|
Post by Arch on Jun 13, 2008 10:51:06 GMT -5
I wouldn't discount anyone who was involved with or sympathetic to NSFOC because they went through a viable legal process to resolve a grievance and they respected the process and decision thereof even though it did not go in their favor. I would fold in complete lack of support for anyone who during public comment or via LTE said the nasty things that were said. Personalities like that, our district leadership can do without.
I would vote for a pot-stirrer though. Having one around is a good thing to keep everyone on their toes. The other 6 can always overrule them, but every so often people need a broomstick jabbed in their spokes for a reality check.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 13, 2008 12:57:39 GMT -5
my understanding is that school code does indeed allow one to retract a vote. As far as waffling on MV- ( and I am sure someone will correct where I am wrong) is that CV never changed from her stance that her feeling was the 3rd HS was not needed. I thought she said she supported the purchase of AME on 1/21/08 but that she still maintained her previous position on the issue(no need) but was willing to move forward if AME was a more fiscally responsible choice as admin suggested based "on the will of the voters alone." If I am incorrect, maybe someone can check the video if they are interested. I wanted to see if I had missed a switch on something.. Thank you for clarifying the school code to me. One thing to fight for something you believe in but once the vote is done, time to support the decision. CV has fought MV from day 1 and that is her right. However once the voters said yes, it was time to support it. She did not. ETA: I do believe being on the SB requires the same thing. Passion for what you beleive but also the ability to move forward once it is voted on. CV doesn't have that quality. She even stated at much at one of the meetings. She stated that she never believed there was a need for a 3rd HS, but since it was voted on, she would support it. However, she even changed her mind on that when MWG pulled out and is still stating her stance on the enrollment figures. Again, her perogative, but I believe the time to do that is over, unless of course, she is building a platform on which to run.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 13, 2008 13:03:56 GMT -5
Arwen's list is good. I would vote for someone who appears to be able to look beyond their family/neighborhood and wants what's best for the district as a whole. I would likely not vote for someone new to the district. I want someone who has a good understanding of where we are today and how we got here. I would not vote for CV because she was not able to shift her anti-3rd HS stance to go along with what the voters approved. (and didn't vote for her in the 1st place due to her anti-ref position) If JC were to run again I would vote for her because I have frequently seen her ask questions on topics that others were ready to rubber stamp without any discussion. I know sometimes it can be too much, but other times she's the only one who seems to be trying to get to the bottom of things. It is scary that 4 seats are open because anything can happen. Will there be at least 4 good (IMO of course!) people who want to run? I second Arwen's list and also agree with Momto4. I believe there will be those that run solely because they will still want to "get their way". A person like that should not be on the school board. I respect the passion for their position, but to run for a board position with that platform in mind does not do anything but divide the district further. These candidates have a parent/taxpayer hat to wear, but they also have a school board hat to wear which represents many, many people in this district. They need to be able to distinguish between the two. I'm afraid there are certain individuals who will not be able to do that.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Jun 13, 2008 13:15:52 GMT -5
I wonder if any of the four candidates who ran as challengers the last election will run again. I know Leanne Lyons moved to #203. Michelle Davis is still lurking around so I hear. I expect she will play a part in the next election. The other two; Knight and the guy whose name I can't recall. (he finished last) They I believe were running for the vote no people. I think Davis might run again but we well see a whole new cast this time around. Maybe some regulars on this board! Good luck all if you do. You will need it.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 13, 2008 16:07:48 GMT -5
I wonder if any of the four candidates who ran as challengers the last election will run again. I know Leanne Lyons moved to #203. Michelle Davis is still lurking around so I hear. I expect she will play a part in the next election. The other two; Knight and the guy whose name I can't recall. (he finished last) They I believe were running for the vote no people. I think Davis might run again but we well see a whole new cast this time around. Maybe some regulars on this board! Good luck all if you do. You will need it. Majoranthrax - The blue board has come up with some names from their board as some possilbe candidates for SB elections. I don't know if they are just tossing these ideas around or if they ar seriously considering it. But your comment brings the subject up for the readers/contributors of this board. Do you see any possible candidates and if so, what do you feel are their qualifications?
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 13, 2008 16:14:13 GMT -5
I wonder if any of the four candidates who ran as challengers the last election will run again. I know Leanne Lyons moved to #203. Michelle Davis is still lurking around so I hear. I expect she will play a part in the next election. The other two; Knight and the guy whose name I can't recall. (he finished last) They I believe were running for the vote no people. I think Davis might run again but we well see a whole new cast this time around. Maybe some regulars on this board! Good luck all if you do. You will need it. Majoranthrax - The blue board has come up with some names from their board as some possilbe candidates for SB elections. I don't know if they are just tossing these ideas around or if they ar seriously considering it. But your comment brings the subject up for the readers/contributors of this board. Do you see any possible candidates and if so, what do you feel are their qualifications? if we are looking for unity - a real good test would be names that stand the test on both boards. Just a thought as I believe there would be some - although not sure any willing to run....
|
|
|
Post by chicoryowl on Jun 13, 2008 16:37:53 GMT -5
Who is feeding CV those carefully crafted questions? Perhaps that person should run for the SB. Not sure I follow- carefully crafted questions before the SB meetings ? Or on projected attendance - financials ? I've only been to a few board meetings. I'm going to assume you've been to more. The few meetings I've been to she's asked some scripted, inflammatory comments and been unable to back up her reasoning when asked. One example that comes to mind was during a meeting on whether to pursue quick take. She asked an obviously scripted question that indicated QT leads to increased judgements against the party taking the property. When MM asked what her basis for that statement was (because the lawyer indicated the jury would not be aware that QT had occurred) she had no response. I take it from your comments that you'd support CV in the next election. Maybe you can explain why she'd be a good candidate? You're very intelligent and have been very involved in this district. I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts. My personal opinion is that she's not qualified to be on the SB. I've heard little of her adding anything productive to discussions other than offering a dissenting vote. If all she's there to do is try to net get the school built, then that ship has sailed. I'd like the focus of the SB candidates to be about making the district better. Not solely about being a dissenting and obstructionist vote.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 13, 2008 17:03:09 GMT -5
Not sure I follow- carefully crafted questions before the SB meetings ? Or on projected attendance - financials ? I've only been to a few board meetings. I'm going to assume you've been to more. The few meetings I've been to she's asked some scripted, inflammatory comments and been unable to back up her reasoning when asked. One example that comes to mind was during a meeting on whether to pursue quick take. She asked an obviously scripted question that indicated QT leads to increased judgements against the party taking the property. When MM asked what her basis for that statement was (because the lawyer indicated the jury would not be aware that QT had occurred) she had no response. I take it from your comments that you'd support CV in the next election. Maybe you can explain why she'd be a good candidate? You're very intelligent and have been very involved in this district. I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts. My personal opinion is that she's not qualified to be on the SB. I've heard little of her adding anything productive to discussions other than offering a dissenting vote. If all she's there to do is try to net get the school built, then that ship has sailed. I'd like the focus of the SB candidates to be about making the district better. Not solely about being a dissenting and obstructionist vote. Okay I'll take a shot at it. CV does use note cards and I used to believe they may have come from elsewhere also, because that is what I was told. I do know recently they are her own notes - usually after reading some of the documents presented to the SB members cover to cover. During the MWGEN deal - she read the reports start to finish - as well as visited the site. Can we say that about all the SB members. Her background was as a PTA president, not obstructionist, so if she is viewed that way doesn't it make you wonder how that occured ? I do believe we need someone to make sure information does get out. Have you seen the projected attendance figures for HS through 2013 ? I would hazard to say most have not. The number is 8931. These #'s were done in March - and coincide pretty closely with the projections done when we decided to add the 2 freshman centers. Now one may still decide a 3000 seat HS is needed for various reasons based on that number as I don't beliee the case is clear cut either way ( my opinion ) - but why is it this stuff never gets released for people to be able to make that decision ? Will we ever see a detailed cost of MV ? It really doesn't matter much now since it will be built anyway, and these are our tax dollars, I and many others would like to know what the final all inclusive cost is when complete. I don't think that is an unfair request. So what does qualify one to be on the SB ? Do we want someone who votes on a site location without ever seeing it? Do we want someone who's area knows about their 'new boundaries' days before anyone else ? Do we want someone who leads a march against boundaries and then tries to throw another area under the bus ? I bring these up because it's far easier to throw stones at candidates than actually like something. Maybe every one of these in the grand scheme of things is OK - each voter will have to decide.
|
|
|
Post by chicoryowl on Jun 13, 2008 17:20:10 GMT -5
I've only been to a few board meetings. I'm going to assume you've been to more. The few meetings I've been to she's asked some scripted, inflammatory comments and been unable to back up her reasoning when asked. One example that comes to mind was during a meeting on whether to pursue quick take. She asked an obviously scripted question that indicated QT leads to increased judgements against the party taking the property. When MM asked what her basis for that statement was (because the lawyer indicated the jury would not be aware that QT had occurred) she had no response. I take it from your comments that you'd support CV in the next election. Maybe you can explain why she'd be a good candidate? You're very intelligent and have been very involved in this district. I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts. My personal opinion is that she's not qualified to be on the SB. I've heard little of her adding anything productive to discussions other than offering a dissenting vote. If all she's there to do is try to net get the school built, then that ship has sailed. I'd like the focus of the SB candidates to be about making the district better. Not solely about being a dissenting and obstructionist vote. Okay I'll take a shot at it. CV does use note cards and I used to believe they may have come from elsewhere also, because that is what I was told. I do know recently they are her own notes - usually after reading some of the documents presented to the SB members cover to cover. During the MWGEN deal - she read the reports start to finish - as well as visited the site. Can we say that about all the SB members. Her background was as a PTA president, not obstructionist, so if she is viewed that way doesn't it make you wonder how that occured ? I do believe we need someone to make sure information does get out. Have you seen the projected attendance figures for HS through 2013 ? I would hazard to say most have not. The number is 8931. These #'s were done in March - and coincide pretty closely with the projections done when we decided to add the 2 freshman centers. Now one may still decide a 3000 seat HS is needed for various reasons based on that number as I don't beliee the case is clear cut either way ( my opinion ) - but why is it this stuff never gets released for people to be able to make that decision ? Will we ever see a detailed cost of MV ? It really doesn't matter much now since it will be built anyway, and these are our tax dollars, I and many others would like to know what the final all inclusive cost is when complete. I don't think that is an unfair request. So what does qualify one to be on the SB ? Do we want someone who votes on a site location without ever seeing it? Do we want someone who's area knows about their 'new boundaries' days before anyone else ? Do we want someone who leads a march against boundaries and then tries to throw another area under the bus ? I bring these up because it's far easier to throw stones at candidates than actually like something. Maybe every one of these in the grand scheme of things is OK - each voter will have to decide. Well I appreciate your taking the time to explain your position. Obviously, I disagree with it. If she's using her own note cards, why can't she explain what she's talking about when asked? Going back to her question on QT, couldn't she have just said that the question came from her review of the materials? And I'm not going into details about some of what a SB member shouldn't do because I know some of what you're referring to, but not all and I don't want to turn this into a rehash. And as you indicate, MV (boundaries and all) is a done deal. So if the MV was built at BB or if there were different boundaries, would you still be a supporter of CV?
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 13, 2008 18:16:34 GMT -5
Okay I'll take a shot at it. CV does use note cards and I used to believe they may have come from elsewhere also, because that is what I was told. I do know recently they are her own notes - usually after reading some of the documents presented to the SB members cover to cover. During the MWGEN deal - she read the reports start to finish - as well as visited the site. Can we say that about all the SB members. Her background was as a PTA president, not obstructionist, so if she is viewed that way doesn't it make you wonder how that occured ? I do believe we need someone to make sure information does get out. Have you seen the projected attendance figures for HS through 2013 ? I would hazard to say most have not. The number is 8931. These #'s were done in March - and coincide pretty closely with the projections done when we decided to add the 2 freshman centers. Now one may still decide a 3000 seat HS is needed for various reasons based on that number as I don't beliee the case is clear cut either way ( my opinion ) - but why is it this stuff never gets released for people to be able to make that decision ? Will we ever see a detailed cost of MV ? It really doesn't matter much now since it will be built anyway, and these are our tax dollars, I and many others would like to know what the final all inclusive cost is when complete. I don't think that is an unfair request. So what does qualify one to be on the SB ? Do we want someone who votes on a site location without ever seeing it? Do we want someone who's area knows about their 'new boundaries' days before anyone else ? Do we want someone who leads a march against boundaries and then tries to throw another area under the bus ? I bring these up because it's far easier to throw stones at candidates than actually like something. Maybe every one of these in the grand scheme of things is OK - each voter will have to decide. Well I appreciate your taking the time to explain your position. Obviously, I disagree with it. If she's using her own note cards, why can't she explain what she's talking about when asked? Going back to her question on QT, couldn't she have just said that the question came from her review of the materials? And I'm not going into details about some of what a SB member shouldn't do because I know some of what you're referring to, but not all and I don't want to turn this into a rehash. And as you indicate, MV (boundaries and all) is a done deal. So if the MV was built at BB or if there were different boundaries, would you still be a supporter of CV? And the ability to disagree is fine...when done with civility as this has been... I have no issue with that. One thing I am is always as honest as I can be - sometimes too much so and let my emotions take hold. As far as would I be a CV supporter if the school had been built at BB ? The honest answer to that is I can't rightfully say. the reason being is that if all would have gone as planned I would likely have continued on - blindly accepting whatever decisions were being made, because of course it would have been going the way I was told it would all along. I did not question enough before and more than likely would not have going forward- so I would never have listened to anything she had to say. I am not saying I agree with everything she says lock , stock and barrel, those days for me are gone regardless of who we're talking about in office. Fool me once -....... If the boundaries were to change before MV opens in the Fall of '09 ( and I am not 100% convinced they won't in some way as some seem to be) - yes I would be in exactly the same place I am today support wise. It would be a great help to my friends and neighbors ...but it means little to me at this point beyond that. that's as honest as I can be
|
|
|
Post by chicoryowl on Jun 13, 2008 18:41:32 GMT -5
Well I appreciate your taking the time to explain your position. Obviously, I disagree with it. If she's using her own note cards, why can't she explain what she's talking about when asked? Going back to her question on QT, couldn't she have just said that the question came from her review of the materials? And I'm not going into details about some of what a SB member shouldn't do because I know some of what you're referring to, but not all and I don't want to turn this into a rehash. And as you indicate, MV (boundaries and all) is a done deal. So if the MV was built at BB or if there were different boundaries, would you still be a supporter of CV? And the ability to disagree is fine...when done with civility as this has been... I have no issue with that. One thing I am is always as honest as I can be - sometimes too much so and let my emotions take hold. As far as would I be a CV supporter if the school had been built at BB ? The honest answer to that is I can't rightfully say. the reason being is that if all would have gone as planned I would likely have continued on - blindly accepting whatever decisions were being made, because of course it would have been going the way I was told it would all along. I did not question enough before and more than likely would not have going forward- so I would never have listened to anything she had to say. I am not saying I agree with everything she says lock , stock and barrel, those days for me are gone regardless of who we're talking about in office. Fool me once -....... If the boundaries were to change before MV opens in the Fall of '09 ( and I am not 100% convinced they won't in some way as some seem to be) - yes I would be in exactly the same place I am today support wise. It would be a great help to my friends and neighbors ...but it means little to me at this point beyond that. that's as honest as I can be I appreciate your honesty. And I'll leave it at that. ETA: I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Jun 13, 2008 18:58:13 GMT -5
I wonder if any of the four candidates who ran as challengers the last election will run again. I know Leanne Lyons moved to #203. Michelle Davis is still lurking around so I hear. I expect she will play a part in the next election. The other two; Knight and the guy whose name I can't recall. (he finished last) They I believe were running for the vote no people. I think Davis might run again but we well see a whole new cast this time around. Maybe some regulars on this board! Good luck all if you do. You will need it. Majoranthrax - The blue board has come up with some names from their board as some possilbe candidates for SB elections. I don't know if they are just tossing these ideas around or if they ar seriously considering it. But your comment brings the subject up for the readers/contributors of this board. Do you see any possible candidates and if so, what do you feel are their qualifications? I don't know of anyone yet but have heard rumblings. Within the next several months I think we are going to see some names emerge. What I am hoping is that they will have a strong business background. If we had good business people on the SB who knew the value of money this whole mess never would have happened. We do not need one issue people, housewives or stay at home Dads with nothing to do. Running a SB is a serious thing as we all know. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 13, 2008 19:27:15 GMT -5
And the ability to disagree is fine...when done with civility as this has been... I have no issue with that. One thing I am is always as honest as I can be - sometimes too much so and let my emotions take hold. As far as would I be a CV supporter if the school had been built at BB ? The honest answer to that is I can't rightfully say. the reason being is that if all would have gone as planned I would likely have continued on - blindly accepting whatever decisions were being made, because of course it would have been going the way I was told it would all along. I did not question enough before and more than likely would not have going forward- so I would never have listened to anything she had to say. I am not saying I agree with everything she says lock , stock and barrel, those days for me are gone regardless of who we're talking about in office. Fool me once -....... If the boundaries were to change before MV opens in the Fall of '09 ( and I am not 100% convinced they won't in some way as some seem to be) - yes I would be in exactly the same place I am today support wise. It would be a great help to my friends and neighbors ...but it means little to me at this point beyond that. that's as honest as I can be I appreciate your honesty. And I'll leave it at that. ETA: I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Nothing wrong with that -
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 13, 2008 19:32:55 GMT -5
Majoranthrax - The blue board has come up with some names from their board as some possilbe candidates for SB elections. I don't know if they are just tossing these ideas around or if they ar seriously considering it. But your comment brings the subject up for the readers/contributors of this board. Do you see any possible candidates and if so, what do you feel are their qualifications? I don't know of anyone yet but have heard rumblings. Within the next several months I think we are going to see some names emerge. What I am hoping is that they will have a strong business background. If we had good business people on the SB who knew the value of money this whole mess never would have happened. We do not need one issue people, housewives or stay at home Dads with nothing to do. Running a SB is a serious thing as we all know. [/quote] I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that most "housewives and stay-at-home dads" were probably, at one time, business people or at the very least, involved in the work force in some way. I'm sure many housewives and stay at home dads have plenty to do, but perhaps these are the very people who have even more time to research key issues than someone who is working 8-12 hours a day every day of the week. Maybe these are the people who could give the position the time and attention it deserves. I understand the JC's reason for not running in the next election is so that she can devote more of her time to her continued education and to going BACK to work. I have no intention of running for SB, but your comments are truly offensive and patronizing to those of us who are not currently in the full time work force any longer. I have to ask you then: Would you not hire someone because they are a stay-at-home mom or dad? Are they not qualified then? Your opinions of SAH moms and dads seems to disqualify them from being intelligent people altogether.
|
|
|
Post by specialneedsmom on Jun 13, 2008 20:45:59 GMT -5
Offensive and totally wrong as well. I'll just leave it at that.
|
|