|
Post by drdavelasik on Feb 28, 2009 22:37:18 GMT -5
The people here who insinuated this was a hoax should be ASHAMED. Period. Oh come on! I was certain it was a hoax because I couldn't believe MM would lose it like he did. I don't believe many of us did. In all the years he has been on the SB he never once came anywhere close to this. And judging by the hatred some people in this district have for him and this being SB election season a hoax is not hard to imagine. I am not ashamed of anything. Just horribly saddened. Oh I am sure he has.....this was just brought out in to the light. What goes on in the dark ALWAYS eventually comes out in the light. I think that I will finally attend a SB meeting just to see this guy worm his way out of this one. It will be well worth calling it an early night in the office.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Mar 1, 2009 12:05:31 GMT -5
By the way, I hate to draw any analogies between the NSFOC and this assault case, but how many people who vilified the members of NFSOC for selfishly filing a lawsuit to remedy a perceived injustice would deny a legal avenue to the parents of the alleged victim? .... This is not meant to equate the severity of the two issues in any way, but rather to point out that thankfully we live in a society that allows grievances to be aired in a court of law. And often as a result, rules, policies, and laws are eventually changed for the better. I understand your "hating to draw analogies" here....because there are none to be sensibly made! So anybody against the NSFOC lawsuit, is by your analogy, against our nation's rule-of-law principles in general, and the parents of the victim dealing with an an assault case specifically. Oh please! Not to bore anyone but....for the record, NSFOC was a lawsuit about overturning the decisions of a fair vote, and then decisions made by our elected representatives, all for that all-important perceived injustice of "neighborhood schools for our children". With BB being sufficiently in the neighborhood, but Ogden and Eola not. With NSFOC's own attorney saying "there really is no constitutional precedent at all for what we are trying to do". I just dont see any analogy at all to one going to court about a specific assault case. Now that you brought up NSFOC's lawsuit...we all know there would be cost born for years to come by this selfish action. Sadly, here is one now: the vast majority of the district is trying to understand and come to grips with MM's odious email comment and the Superintendant's handling of what is happening at Gregory between three, now two, students. What to do now, and in the future. Ultimately, this is (or regretably should be) a very private matter between victim and the accused, with very very few correctly having all the facts. Now we have people clamoring for this being a reason, in the extreme, for MM and Dr D to "resign". Yet how can people like myself, and others in the broad middle of this district, understand if the motives of those calling for this are really on the merits of this Gregory situation....or if they really are calling for this because of their past "sins" of selecting the wrong site and the wrong boundaries for MV? The NSFOC never knew there would be a tragic sexual assault at Gregory. The NSFOC never knew the administration would stumble so much in its handling of this. But the NSFOC should have known that future issues of some kind would arise (they always do in life). And they should have known that sensible and non-emotional input from citizens throughout 204 would be needed. Yet, the NSFOC and like-minded people have clouded the 204 landscape. My take is all that is left for them is to be punitive towards certain political figures (since the real issues no longer can be changed: we are getting a third HS, it will be sited on Eola Rd, and the boundaries are determined.) The political atmosphere apparently has been set such that we sadly cannot consider issues on their merits alone. Trying to draw comparisons between NSFOC lawsuit and the assault case is a very vivid example of just that! I surely wish we could have the conversation about what we want done by the SB, and by the people involved, as being best to move forward with this specific assault issue. And yes, we need to have the conversation about what leadership is needed for the future of the SD. But this needs to be done without the witch-hunt element for past perceived sins that some want to bring into this. If the emotional mentality takes over, the entire district stands to lose.
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Mar 1, 2009 12:24:52 GMT -5
By the way, I hate to draw any analogies between the NSFOC and this assault case, but how many people who vilified the members of NFSOC for selfishly filing a lawsuit to remedy a perceived injustice would deny a legal avenue to the parents of the alleged victim? .... This is not meant to equate the severity of the two issues in any way, but rather to point out that thankfully we live in a society that allows grievances to be aired in a court of law. And often as a result, rules, policies, and laws are eventually changed for the better. I understand your "hating to draw analogies" here....because there are none to be sensibly made! So anybody against the NSFOC lawsuit, is by your analogy, against our nation's rule-of-law principles in general, and the parents of the victim dealing with an an assault case specifically. Oh please! Not to bore anyone but....for the record, NSFOC was a lawsuit about overturning the decisions of a fair vote, and then decisions made by our elected representatives, all for that all-important perceived injustice of "neighborhood schools for our children". With BB being sufficiently in the neighborhood, but Ogden and Eola not. With NSFOC's own attorney saying "there really is no constitutional precedent at all for what we are trying to do". I just dont see any analogy at all to one going to court about a specific assault case. Now that you brought up NSFOC's lawsuit...we all know there would be cost born for years to come by this selfish action. Sadly, here is one now: the vast majority of the district is trying to understand and come to grips with MM's odious email comment and the Superintendant's handling of what is happening at Gregory between three, now two, students. What to do now, and in the future. Ultimately, this is (or regretably should be) a very private matter between victim and the accused, with very very few correctly having all the facts. Now we have people clamoring for this being a reason, in the extreme, for MM and Dr D to "resign". Yet how can people like myself, and others in the broad middle of this district, understand if the motives of those calling for this are really on the merits of this Gregory situation....or if they really are calling for this because of their past "sins" of selecting the wrong site and the wrong boundaries for MV? The NSFOC never knew there would be a tragic sexual assault at Gregory. The NSFOC never knew the administration would stumble so much in its handling of this. But the NSFOC should have known that future issues of some kind would arise (they always do in life). And they should have known that sensible and non-emotional input from citizens throughout 204 would be needed. Yet, the NSFOC and like-minded people have clouded the 204 landscape. My take is all that is left for them is to be punitive towards certain political figures (since the real issues no longer can be changed: we are getting a third HS, it will be sited on Eola Rd, and the boundaries are determined.) The political atmosphere apparently has been set such that we sadly cannot consider issues on their merits alone. Trying to draw comparisons between NSFOC lawsuit and the assault case is a very vivid example of just that! I surely wish we could have the conversation about what we want done by the SB, and by the people involved, as being best to move forward with this specific assault issue. And yes, we need to have the conversation about what leadership is needed for the future of the SD. But this needs to be done without the witch-hunt element for past perceived sins that some want to bring into this. If the emotional mentality takes over, the entire district stands to lose. well said GD
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Mar 1, 2009 13:13:06 GMT -5
Very well said Gatordog! You have said it all. It is about time someone had the guts to bring that out.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Mar 1, 2009 13:18:54 GMT -5
Absolutely the two are apples and oranges. No question there is a witch hunt; I don't think it will end until the entire "boundary" board has been replaced.
|
|
|
Post by drdavelasik on Mar 1, 2009 13:34:55 GMT -5
By the way, I hate to draw any analogies between the NSFOC and this assault case, but how many people who vilified the members of NFSOC for selfishly filing a lawsuit to remedy a perceived injustice would deny a legal avenue to the parents of the alleged victim? .... This is not meant to equate the severity of the two issues in any way, but rather to point out that thankfully we live in a society that allows grievances to be aired in a court of law. And often as a result, rules, policies, and laws are eventually changed for the better. I understand your "hating to draw analogies" here....because there are none to be sensibly made! So anybody against the NSFOC lawsuit, is by your analogy, against our nation's rule-of-law principles in general, and the parents of the victim dealing with an an assault case specifically. Oh please! Not to bore anyone but....for the record, NSFOC was a lawsuit about overturning the decisions of a fair vote, and then decisions made by our elected representatives, all for that all-important perceived injustice of "neighborhood schools for our children". With BB being sufficiently in the neighborhood, but Ogden and Eola not. With NSFOC's own attorney saying "there really is no constitutional precedent at all for what we are trying to do". I just dont see any analogy at all to one going to court about a specific assault case. Now that you brought up NSFOC's lawsuit...we all know there would be cost born for years to come by this selfish action. Sadly, here is one now: the vast majority of the district is trying to understand and come to grips with MM's odious email comment and the Superintendant's handling of what is happening at Gregory between three, now two, students. What to do now, and in the future. Ultimately, this is (or regretably should be) a very private matter between victim and the accused, with very very few correctly having all the facts. Now we have people clamoring for this being a reason, in the extreme, for MM and Dr D to "resign". Yet how can people like myself, and others in the broad middle of this district, understand if the motives of those calling for this are really on the merits of this Gregory situation....or if they really are calling for this because of their past "sins" of selecting the wrong site and the wrong boundaries for MV? The NSFOC never knew there would be a tragic sexual assault at Gregory. The NSFOC never knew the administration would stumble so much in its handling of this. But the NSFOC should have known that future issues of some kind would arise (they always do in life). And they should have known that sensible and non-emotional input from citizens throughout 204 would be needed. Yet, the NSFOC and like-minded people have clouded the 204 landscape. My take is all that is left for them is to be punitive towards certain political figures (since the real issues no longer can be changed: we are getting a third HS, it will be sited on Eola Rd, and the boundaries are determined.) The political atmosphere apparently has been set such that we sadly cannot consider issues on their merits alone. Trying to draw comparisons between NSFOC lawsuit and the assault case is a very vivid example of just that! I surely wish we could have the conversation about what we want done by the SB, and by the people involved, as being best to move forward with this specific assault issue. And yes, we need to have the conversation about what leadership is needed for the future of the SD. But this needs to be done without the witch-hunt element for past perceived sins that some want to bring into this. If the emotional mentality takes over, the entire district stands to lose. What are the merits to be considered? There's misuse of district communications, violations of open meetings act, disrespectful references to a taxpayer, and gutter language. What is the open minded view of these actions? Public trust is lost and it has nothing to due with any past legal actions, boundaries, or change in school locations.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Mar 1, 2009 14:23:20 GMT -5
How about disrespectful behavior to a school board, including throwing and slamming things in a public meeting? Are we really going to talk about the open meetings thing again? The point is, the district is doing what they can legally on this issue. Emotions are once again clouding that fact. And I disagree; the lost trust has everything to do with the past perceived "wrong-doings" by the board.
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Mar 1, 2009 14:36:19 GMT -5
How about disrespectful behavior to a school board, including throwing and slamming things in a public meeting? Are we really going to talk about the open meetings thing again? The point is, the district is doing what they can legally on this issue. Emotions are once again clouding that fact. And I disagree; the lost trust has everything to do with the past perceived "wrong-doings" by the board. When people get disrespected and treated poorly it brings out the worst in many. The SB called taxpayers names, sent out a false bridge memo. The SB created this mess. Now is seems to many on this board that is ok that our SB president called this father a MF? ? Really? ? Maybe if our SB was truthful and handled this matter with sensitivity you wouldn't see these reactions. MM is WAY OFF base on this. Put yourself in these parents shoes and if this was your child. You would do what ever it took!!! To blame this on NSFOC is UNBELIEVEABLE!!!! How effective is MM in dealing with this situation after calling this father such a vulgar word??? How should these parents react?
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Mar 1, 2009 14:39:51 GMT -5
How about disrespectful behavior to a school board, including throwing and slamming things in a public meeting? Are we really going to talk about the open meetings thing again? The point is, the district is doing what they can legally on this issue. Emotions are once again clouding that fact. And I disagree; the lost trust has everything to do with the past perceived "wrong-doings" by the board. When people get disrespected and treated poorly it brings out the worst in many. The SB called taxpayers names, sent out a false bridge memo. The SB created this mess. Now is seems to many on this board that is ok that our SB president called this father a MF? ? Really? ? Maybe if our SB was truthful and handled this matter with sensitivity you wouldn't see these reactions. MM is WAY OFF base on this. Put yourself in these parents shoes and if this was your child. You would do what ever it took!!! To blame this on NSFOC is UNBELIEVEABLE!!!! How effective is MM in dealing with this situation after calling this father such a vulgar word??? How should these parents react? Even this post shows how blurred the lines between things have become. And for what it is worth, nobody on this board has been okay with what was written in that email. You might want to read a little closer.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 1, 2009 14:41:45 GMT -5
You could not be more wrong.
Perhaps you need to be reminded that this is not a civil matter but a criminal one. A crime against society. It will be "the people vs. child X", not "child X vs. the accused." We are all part of this, like it or not.
This is ridiculous. Do you honestly think anyone's motives matter here? Anything short of a categorical repudiation of MM's actions is unacceptable. I don't care if some of us already disapproved of him or even despised him. What he did warrants unequivocal disgust and anger.
I will lay it out again for you.
"NSFOC was a lawsuit about overturning the decisions of a fair vote"
Well, the parents action in the assault case is a legal action brought as an attempt to overturn or at least mitigate the "proper" decisions made by a school admin and SB.
'NSFOC's own attorney saying "there really is no constitutional precedent at all for what we are trying to do".'
D204's officials also stated that there is no precedent for moving an alleged attacker. Is precedent the be-all, end-all? Our country's system of laws is undergoing CONSTANT evolution.
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 1, 2009 14:41:53 GMT -5
When people get disrespected and treated poorly it brings out the worst in many. The SB called taxpayers names, sent out a false bridge memo. The SB created this mess. Now is seems to many on this board that is ok that our SB president called this father a MF? ? Really? ? Maybe if our SB was truthful and handled this matter with sensitivity you wouldn't see these reactions. MM is WAY OFF base on this. Put yourself in these parents shoes and if this was your child. You would do what ever it took!!! To blame this on NSFOC is UNBELIEVEABLE!!!! How effective is MM in dealing with this situation after calling this father such a vulgar word??? How should these parents react? Even this post shows how blurred the lines between things have become. And for what it is worth, nobody on this board has been okay with what was written in that email. You might want to read a little closer. Thank you Gatormom, I was just about to post the same thing. This is how miscommunication begins.
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 1, 2009 14:50:36 GMT -5
'NSFOC's own attorney saying "there really is no constitutional precedent at all for what we are trying to do".'D204's officials also stated that there is no precedent for moving an alleged attacker. Is precedent the be-all, end-all? Our country's system of laws is undergoing CONSTANT evolution. I agree that the law is constantly evolving. And as much as I hate this whole situation, presently, there is no law requiring the SD to act in any fashion other than what they have done. In our society, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. So, the school district forces these kids to other schools, the state doesn't have enough evidence to fully convict them and then their parents come back and sue the school district for forcing them out? It's a no win situation.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Mar 1, 2009 14:54:26 GMT -5
EXACTLY! The law has to be followed, not emotions. And no, I wouldn't trade places with those parents - I cannot imagine what they're going through.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 1, 2009 14:55:22 GMT -5
"Okay" is too strong a word, but rationalizing it as the result of community pressure borders on defending it.
Many of you have this backwards. Those of us who don't like MM are not suddenly finding a convenient excuse to lambast him on an a gray-area issue; we are saying that MM's e-mail is just a stark example of the contempt he has exhibited in the past that some have denied. He has now been proven beyond a doubt to be a dirtbag, what is what many of us have been saying all along.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 1, 2009 15:03:14 GMT -5
Chances of that are ZERO. The fact that there have been felonies charged is more than enough "evidence." (Without even considering the distributed photos and the subsequent assault at school.) If it turns out that the kids eventually get off, then I suppose Gregory would have to open its arms to the acquitted student's return. But no one with half a brain would think the D204 would lose a lawsuit for forcing them to another school. Chances are infinitely higher that D204 would be sued for NOT moving them, especially if--God forbid--something else happens.
|
|