silly. Yes the current ( last 12 months ) economics market has caused even further slowdown and no one saw that coming - which is why I believe the March #'s going forward likely will be adjusted downward yet again. From an email in 2006 from the SD: "We currently have 9,200 students in grades two through five and more are on the way as new houses continue to be built. We are on pace to have the two largest high schools in the state with approximately 5,000 students each." IIRC, the projected numbers for peak in HS enrollment was a range, something to the effect of 9,700-10,200. This still seems very realistic, it just might take a few more years to get there. Again, anyone that, in 2005 or 2006, could predict the massive housing slowdown in 2007-2008 (which has obviously slowed down the buildout in 204, and subsequently impacted the enrollment numbers) must literally have a crystal ball.
|
|