|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 18, 2008 12:57:09 GMT -5
eb204, How someone chooses to feel about it is their own burden to carry, not anyone else's. Some people still play the 'I could have...' game from the dot com bubble many years ago. Let them. agreed
|
|
|
Post by specialneedsmom on Jun 18, 2008 18:28:50 GMT -5
Hindsight always gives us 20/20 vision. It is easy to take from Joni's opinion piece that this was a frivolous lawsuit. However, I sat in the courtroom when Judge Popejoy heard this case and both sides were taken seriously and consideration was given to both parties. He wouldn't have taken almost another week to arrive at his decision. In the end there was no legal basis to continue the case, but the views and concerns of both parties were totally respected. Over the years I have seen people do some pretty unethical and unattractive things to promote their so-called rights in this district. I have witnessed parents having their children carry picket signs in front of the school district to protest boundary decisions; I have seen small children used to call from referendum call centers. That to me is pretty inappropriate. The NSFOC lawsuit may go down in D204 history as being whatever people want it to be, but this group by no means took the law into their own hands. They challenged the law, but they followed the process they did after they exhausted all efforts to communicate within the proper channels of SB and Administration. And like it or not, they changed the course of history in this district.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Jun 18, 2008 20:47:27 GMT -5
As JHB comments on the end of the lawsuit....I dont think as time goes this will completely be forgotten. But it will fade as an issue, though not by 2009. In our districts history, it will be thought of as an absurdity, nothing more. Fundamentally, this lawsuit was about a small number of people trying to control where a school was built and who goes to which school. This was clearly recognized and emphatically pointed about by the judge. The judge expressed this in a clear, thoughtful, logical, and legal way. Say what you want about the "namecalling" (and yes, the JHB article does rehash that). But for many in the district, this was an imperfect way for them to express their recognition that at its core this lawsuit was not about voters rights, safety, or costs. It was about something else. The judge clearly and fairly explained this, I believe. Maybe I should have done some "celebrating" as JHB describes. When it happened, it was much more relief felt by me. Truly, that still describes my feelings on this. But maybe this is what should be celebrated: A handful of plaintiffs were not allowed to void a legitimate election (my vote and the vote thousands of others). All in the name of there misguided claim that they didnt understand or where mislead on their ballot and had rights violated. And these plaintiffs werent allowed to make a decision that is to be made by elected representatives who we all had a say in choosing. I am celebrating the fact that the integrity of both the election and representative-government process were upheld. Lets take the long view of this issue. In a few years when the dust settles and the new schools will have had a few classes pass through them. (I am calling not just MV and Fischer MS new....but all with new attendance areas). I think the neighborhood that predominately supported this lawsuit will come to realize they have been assigned to a very fine school. I think they will come to know and love the school. They will see their students opportunities and good experiences there. And in the end, this is the way all this lawsuit stuff (and, yes, boundary worries) will fade away. GD, excellent post! As I read I felt angry all over again. You are right, in a few years we will put this behind us. It has been a really rough ride and I couldn't be happier that it's over.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Jun 18, 2008 20:51:06 GMT -5
I totally disagree. There are plenty of good reasons to not touch the boundaries. For example: - not opening what is the most emotional topic in any SD - people having already going through 2 sets of boundary processes for MV and plenty of kids having the HS that they were assigned change 2 times already - letting things settle down around here - the slippery slope of "well, they made tweak, why can't they make tweak B now" - the fact that boundaries are subjective and any changes that are "good" for some group of people are just as likely to be "bad" for another group? - So if it's an emotional issue, you're afraid of it? To listen to many here, the district's relations are at an all-time low anyway. (By the way, I don't subscribe to that theory.) - The fact that the process has gone on twice already was a mistake. Providing them to the public before the Ref was mistake #1 considering it turned out they were ruled "extraneous" by the judge. And coming up with a quick set for AME was not necessary, as there is still plenty of time to finalize them. But that doesn't mean we can't still review/tweak them. I keep hearing about the resilient kids...they won't be affected by further discussion. - Let things settle down? No valid reason for that at the expense of not doing the best job we can in the time frame we still have. - No slippery slope, except for those worried about losing what they already have. - No one is arguing that boundaries are not subjective to a certain degree, but that has nothing to do with setting them in stone right now. Just curious - what "tweaking" are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 18, 2008 22:22:18 GMT -5
Nothing in particular. I certainly wouldn't think a major overhaul is in the works, so I used the word tweak to imply any minor change that came up after a thorough analysis. I am against the idea that "because we've been through so much already, we should just leave boundaries alone." To me, boundaries are done when we are confident that they are the best. Not because we are afraid of opening old wounds.
|
|