|
Post by gatormom on Jun 13, 2008 21:16:41 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. I will use membership or suspicion of membership to the NSFOC as a yardstick. My vote, my support to do as I please. Shaun Collins warned the members of the group early on, there are consequences to these actions. This is one of them. As far as a pot-stirrer, no problem with them. However if the pot-stirrer cannot after a vote, accept that vote and move forward, that person is dead weight. I believe that CV is dead weight. My opinion of course.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 13, 2008 23:04:51 GMT -5
[/b] to the NSFOC as a yardstick.[/quote]
And may I ask how you will determine suspicion? Dare I say TG and WE residents need not apply?
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Jun 13, 2008 23:33:14 GMT -5
[/b] to the NSFOC as a yardstick.[/quote] And may I ask how you will determine suspicion? Dare I say TG and WE residents need not apply?[/quote] I will not answer for GM, however location within this SD will be ONE of the criteria I will use to determine my vote. I have a tendency to attend the various SB candidate forums that occur during campaign time, so I am sure the question of NSFOC affiliation will be asked of the SB candidates.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Jun 13, 2008 23:37:51 GMT -5
I am truly sorry for what I said and I was not thinking in the terms that you mentioned. I should have rephrased my words. It is amazing how easy it is to put the foot in ones mouth. The truth is I am a stay at home Dad myself. I had to take early retirement to help out with our special needs kids. What I was referring to were the shrills at the SB meetings who had nothing constructive to offer except their anger. In any case I am sorry for what I wrote. It was not meant to be hurtful.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 14, 2008 6:33:40 GMT -5
[/b] to the NSFOC as a yardstick.[/quote] And may I ask how you will determine suspicion? Dare I say TG and WE residents need not apply?[/quote] Pretty much. Again, that is the price the NSFOC was willing to pay by filing the lawsuit against the district. By the way, it does not stop with WE and TG. Chances are good anyone from an area that might desire boundaries changed for whatever reason will not get my vote.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 14, 2008 6:41:43 GMT -5
And may I ask how you will determine suspicion? Dare I say TG and WE residents need not apply? Pretty much. Again, that is the price the NSFOC was willing to pay by filing the lawsuit against the district. By the way, it does not stop with WE and TG. Chances are good anyone from an area that might desire boundaries changed for whatever reason will not get my vote. I could understand and appreciate that. If MW was assigned to WV, I sure as heck wouldn't want to have any 'tweaks' either.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 14, 2008 6:58:38 GMT -5
Pretty much. Again, that is the price the NSFOC was willing to pay by filing the lawsuit against the district. By the way, it does not stop with WE and TG. Chances are good anyone from an area that might desire boundaries changed for whatever reason will not get my vote. I could understand and appreciate that. If MW was assigned to WV, I sure as heck wouldn't want to have any 'tweaks' either. Don't accuse me of getting what I want and that is why I don't want tweaks. I was prepared to send my child to high school anywhere in the district. You know me better than that. The children starting high school in 2008 and 2009 deserve some stability. By the way, moving an entire ES is not a tweak, that is a boundary change. Don't minimize what the goals of some are.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 14, 2008 7:24:42 GMT -5
I could understand and appreciate that. If MW was assigned to WV, I sure as heck wouldn't want to have any 'tweaks' either. Don't accuse me of getting what I want and that is why I don't want tweaks. I was prepared to send my child to high school anywhere in the district. You know me better than that. The children starting high school in 2008 and 2009 deserve some stability. By the way, moving an entire ES is not a tweak, that is a boundary change. Don't minimize what the goals of some are. I was merely putting forth my honest opinion. MW has a natural geographic 'split' already like OE and OW does. The areas north of New York Street are certainly not 'part of the neighborhood' by any stretch of the imagination. The northern parts are naturally closer to MV, where we are, we're closer to NV, then closer to WV, and lastly nowhere near 'close' to MV.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 14, 2008 7:35:17 GMT -5
Don't accuse me of getting what I want and that is why I don't want tweaks. I was prepared to send my child to high school anywhere in the district. You know me better than that. The children starting high school in 2008 and 2009 deserve some stability. By the way, moving an entire ES is not a tweak, that is a boundary change. Don't minimize what the goals of some are. I was merely putting forth my honest opinion. MW has a natural geographic 'split' already like OE and OW does. The areas north of New York Street are certainly not 'part of the neighborhood' by any stretch of the imagination. The northern parts are naturally closer to MV, where we are, we're closer to NV, then closer to WV, and lastly nowhere near 'close' to MV. How does moving the bulk of an ES into WV not qualify as a boundary change when an equal number of students must leave? Stability and moving forward now Arch. Our district owes that much to these kids. Again, my votes for SB members in 2009 will reflect that concern.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 14, 2008 7:43:02 GMT -5
And may I ask how you will determine suspicion? Dare I say TG and WE residents need not apply? Pretty much. Again, that is the price the NSFOC was willing to pay by filing the lawsuit against the district. By the way, it does not stop with WE and TG. Chances are good anyone from an area that might desire boundaries changed for whatever reason will not get my vote. Wow, really ? So that means anyone from Fry/ Peterson / Cowlishaw / Owen / Watts and maybe White Eagle are eliminated -- -- nice to know we will not have any more say than we have right now in the way 204 runs. There are also a fair amont of peopl ein Steck who are looking for changes from notes I get - think MS. People wise the above represents over a third of the district . And then people wonder why people are leaving this district, or maybe we really need to split this district, and soon. I want to know how this will help heal the district if others feel this way. I'll be honest, I am very saddened by this comment.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 14, 2008 7:50:51 GMT -5
I could understand and appreciate that. If MW was assigned to WV, I sure as heck wouldn't want to have any 'tweaks' either. Don't accuse me of getting what I want and that is why I don't want tweaks. I was prepared to send my child to high school anywhere in the district. You know me better than that. The children starting high school in 2008 and 2009 deserve some stability. By the way, moving an entire ES is not a tweak, that is a boundary change. Don't minimize what the goals of some are. and it would be boundary change announcement what, number 4 ? What makes this one the be all - end all ? Even many here see flaws in this one -- we haven't moved one child yet - so how does stability change ? For my area many are looking at 1 year at WVHS freshman center and then move - or re apply to other private schools- not exactly stability, - but then what the hell do we matter. my child starts in 2008 - what stability has she had ? first it was the school may open in 2008 @ BB & you're going to BB site with your friends from WE and TG and Owen - then it's well maybe it will be 2009 - which includes a one year lay over at WVHS freshman center - or maybe it's 2010 for BB so you go to WVHS for 4 years, then then it's all bets are off, you may go anywhere, from NV to WV to MV. For years now they have had no stability - but the clock stops now ? I feel like this is a game of musical chairs - the music has stopped and the chairs are gone
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 14, 2008 7:52:37 GMT -5
Pretty much. Again, that is the price the NSFOC was willing to pay by filing the lawsuit against the district. By the way, it does not stop with WE and TG. Chances are good anyone from an area that might desire boundaries changed for whatever reason will not get my vote. Wow, really ? So that means anyone from Fry/ Peterson / Cowlishaw / Owen / Watts and maybe White Eagle are eliminated -- -- nice to know we will not have any more say than we have right now in the way 204 runs. There are also a fair amont of peopl ein Steck who are looking for changes from notes I get - think MS. People wise the above represents over a third of the district . And then people wonder why people are leaving this district, or maybe we really need to split this district, and soon. I want to know how this will help heal the district if others feel this way. I'll be honest, I am very saddened by this comment. I do recall a time when there were those who would not vote for anyone who might be remotely associated with the CFO or TG, and that was for the very same reason the boundary changes. Sorry, Dr. Who, you don't have to like it but it is what it is. Again, the price of that lawsuit was huge and it was far more than money. Suspicion of motives will be #1 on my list as well as others. By the way, SB members are not supposed to speak for an area, they are supposed to look at the district as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 14, 2008 7:56:42 GMT -5
Wow, really ? So that means anyone from Fry/ Peterson / Cowlishaw / Owen / Watts and maybe White Eagle are eliminated -- -- nice to know we will not have any more say than we have right now in the way 204 runs. There are also a fair amont of peopl ein Steck who are looking for changes from notes I get - think MS. People wise the above represents over a third of the district . And then people wonder why people are leaving this district, or maybe we really need to split this district, and soon. I want to know how this will help heal the district if others feel this way. I'll be honest, I am very saddened by this comment. I do recall a time when there were those who would not vote for anyone who might be remotely associated with the CFO or TG, and that was for the very same reason the boundary changes. Sorry, Dr. Who, you don't have to like it but it is what it is. Again, the price of that lawsuit was huge and it was far more than money. Suspicion of motives will be #1 on my list as well as others. By the way, SB members are not supposed to speak for an area, they are supposed to look at the district as a whole. yes they are, I guess that's why not one of them is gong to the farthest possible lousy drive from their home ES area ? Which one of them - took one for the district ? I don't like it- and it is an example of why this district, for all the calls to be healed, is likely irrevocably broken. Telling people in 5-6 Es areas they likely would not be considered to be capable of being on the 204 SB just outlines the lines of demarkation...we might as well formalize them and split it now if those are the feelings.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 14, 2008 8:02:06 GMT -5
Which one of them - took one for the district ? Glawe.
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Jun 14, 2008 8:04:08 GMT -5
Wow, really ? So that means anyone from Fry/ Peterson / Cowlishaw / Owen / Watts and maybe White Eagle are eliminated -- -- nice to know we will not have any more say than we have right now in the way 204 runs. There are also a fair amont of peopl ein Steck who are looking for changes from notes I get - think MS. People wise the above represents over a third of the district . And then people wonder why people are leaving this district, or maybe we really need to split this district, and soon. I want to know how this will help heal the district if others feel this way. I'll be honest, I am very saddened by this comment. I do recall a time when there were those who would not vote for anyone who might be remotely associated with the CFO or TG, and that was for the very same reason the boundary changes. Sorry, Dr. Who, you don't have to like it but it is what it is. Again, the price of that lawsuit was huge and it was far more than money. Suspicion of motives will be #1 on my list as well as others. By the way, SB members are not supposed to speak for an area, they are supposed to look at the district as a whole. GM, I agree with you, the SB should be looking out for the whole district and this SB has failed to do that. They labeled TG and M2 called us hostiles. The south needs someone on the SB. Many will vote for CV because she always stood her ground. Maybe not in the way you liked her to, but I am sure it has been very difficult being the lone no. She seemed prepared to me just nervous and I don't blame her. I would have no problem voting for someone whose platform is changing boundaries. These boundaries need improvements. To many splits and long commutes.
|
|