|
Post by gatordog on Aug 28, 2008 13:48:25 GMT -5
After reviewing the names I find that many will make good SB members. However I cannot for the life of me understand why Stephen Calcaterra would choose to run again. During the last election he didn't seem to make much of an effort and was difficult to track down. No signs, no website, no anything. The average voter had no idea what he stood for or what he wanted to do.. thanks for the good summary of the past SC campaign. Or, the non-campaign rather!
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 28, 2008 13:48:58 GMT -5
...the TG HOA submitted a proposal that of course kept Fry at NV and moved Springbrook to WV. On the middle school level this proposal sends Springbrook to Still, Peterson to Scullen and Welch to Gregory. .... thanks major, for the insight. I am just curious, did their plan still have split middle schools? And split elementary schools? I strongly suspect that it did, but I could be wrong. If you know, major, "yes" or "no" answer is fine, dont trouble yourself to give the full blown details (not so relavent in my mind). (as many of us have said... its figuring out the MS boundaries where ideas run into trouble) There are always splits somewhere. Making those splits be geography biased is the best thing, IMO, because the 'thank you' for the 'dart' of the split should be a closer assignment.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 28, 2008 13:54:50 GMT -5
I had similar feelings after the vote in Feb/April for the current boundaries and land... some had no problem sending others where they did. It could also be said pigeon holing a candidate like this is 'not giving them a chance'. So what. Without a track record in public service, we all have to determine our own criteria for selecting a candidate. If I don't want to give someone a chance because I didn't like their position in the boundary hearings, I get to do that. My vote, my choice. Unless you are on the school board, you are not making the selection this time.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 28, 2008 13:58:54 GMT -5
So what. Without a track record in public service, we all have to determine our own criteria for selecting a candidate. If I don't want to give someone a chance because I didn't like their position in the boundary hearings, I get to do that. My vote, my choice. Unless you are on the school board, you are not making the selection this time. LOL. We can discuss all we want, it is a discussion board. It does no harm to look at the people who may or may not be putting their names in come election time.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 28, 2008 14:15:54 GMT -5
Does anyone know....will the interview process of the ones chosen be open to the public? I can't recall if the AT's was or not. As part of that final process - I can tell you it absolutely was not open to the public. The first round of interviews encompassed about 10 ( I believe) candidates and we met with 2 SB members each (at the same time) who asked questions ( they had our resumes and why we wanted the role) - and then they narrowed that down to 3 final candidates. The 3 final candidates each met with the full board ( one right after the other ) and had a chance to again state to all why we wanted the role - and fielded questions from all members. None of this was open to the public. I assume this process will be the same
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 28, 2008 14:18:49 GMT -5
Unless you are on the school board, you are not making the selection this time. LOL. We can discuss all we want, it is a discussion board. It does no harm to look at the people who may or may not be putting their names in come election time. In that case, One also wrote an article at the beginning of the summer about why we would not see her go for a school board position. It will call into question the amount of commitment they can devote to it because that was one of the many reasons given for not doing it along with being glad to not have to spend the time learning about things such as budgets, curriculum, contracts, staffing, federal mandates, etc. So, I suppose it will be interesting to see how this all pans out. www.ip204.proboards92.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=inthenews&thread=804&page=1
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 28, 2008 14:23:05 GMT -5
After reviewing the names I find that many will make good SB members. However I cannot for the life of me understand why Stephen Calcaterra would choose to run again. During the last election he didn't seem to make much of an effort and was difficult to track down. No signs, no website, no anything. The average voter had no idea what he stood for or what he wanted to do. On the blue board there seems to be a feeling that anyone from TG is going to get the shaft. Personally I would be happy to vote for anyone from anywhere provided he or she is sincerly interested in the entire district. One person that doesn't fit this criteria is Laura Thomson the TG HOA president who is running only to get Fry back into NV. Before the boundries were finalized the TG HOA submitted a proposal that of course kept Fry at NV and moved Springbrook to WV. On the middle school level this proposal sends Springbrook to Still, Peterson to Scullen and Welch to Gregory. I might add for you Watts people (Arch and Doc) that this proposal sends MW and Cowl to MV as it is now. So Thomson doesn't have a problem with sending other kids elsewhere just so long as her area is kept at NV. These are the kind of people that we don't need. I had similar feelings after the vote in Feb/April for the current boundaries and land... some had no problem sending others where they did. It could also be said pigeon holing a candidate like this is 'not giving them a chance'. Thanks for the info major - ( will do some G2 on that point also) however I dare say most people's ideas tried to take care of #1 first. Not sure anyone had any ideas to send Watts anywhere but MV from the get go - as Dr D slipped up way before that when he 'drew' us into the NORTH section of the district - then after going to his seat - jumped back up in a few mins and stated his drawing meant nothing. I knew we were a done deal right there- and I was right. Some of us actually started with the concept of not sending ANY ES to the furthest HS as a way to be fair to all - but that fell on deaf ears. And while one SB member 'saved' his area (1/2 of his ES only) the trek because it was grossly unfair - the area 2-3 minutes north of there wasn't even considered - yep, that's fair.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 28, 2008 14:47:31 GMT -5
LOL. We can discuss all we want, it is a discussion board. It does no harm to look at the people who may or may not be putting their names in come election time. In that case, One also wrote an article at the beginning of the summer about why we would not see her go for a school board position. It will call into question the amount of commitment they can devote to it because that was one of the many reasons given for not doing it along with being glad to not have to spend the time learning about things such as budgets, curriculum, contracts, staffing, federal mandates, etc. So, I suppose it will be interesting to see how this all pans out. www.ip204.proboards92.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=inthenews&thread=804&page=1I sure read that. Love her column. At least with ST, I can only imagine the amount of thought that must have gone into the decision. Her article is quite clear, she is aware of the job, its responsibilities, and the time commitment. Glad she changed her mind.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 28, 2008 14:50:26 GMT -5
I had similar feelings after the vote in Feb/April for the current boundaries and land... some had no problem sending others where they did. It could also be said pigeon holing a candidate like this is 'not giving them a chance'. Thanks for the info major - ( will do some G2 on that point also) however I dare say most people's ideas tried to take care of #1 first. Not sure anyone had any ideas to send Watts anywhere but MV from the get go - as Dr D slipped up way before that when he 'drew' us into the NORTH section of the district - then after going to his seat - jumped back up in a few mins and stated his drawing meant nothing. I knew we were a done deal right there- and I was right. Some of us actually started with the concept of not sending ANY ES to the scenic drive HS as a way to be fair to all - but that fell on deaf ears. And while one SB member 'saved' his area (1/2 of his ES only) the trek because it was grossly unfair - the area 2-3 minutes north of there wasn't even considered - yep, that's fair. last warning - please stay on topic
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 28, 2008 14:54:17 GMT -5
LOL. We can discuss all we want, it is a discussion board. It does no harm to look at the people who may or may not be putting their names in come election time. In that case, One also wrote an article at the beginning of the summer about why we would not see her go for a school board position. It will call into question the amount of commitment they can devote to it because that was one of the many reasons given for not doing it along with being glad to not have to spend the time learning about things such as budgets, curriculum, contracts, staffing, federal mandates, etc. So, I suppose it will be interesting to see how this all pans out. www.ip204.proboards92.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=inthenews&thread=804&page=1I know I've changed my mind before & good for her - I don't think her change reflects negatively on her at all - it sounds like she thought long & hard about it & decided that she was willing to devote the necessary time & energy
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 28, 2008 14:55:04 GMT -5
Thanks for the info major - ( will do some G2 on that point also) however I dare say most people's ideas tried to take care of #1 first. Not sure anyone had any ideas to send Watts anywhere but MV from the get go - as Dr D slipped up way before that when he 'drew' us into the NORTH section of the district - then after going to his seat - jumped back up in a few mins and stated his drawing meant nothing. I knew we were a done deal right there- and I was right. Some of us actually started with the concept of not sending ANY ES to the scenic drive HS as a way to be fair to all - but that fell on deaf ears. And while one SB member 'saved' his area (1/2 of his ES only) the trek because it was grossly unfair - the area 2-3 minutes north of there wasn't even considered - yep, that's fair. last warning - please stay on topic since the comment was made that one person is only in the running to change the boundaries - AGAIN, I am not the one who brought it up. But heck, I guess I am warned for responding ....
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 28, 2008 14:55:40 GMT -5
In that case, One also wrote an article at the beginning of the summer about why we would not see her go for a school board position. It will call into question the amount of commitment they can devote to it because that was one of the many reasons given for not doing it along with being glad to not have to spend the time learning about things such as budgets, curriculum, contracts, staffing, federal mandates, etc. So, I suppose it will be interesting to see how this all pans out. www.ip204.proboards92.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=inthenews&thread=804&page=1I sure read that. Love her column. At least with ST, I can only imagine the amount of thought that must have gone into the decision. Her article is quite clear, she is aware of the job, its responsibilities, and the time commitment. Glad she changed her mind. Some may point out that it's saying one thing and doing another and others might say they have doubts as to the real commitment that will be given after already admitting they can't and won't do it. Others might have already gone through the historical articles/postings for other things too because "It does no harm to look at the people who may or may not be putting their names in come election time. " It'll be interesting to watch the process, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 28, 2008 15:11:57 GMT -5
edited by WP: post was deleted All topics veer off on occasion, when they leave the country it is time to get back on topic. Anyway, SB candidates anyone?
|
|
|
Post by mclovin on Aug 28, 2008 17:32:08 GMT -5
Time for us all to move on from boundaries, ugliness, etc.
There are some great people on that list of 24 from all over the district. I personally believe it is time to move beyond the boundaries and the blanket criticism of people simply because of where they reside in the district.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 28, 2008 19:06:31 GMT -5
Time for us all to move on from boundaries, ugliness, etc. There are some great people on that list of 24 from all over the district. I personally believe it is time to move beyond the boundaries and the blanket criticism of people simply because of where they reside in the district. agreed
|
|