|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 23, 2008 9:39:58 GMT -5
Another example of the lameness that is Mark Metzger. A real leader wouldn't hide behind the fear of litigation, especially a fear that is completely unfounded. Claiming that a limited exception for siblings would open up "100s" of other exceptions (as some here have speculated) is nothing but a smokescreen. Please cite what you based that the fear is unfounded .... I can think of several recent suits ( or threats thereof) The NVHS be happy not gay t-shirt incident (2007 & again in 2008) nFUD lawsuit The kid with the knife on bus (I think a suit was or is being considered) And there are a few others that escape me at the moment, but it refutes IMHO your unfounded claim........
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 23, 2008 12:19:47 GMT -5
Another example of the lameness that is Mark Metzger. A real leader wouldn't hide behind the fear of litigation, especially a fear that is completely unfounded. Claiming that a limited exception for siblings would open up "100s" of other exceptions (as some here have speculated) is nothing but a smokescreen. Please cite what you based that the fear is unfounded .... I can think of several recent suits ( or threats thereof) The NVHS be happy not gay t-shirt incident (2007 & again in 2008) nFUD lawsuit The kid with the knife on bus (I think a suit was or is being considered) And there are a few others that escape me at the moment, but it refutes IMHO your unfounded claim........ the iPod controversy at Still ETA: thought the SD may not have been involved in the legal action
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Oct 23, 2008 13:30:36 GMT -5
Despicable? Bad individuals? That is major's opinion, and he is entitled to it, just as you are entitled to disagree with it. Thank you Parent. Perhaps I should not have used as strong language as I did but the lawsuit said either BB or no HS. It was either their way or none at all and the kids would be the big losers. They obviously didn't care about the kids of the district save for their own. That is where my emotions come from.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Oct 23, 2008 18:55:32 GMT -5
That is major's opinion, and he is entitled to it, just as you are entitled to disagree with it. Thank you Parent. Perhaps I should not have used as strong language as I did but the lawsuit said either BB or no HS. It was either their way or none at all and the kids would be the big losers. They obviously didn't care about the kids of the district save for their own. That is where my emotions come from. I completely agree with this, except I wouldn't have used "bad" to describe those individuals. "Selfish" is the term I would have used. They were looking out for themselves, not the district. If any of these people run for school board in April, I think they will have a hard time garnering votes from the rest of the district. And there are others who will make sure the rest of the district knows of their actions.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Oct 24, 2008 6:15:25 GMT -5
I should clarify...
As you cited, there are inevitably going to be lawsuits. What is unfounded, I believe, is that there is a probability the SD would actually lose these suits. And if they do happen to lose, you know what that means? That the policy being challenged was wrong.
I want my SB to do what it believes is right, and not worry about lawsuits. Metzger seems to be saying that he'd rather make the wrong decision and not be sued.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 24, 2008 6:47:00 GMT -5
I should clarify... As you cited, there are inevitably going to be lawsuits. What is unfounded, I believe, is that there is a probability the SD would actually lose these suits. And if they do happen to lose, you know what that means? That the policy being challenged was wrong. I want my SB to do what it believes is right, and not worry about lawsuits. Metzger seems to be saying that he'd rather make the wrong decision and not be sued. That's a bit of a stretch. I think you may be putting words in his mouth. I think that he might be standing by a policy that was: 1) well-known for the last 2+ years for the opening of MV (in addition to being a standing poilicy for requesting any type of transfer within the SD); 2) has been used in the past (i.e. for the opening for NV); 3) has not been shown to cause great harm to anyone (I don't see anyone citing that the NV opening was a disaster & ruined the lives of 100's of kids & their families); and 4) may possibly be the "fairest" approach (in that no favoritism is shown, and no future arguments/requests for exceptions can be made based on granting an exception now).
|
|
|
Post by JWH on Oct 24, 2008 7:22:59 GMT -5
I should clarify... As you cited, there are inevitably going to be lawsuits. What is unfounded, I believe, is that there is a probability the SD would actually lose these suits. And if they do happen to lose, you know what that means? That the policy being challenged was wrong. I want my SB to do what it believes is right, and not worry about lawsuits. Metzger seems to be saying that he'd rather make the wrong decision and not be sued. That's a bit of a stretch. I think you may be putting words in his mouth. I think that he might be standing by a policy that was: 1) well-known for the last 2+ years for the opening of MV (in addition to being a standing poilicy for requesting any type of transfer within the SD); 2) has been used in the past (i.e. for the opening for NV); 3) has not been shown to cause great harm to anyone (I don't see anyone citing that the NV opening was a disaster & ruined the lives of 100's of kids & their families); and 4) may possibly be the "fairest" approach (in that no favoritism is shown, and no future arguments/requests for exceptions can be made based on granting an exception now). And again, why is this an issue now, and not two years back?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 24, 2008 7:52:35 GMT -5
I should clarify... As you cited, there are inevitably going to be lawsuits. What is unfounded, I believe, is that there is a probability the SD would actually lose these suits. And if they do happen to lose, you know what that means? That the policy being challenged was wrong. I want my SB to do what it believes is right, and not worry about lawsuits. Metzger seems to be saying that he'd rather make the wrong decision and not be sued. You are right, the likelyhood of the SD losing a lawsuit is very low, however, it will still cost the SD monies, that could be better utilized elsewhere, to defend them....Don't you agree? I don't think the policy is wrong. The precedent is on the SD's side. (NVHS)
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Oct 24, 2008 7:52:48 GMT -5
I should clarify... As you cited, there are inevitably going to be lawsuits. What is unfounded, I believe, is that there is a probability the SD would actually lose these suits. And if they do happen to lose, you know what that means? That the policy being challenged was wrong. I want my SB to do what it believes is right, and not worry about lawsuits. Metzger seems to be saying that he'd rather make the wrong decision and not be sued. That's a bit of a stretch. I think you may be putting words in his mouth. I think that he might be standing by a policy that was: 1) well-known for the last 2+ years for the opening of MV (in addition to being a standing poilicy for requesting any type of transfer within the SD); 2) has been used in the past (i.e. for the opening for NV); 3) has not been shown to cause great harm to anyone (I don't see anyone citing that the NV opening was a disaster & ruined the lives of 100's of kids & their families); and 4) may possibly be the "fairest" approach (in that no favoritism is shown, and no future arguments/requests for exceptions can be made based on granting an exception now). That's fine -- I'm just saying he shouldn't have mentioned the threat of lawsuits.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 24, 2008 7:57:31 GMT -5
That's a bit of a stretch. I think you may be putting words in his mouth. I think that he might be standing by a policy that was: 1) well-known for the last 2+ years for the opening of MV (in addition to being a standing poilicy for requesting any type of transfer within the SD); 2) has been used in the past (i.e. for the opening for NV); 3) has not been shown to cause great harm to anyone (I don't see anyone citing that the NV opening was a disaster & ruined the lives of 100's of kids & their families); and 4) may possibly be the "fairest" approach (in that no favoritism is shown, and no future arguments/requests for exceptions can be made based on granting an exception now). That's fine -- I'm just saying he shouldn't have mentioned the threat of lawsuits. That I do agree with you on.........sometimes it's better just to not say anything at all. But like what was stated before...someone else would have found a reason to b1tch about that then too.
|
|