| Author | Post |
|---|
onefedupkiddie
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 65 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 10:32 pm |
|
Gadfly, I personally believe that President Galbraith has been incredibly professional during all of this, and is NOT a puppet for Deb Raeder. As long as I've been paying attention, Galbraith has seemed the most unbiased out of any of the board members by a large margin. I agree with Raeder most, if not all of the time, but is she biased? She has her affiliations, yes. Has she shown unprofessionalism? All the little sarcastic jabs Douglas and Raeder throw once in a while shows maybe not. But Raeder is not malicious in any sense, she didn't even let her child go off campus, but she understands and listens to the community that this is something a parent has every reason to be able to decide. Honestly, why can't they? Don't let your child go off campus, that's great, I applaud you, but if my parent wants me to be able to, what is so unreasonable about that? She shouldn't have to say anything along those lines, because simply, the board members should not have to have a change of heart, their heart should have nothing to do with it (I don't mean that in the way that Rick Murphy practices it, closer or not, I hope you can agree he doesn't really have anything to care about in regards to PUSD). Your primary stance on the issue is that Democracy is being turned into a farce as we keep fighting our elected officials decisions. Meanwhile, they are also making a huge farce out of the democratic system of government, not giving any regard to the outlook of the community or the facts being presented to them. Like I said before, they are merely the Hermes, not the Zeus of this district, and being so ignorant towards their community members is making a mockery of everything that American Democracy is about.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 09:57 pm |
|
Peoria Dad wrote: You, and folks like dadof3, offer very little on that account, although you are pretty good at name calling and adhominen attacks.
Peoria Dad - is ad hominem (two words by the way) something you use in your day to day conversation?? Just a suggestion (as I just love to help out my fellow bloggers like you), if you are going to use these BS words:
- Spell it right
- If it's two words, type it as two words.
Otherwise, it damages your credibility.
Last edited on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 10:14 pm by gadfly
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 09:29 pm |
|
First of all Peoria, I am very proud of you that you wrote three paragraphs in one sitting. Most of what you wrote has no credibility whatsoever, but one step at a time....
Do you all of you throw out these statistics and assertions with no backup whatsoever? Is it inheritant in your makeup to throw out assertions and say, "THAT'S A FACT" and have absolutely no backup to what you say? What really annoys me is people like you assume people like me actually read Frank and Ernest's blog. I choose not to and am not really sure why these two guys are held in such high esteem by people like you. They are blogger hacks, just like you and I are, no more, no less (a Peoria Dad favorite). If the questions you have written are indeed assertions from Frank and Tom, why haven't the recall petitions been filed? If they are facts, as you have stated, why aren't the recall petitions out there?
Your last paragraph is a maze filled with contradiction and I think maybe you need to start over and try again. You don't care about the lunch thing, but care about the board majority???????And what is the overwhelming data that exists that states the community agrees with you radicals? I will give you some overwhelming data - the two board candidates who stated they would close the campuses received more votes than the candidates that stated they would not.....And that, Mr. Peoria Dad, is the only "overwhelming data" that really matters.
Last edited on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 10:24 pm by gadfly
|
Peoria Dad
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 08:58 pm |
|
And P.S. Gadfly, "It depends?" That's a little cowardly, don't you think?
|
Peoria Dad
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 08:55 pm |
|
Thanks Gadfly. Based on your answers, I would seriously suggest you do some independent research on Diane Douglas's background and her positions. Like most of us, you'll be disappointed.
In regard to Frank and Mike, yeah, I think they're sometimes over the top, and I don't always agree with them, but here's the thing, and what really annoys you and everyone else that have unsuccessfully tried to write them off: their facts are always right (not thier opinions, their facts). That's why, according to two independent sources, these guys have thousands of readers, as opposed to the handful of us who occupy this echo chamber. If you're going to bring them into the mix, then you better be able to disprove what they are saying. As for me, I form my own opinions based on the facts that are presented. You, and folks like dadof3, offer very little on that account, although you are pretty good at name calling and adhominen attacks.
As for the lunch thing, I don't really care. What I care about is that the board majority, and folks like you, simply choose to ignore the overwhelming data that indicates that a majority of parents wanted the option to let their juniors and seniors in high school leave for lunch. A governing board that answers to its contituents would recognize that. If they ever do, this issue will go away. If they don't, then I hope Joe and the others continue to remind them that they are ignoring the wishes of the community.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 07:43 pm |
|
| By the way, Peoria, I went back through your 53 posts on this forum, about 90% of them were one or two sentence posts, so at least you are expanding your horizons a bit by this last post, even if you don't have your own opinions. Last edited on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 07:58 pm by gadfly
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 06:39 pm |
|
Peoria Dad wrote: Gadfly, it seems to me that when you finally get around to researching stuff you agree with Joe more than disagree.
Please humor me and answer a couple of questions:
If the political and financial supporters of a governing board member stand to gain from an action that will be voted on by the board, should that board member reveal that conflict and abstain from voting?
Should governng board members belong to groups whose stated goal is to destroy and end public education?
Should a governing board member answer to his/her constituents first, or to their political party?
Other than the superintendent, should the governing board be involved in making personnel decisions?
Is it an abuse of power for a governing board member to use their influence to the benefit/detriment of individual students?
Just curious.
Peoria Dad -
I know you also came down from the Land of Superior Bloggers and it is very good of you to lower yourself to come over and blog with us little munchkins. I am sure (if I wanted to but I don't) I could find every one of these questions on the Supreme Bloggers' websites as assertions from Frank and Ernie. It is amazing to me that people like you will take the opinions of two individuals and equate that to gospel. In my opinion, it would be much more beneficial to you and to everyone else if you formed your own opinions and didn't rely on other people to do your thinking for you. As much as I disagree with Joe, at least I feel he really believes in what he is fighting for, while you are just a parrot.
First of all, if you go through all of the blogging I have done, my purposes have been twofold:
- To expose the hypocrisy and sheer madness of this cause you are all fighting for - lunch for kids. This was attempted through much sarcasm and parody. You can try and disguise this any way you want, you want your kids to be able to go to Taco Bell and eat lunch. And that is absolute craziness to be spending so much time and effort and to make everybody endure the divisiveness this has caused. I think there are a lot of people in this district who take themselves and their causes much too seriously and deserve to be made fun of.
- To hammer home to everybody that will listen that this radical group has no right to make a farce of the system. You have a right to protest, you don't have a right to make a farce of the system. The system is we voted in our representatives to the board. After that, you and I don't get to vote and are pretty much stuck with the votes of the 5 members. Your group's recourse is to replace the members with new members at election time. I don't like bullies and crybabies and that is exactly what you all are.
That's pretty much it, Peoria. I have not made any wild claims that Joe et all have made, so I don't know what questions I need to answer or research I need to do. I have even stated to Joe several times that I was even in favor of keeping the campuses open, but it was such an inconsequential matter to me if my kids had to eat in the high school cafeteria.
In answer to the questions you have poised (assertions from Frank and Ernie), let me first say I'm sure you think I must be best friend of Kathy Knecht or Diane Douglas. They would not know me from the man on the moon, so if they are guilty of any serious offenses, let's see proof (not Frank and Ernie's opinion) and I will be one of the first ones to sign the recall.
Having said that, I will answer your rather softball questions
Yes, No. Constituents first, Depends of what you're talking about, Depends on what you're talking about.
Last edited on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 08:04 pm by gadfly
|
Peoria Dad
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 05:39 pm |
|
And P.S. Gadfly -- I think Apache Mom gave you a pretty good answer in regard to Old Main. You can read it at this link: http://www.newszapforums.com/forum24/49462.html
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 05:34 pm |
|
gadfly wrote:
I disagree that this thirty minutes to an hour does not have an effect on anything. It diverts attention from the issues that actually do need attention. Everyone is so concerned about this lunch issue, very few are concerned about issues such as the the Challenger partnership. You, Integrity, are a perfect example of that when you stated you know very little about it. Joe also admitted he knew nothing about it. Old Peoria is another example. Let's debate the pros and cons of what to do with Old Peoria and if we should decide whether to hold up the building until it's figured out, not whether my kid has to eat lunch in a cafeteria.
And, what I said, the board is primarily so divided because of this one contentious issue. Maybe, just maybe, the five of them would be more prone to compromise on the issues that really matter if they weren't fighting about this. By the time they get past the speeches, they are all so P.Oed at each other that they can't see straight.
I think it is disgusting that most of the votes come out three to two on almost every single vote. Don't they have minds of their own? The only one that I have seen cross these dueling alliances is Kathy Knecht (I'm sure Apache Mom will correct me if this incorrect). She voted with Raeder and Galbrath on the technology vote, I believe is about the only one I remember. I criticize Galbraith and Raeder for being joined at the hip, but it would be nice to see the other three debate among themselves much more, also.
Gadfly, I am not concerned about the Challenger Center because I had/have confidence that the district was looking out for the best interest of everyone. (And I know very little because the general public knows very little about it.) Yes, I believe that the original deal was bad however, I think the administration was concerned about the entire picture including the employee's. Obviously this matter wasn't and isn't as cut and dry at we would all like it to be, or something would have been settled by now.
In the matter of Old Main, it sounds like they are trying to preserve a historical building and make use of it as a sort of living history building. It sounds like they are trying to partnership with the City of Peoria. I think it would it is a wonderful idea and that this building shouldn't be torn down. If this building is used for this purpose it wouldn't count as square footage for students. So, I can't see why there should be such a push to know what or how exactly they are going to use the building. And as many people have pointed out it isn't as if the subject of Old Main has just come up. If they do hold up the building of the Administration Building and the Media Center, it could very well end up costing the district even more money. Contractors are not going to hold their prices on their bids. I don't think it is smart or mature to hold the new building hostage in order to get the information they are asking for.
I don't think it is the lunch issue that has this board working at cross hairs. I think it started out badly because of the insults that were thrown at the old board members...all of the old board members that were seated, except Diane Douglas. In fact Diane Douglas complained that in years past everyone was voting against her. Now the three newest board members are almost always voting the same. From what I see not one of the board members seem to have an independent thought. And as I have said Diane Douglas ruminates way too much over darn near every single agenda item. Just because she asks questions doesn't mean she knows what she is doing, because she doesn't. She truly doesn't know what she is doing.
You won't find them debating against each other because they are too busy stick up for each other, and they don't know how to think and act independently.
|
Peoria Dad
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 05:33 pm |
|
Gadfly, it seems to me that when you finally get around to researching stuff you agree with Joe more than disagree.
Please humor me and answer a couple of questions:
If the political and financial supporters of a governing board member stand to gain from an action that will be voted on by the board, should that board member reveal that conflict and abstain from voting?
Should governng board members belong to groups whose stated goal is to destroy and end public education?
Should a governing board member answer to his/her constituents first, or to their political party?
Other than the superintendent, should the governing board be involved in making personnel decisions?
Is it an abuse of power for a governing board member to use their influence to the benefit/detriment of individual students?
Just curious.
Last edited on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 05:35 pm by Peoria Dad
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 04:50 pm |
|
| By the way, Integrity, I meant to respond to a previous post you had that stated something about I was voting more to see incumbents thrown out than for the candidates that were running. You were absolutely right. I wanted to see change and some of the status quo questioned. I do like Diane Douglas, not as much as I let on in earlier blogs as I was only doing that because she so inflames so many people in this group, but the jury is still out for me on the other two. It's funny what is important to people, but my big gripe with Murphy is he has been late to several meetings and absent for one or two more.. I didn't vote for him to be a part-time board member. And Murphy has that silly canned response to his emails that he can't possibly respond to all of his emails, so basically he doesn't respond to any of them. As much as I dislike Debra Raeder and as much as I think she has outlived her effectiveness for this district, she usually will respond to my emails within a day or two and they are not just courtesy emails. She usually will address my opinions and ramblings, even if she usually gives me political answers. Last edited on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 05:01 pm by gadfly
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 04:32 pm |
|
integrityforPUSD wrote:
Gadfly,
People using, at best, 30 minutes of board meetings wouldn't have an effect on anything.
And I don't believe this board is divided simply because of this one issue. They do not agree on many issues.
I disagree that this thirty minutes to an hour does not have an effect on anything. It diverts attention from the issues that actually do need attention. Everyone is so concerned about this lunch issue, very few are concerned about issues such as the the Challenger partnership. You, Integrity, are a perfect example of that when you stated you know very little about it. Joe also admitted he knew nothing about it. Old Peoria is another example. Let's debate the pros and cons of what to do with Old Peoria and if we should decide whether to hold up the building until it's figured out, not whether my kid has to eat lunch in a cafeteria.
And, what I said was, the board is primarily so divided because of this one contentious issue. Maybe, just maybe, the five of them would be more prone to compromise on the issues that really matter if they weren't fighting about this. By the time they get past the speeches, they are all so P.Oed at each other that they can't see straight.
I think it is disgusting that most of the votes come out three to two on almost every single vote. Don't they have minds of their own? The only one that I have seen cross these dueling alliances is Kathy Knecht (I'm sure Apache Mom will correct me if this incorrect). She voted with Raeder and Galbrath on the technology vote, I believe is about the only one I remember. I criticize Galbraith and Raeder for being joined at the hip, but it would be nice to see the other three debate among themselves much more, also.
Last edited on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 05:09 pm by gadfly
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 03:36 pm |
|
gadfly wrote:
If the earlier colonist followed your line of thought, or the 'closers' line of thought, this country wouldn't exist for you to write in this forum. I am positive that there was colonist that wanted the revolutionist to just be quiet and follow along.
Integrity -
I absolutely believe in your right to protest. My point has always been, everybody gets it now how upset your fringe group is. Duly noted. There's no question you guys feel an injustice has been done. Our system has checks against members who do things that are so outrageous that they need to be kicked out of office. It's called a recall or the the other choice is to sue through the court system. Why doesn't your group do one of these two things?? You all are basically staging a filibuster where nothing is getting done because the board is so divided, I believe, primarily because of this silly issue.
By the way, if Ms. Galbraith were truly a leader and cared about the children of this district as much as she says she does, she gets up at the next meeting and says something to the effect :
' Hey folks protesting, I understand you're upset, I believe in your cause, but this policy is not changing until we elect new board members. So, what you're doing is futile and is only hindering district business here and subsequently hindering the education process of our children. So, for the good of our children, please stop this and concentrate your efforts in electing your candidates in the next election.'
But, I don't see this happening as she truly is only a puppet for Ms. Raeder and Ms. Raeder would never do something so healing and logical....
Gadfly,
Pat Galbraith cannot, as the Governing Board President, make assumptions for any board member. Granted it isn't likely that the three newest board members are going to change their mind regarding this issue. However, one of them could have a change of heart and decide to hear the matter. So, Pat Galbraith cannot assume that one or more of them wouldn't change their mind, and speak for them or even Debra Raeder. So your point is moot at best.
Plus, even if Pat Galbraith did make such a statement, people speaking during the call to the public are not hindering district business nor the education process. People using, at best, 30 minutes of board meetings wouldn't have an effect on anything. No, Diane Douglas, Rick Murphy and Kathy Knecht are doing that all on their own, without any help or hindrance from anyone.
In regards to a protest etc. There was a protest in May, and all of the 'closers,' cried that it was interfering with the education process etc. So, they backed off. I personally think the students should hold another protest...during the days of final exam before Winter Break, in order have the largest impact. But, I don't think the students will do this.....BECUASE this group of students isn't as radical as you would have everyone believe!
And I don't believe this board is divided simply because of this one issue. They do not agree on many issues.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 02:11 pm |
|
If the earlier colonist followed your line of thought, or the 'closers' line of thought, this country wouldn't exist for you to write in this forum. I am positive that there was colonist that wanted the revolutionist to just be quiet and follow along.
Integrity -
I absolutely believe in your right to protest. My point has always been, everybody gets it now how upset your fringe group is. Duly noted. There's no question you guys feel an injustice has been done. Our system has checks against members who do things that are so outrageous that they need to be kicked out of office. It's called a recall or the the other choice is to sue through the court system. Why doesn't your group do one of these two things?? You all are basically staging a filibuster where nothing is getting done because the board is so divided, I believe, primarily because of this silly issue.
By the way, if Ms. Galbraith were truly a leader and cared about the children of this district as much as she says she does, she gets up at the next meeting and says something to the effect :
' Hey folks protesting, I understand you're upset, I believe in your cause, but this policy is not changing until we elect new board members. So, what you're doing is futile and is only hindering district business here and subsequently hindering the education process of our children. So, for the good of our children, please stop this and concentrate your efforts in electing your candidates in the next election.' She would be considered a stateswoman... Definition of stateswoman: A woman political leader regarded as a disinterested promoter of the public good.
But, I don't see this happening as she truly is only a puppet for Ms. Raeder and Ms. Raeder would never do something so healing and logical....
Last edited on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 03:29 pm by gadfly
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 01:27 pm |
|
rdg7359 wrote: Integrity...Talk about back peddling!!!
Why did you remove two of your posts? To outlandish?
You are reading too much into that rdg359, I was having problems sending or posting, the same thing posted three times, so I deleted two of them.Last edited on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 01:27 pm by integrityforPUSD
|
rdg7359
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 12:53 pm |
|
Integrity...Talk about back peddling!!!
Why did you remove two of your posts? To outlandish?
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 04:10 pm |
|
dadof3 wrote: Integrity, So we now need to add the Revolutionary War and the Boston Tea Party to the list of ridiculous over the top things that this debate has been compared to.
I'm off to watch football and be thankful we can have this debate even if I think you guys have way over-inflated your egos about this cause.
Dadof3, Once again you are twisting things. If you had read what Gadfly wrote you would see that he brought up how or why governments are overpowered! No doubt you and other 'closers,' will now yell that the Revolutionary War and Boston Tea party was brought into this by those that are against the newest governing board members. When in truth it was those that support the newest board members that made a comparison first.Last edited on Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 04:11 pm by integrityforPUSD
|
dadof3
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 03:17 pm |
|
Integrity, So we now need to add the Revolutionary War and the Boston Tea Party to the list of ridiculous over the top things that this debate has been compared to.
I'm off to watch football and be thankful we can have this debate even if I think you guys have way over-inflated your egos about this cause.
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 12:46 pm |
|
gadfly wrote: Kiddie - Your group did not learn what you should have learned in third or fourth grade. In a democracy, it is not possible to make everybody happy. Sometimes, the minority has to go along with the majority because that is the way a democracy works. Laws are not enacted only for those people that agree with them, everybody must follow them. Your group is in the minority, 2 out of 5. What people do in a democracy, they make sure their candidates win in the next election so you can change what you want. What people do in lands that have no regard for law, they overthrow the government in power. Your radical group has no regard for the system, which you makes you appear to be bullies and spoiled children.
Actually Gadfly, people overthrow governments that have overstepped their boundaries. If you take a look at countries that have wars, the reasons for the war, the reasons they have overthrown their government stems from having too many freedoms stripped from them. They have overthrown their government because they were sick of not having any rights. They were sick of those in power not listening to them. Even the United States was formed because the people of America wanted more freedoms. Should I remind you of how this country started?
If the earlier colonist followed your line of thought, or the 'closers' line of thought, this country wouldn't exist for you to write in this forum. I am positive that there was colonist that wanted the revolutionist to just be quiet and follow along.
Last edited on Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 12:48 pm by integrityforPUSD
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 12:46 pm |
|
Last edited on Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 02:49 pm by integrityforPUSD
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 12:46 pm |
|
Last edited on Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 02:50 pm by integrityforPUSD
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 04:46 am |
|
Joe - I know you are responding to this as I type. I am giving you Thanksgiving off and we can take this up at a later date.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 04:33 am |
|
| Kiddie - Your group did not learn what you should have learned in third or fourth grade. In a democracy, it is not possible to make everybody happy. Sometimes, the minority has to go along with the majority because that is the way a democracy works. Laws are not enacted only for those people that agree with them, everybody must follow them. Your group is in the minority, 2 out of 5. What people do in a democracy, they make sure their candidates win in the next election so you can change what you want. What people do in lands that have no regard for law, they overthrow the government in power. Your radical group has no regard for the system, which you makes you appear to be bullies and spoiled children.
|
onefedupkiddie
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 65 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 04:01 am |
|
dadof3 wrote: Kiddie, Wrong. Parents DO NOT get a choice on the dress code. It is a policy that extends to all students. I do not get to say it's fine with me and sign a blanket permission slip for my child to wear something against the dress code and expect the school to say okay. For you to say "all parents are fine with it" is ludicrous.
As far as I know, the dress code policy hasn't ever been contested, at least in a very long time, to the proper channels. This shows that most people are fine with it, but we can all agree that there's some problems with it, and I think they should be fixed. This policy and the closed campus policy has fundamental problems that need to be fixed, since right now, they are rough and very far from being perfect. Thus, sometone should contest the dress code policy, since it needs to be fixed, but it can't be taken away, it's purpose is understood and in compliance to both moral standards set by society and certain laws. The law restricts certain things regarding clothing in certain areas, and school is one of them. Not one school doesn't have a dress code (except maybe in a nudist colony).
So if someone wants to address the board about fixing the dress code policy, by all means, they should. Because like the closed campus policy, there is problems that lie within it that should be fixed. It has nothing to do with the core purpose of the policy, but it makes the policy incredibly flawed in its execution. But the board refuses to fix that too.
|
onefedupkiddie
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 65 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 03:55 am |
|
gadfly wrote: Kiddie - Your argument is what is so frustrating. Just because you don't like a policy doesn't mean you can just say it's wrong and say it needs to be changed now. Just because it's wrong for you doesn't mean it's wrong for everybody. The board members in power decided that closing the campuses is the right thing to do for everybody. They can do that...period. You can protest, yes, you have, that's great, now it's time for everybody to move on to the next thing. To do what this group is doing is just making a farce of the system and making you guys look very silly.
That is the problem Gadfly. For half of the parents in this community, this policy is right for them. But at the same time, the previous policy was right for them as well. This new policy didn't change anything for the better, it kept half the people exact same and it made the other half angry.
I think I understand your argument in full after reading all your posts the last few days. You are incredibly firm on the concept of majority rules, 3-2, that's it, they got voted in, they voted, and that's it. I believe that is too black and white, and so do most. You can see my long, thought out post that I might have posted in this or one of the other two threads for my reason why. From your outlook, it may be making it out into a farce. By the logic you are using, that would fit. I don't agree with that logic, but you don't agree with mine either. Yours says it does, mine says it doesn't, so I don't think we can argue either way in that regard with each other.
As for looking silly, I would have to believe that we only look silly to those who want us to look silly. But again, that's something that can't really be argued. Perspective is key.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 02:55 am |
|
| Kiddie - Your argument is what is so frustrating. Just because you don't like a policy doesn't mean you can just say it's wrong and say it needs to be changed now. Just because it's wrong for you doesn't mean it's wrong for everybody. The board members in power decided that closing the campuses is the right thing to do for everybody. They can do that...period. You can protest, yes, you have, that's great, now it's time for everybody to move on to the next thing. To do what this group is doing is just making a farce of the system and making you guys look very silly. Last edited on Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 02:56 am by gadfly
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 02:54 am |
|
| dadof3....dress code/removal of parental permission comparisons are apples/oranges. The dress code affects what you "wear". What is even more stupid about the dress code is the strap width part....You would think exposing your shoulders was vulgar. While there is no mention of how low a top can be....exposing too much cleavage is not a problem. Again....another "well thought out policy". The lunch policy, on the other hand, affects what you are allowed to "do". Lunch off campus doesn't affect others as does scantily clad students. Whats hilarious about the dress code is the schools actually enforce it in swim class....making the female students feel ashamed of their bodies and making them wear t-shirts over their bathing suits. Yes....my girls did it without fussing....but what a joke!!! Joe Bernier
|
dadof3
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 02:37 am |
|
| Kiddie, Wrong. Parents DO NOT get a choice on the dress code. It is a policy that extends to all students. I do not get to say it's fine with me and sign a blanket permission slip for my child to wear something against the dress code and expect the school to say okay. For you to say "all parents are fine with it" is ludicrous.
|
onefedupkiddie
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 65 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 01:12 am |
|
Most rules of the dress code are in compliance to the law. There's obvious moral and legal rules to minors wearing obscene clothing in a government funded institution, whether it be in the content on the clothing or how much the clothing covers. Dress code rules are also, for the most part, universally accepted and understood. The closed campus policy, not so much.
However, I have noticed a few things with the dress code policy that are rather odd, such as not being allowed to have straps under 2 inches period, even if it is just an undershirt covered by an overshirt or a sweatshirt. My high school has been heavily enforcing that, and it doesn't make sense, since technically it would also mean that all bras are banned unless if they have straps over 2 inches in width. I feel that should be addressed and fixed, but otherwise, the dress code policy is fine, and if enough people had a problem with it, then it would be an issue. Parents right now do get a choice on it, and all of them agree with the dress code policy. Plus, it's not like I've ever had to worry about dress code, nor will I ever have to, I would have to think long and hard for ways to break it.
|
dadof3
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 12:06 am |
|
| Kiddie, The school tells your parents what you can't wear, at least in general. I suppose you think that's against your Constitutional rights, too?
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 12:03 am |
|
| Because majority rules.
|
onefedupkiddie
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 65 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2007 11:20 pm |
|
dadof3 wrote: Kiddie, if it's not a problem, then you've just basically said that you're just upset that someone is "telling you what to do" and you don't want to do that.
I'm upset that someone is telling my parents what to do in regards to me, all the while treating the students like fools on various occasions, and handling the policy rather sloppily, in comparison to other districts.
I can manage, but why should I manage for something fundamentally screwed up?
|
dadof3
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2007 10:51 pm |
|
| Kiddie, if it's not a problem, then you've just basically said that you're just upset that someone is "telling you what to do" and you don't want to do that.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2007 10:49 pm |
|
| The reason is the voters voted in the members they did. Majority rules in this country. For your group to try and change it at this point because you don't think its fair for whatever reason is being a bully, in my opinion. Last edited on Wed Nov 21st, 2007 10:50 pm by gadfly
|
onefedupkiddie
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 65 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2007 10:41 pm |
|
I can manage eating on campus, that's not a problem for me. Rather, it's what reason is there for me to have to eat on campus. There's no real justification that makes up for the inconveniences that it causes. The situation has escalated further and further because the board just doesn't seem to understand.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2007 10:11 pm |
|
Joewrites4rights wrote: gadfly....We agree on that....these students are great.
I bet you're amazed that they turned out so good after many years of their own parents providing the guidance and permission that somehow isn't good enough anymore. Joe Bernier
I think kids like onefedupkiddie would be just fine even if he/she had to eat cafeteria food for four years.
|
onefedupkiddie
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 65 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2007 09:26 pm |
|
gadfly wrote: onefedupkiddie wrote:
Now let me give you a lesson. Yes, they can do this, because as of right now, there has been no legal challenge. This isn't an issue of wanting our candy, or being spoiled and wanting our lunch, nor is it something that we're just going to wait till the board changes. Having such a broken policy has to end as soon as policy, and the board needs to get it through their head, whether morally or by force of the community, to change their decision. The fact is, they are showing negligence towards the community, who they are meant to represent. If they are showing complete contempt towards the community who elected them, that is grounds for a recall. Guess what? That's exactly what Kathy Knecht is getting, who's negligence not just in this issue, but many others, laid down the wood, and a certain incident on October 23rd providing the match and a gallon of lighter fluid.
I know what a radical is, I didn't have to look it up and your provided definition is verbatim to mine. But these views and practices aren't to an extreme, since a majority of the community, and practically all of the students, are in full support. The radicals are those who supported taking away parental rights and think that a completely inequipped campus is a good idea for students to be in. It's a very small minority who fought for that and most people not involved on blogs or the meetings think the very idea of that is absolutely ridiculous.
You're clearly not listening to the reasons why this policy needs to be changed, because you keep referring to this as "temper tantrums", "hissy fits", or whatever term you would like to use. This isn't simply just a matter of me wanting to go out to get lunch, because in all honesty, I probably wouldn't go off campus every day, and would probably go home more than I'd go to any fast food location around my campus (which I counted to be over ten).
We are being disrespected because they feel so arrogant to believe that they are a better parent to me than my actual, biological parents. With that thought, they also do not listen to any concerns we have with the policy, and give us various smirks and remarks (see namesake for the big one). Having a closed campus policy is one thing, having a closed campus policy with numerous fundamental problems is quite another. If they want to have a closed campus, they could at least have the decency to make it adequate. Look at Buckeye for an example of how they are implementing it and how they will prepare. Then look at ours.
We aren't disrespecting the institution of voting. But when elected officials show complete negligence to the voting populous, they need to be called out on it. They are meant to serve the needs of the people throughout their entire term in a changing environment, not just from the perspective of when they elected. You're forgetting one huge aspect of the American democratic system. Once people are elected into office, doesn't mean they are allowed to do whatever they want despite it being against the wishes of the public. You aren't Zeus once you're elected to the schoolboard, you're merely just Hermes the messenger, telling the administration to do what you're told to do.
I disagree with your position, but if a high school kid actually wrote this, I am truly impressed - with no sarcasm at all in that statement. How old do you have to be to run for the board?
I assume the age would be 18, though either way, I would never consider running for schoolboard until I had kids in the district, and was very informed on every issue that the schoolboard has to deal with, not just a few. That will not be for a while. I have no idea how the budget works, or how to come up with solutions with problems such as "Old Main". Board members should be very well informed, and know more than those in the community, not because they have inside information, but because they've done their homework more extensively.
HD, schools should never have to take responsibilities for the parents because some parents are using the schools as a way to parent their children. We all know this is true, but not all of us probably agree that schools should make the parents take responsibility and stop letting them get by with not parenting their children. Taking away responsibilities from the parents isn't solving anything, just creating more problems not just in the area of lunch, but all areas in education where some parents will expect the school to do things that they should.
|
HD
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2007 08:32 pm |
|
| Unfortunately, many parents are not "parenting". If all parents were as involved as you, providing wise guidance and permission, things would be a lot different and these measures unnecessary.
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2007 07:40 pm |
|
gadfly....We agree on that....these students are great.
I bet you're amazed that they turned out so good after many years of their own parents providing the guidance and permission that somehow isn't good enough anymore. Joe Bernier
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2007 06:54 pm |
|
onefedupkiddie wrote:
Now let me give you a lesson. Yes, they can do this, because as of right now, there has been no legal challenge. This isn't an issue of wanting our candy, or being spoiled and wanting our lunch, nor is it something that we're just going to wait till the board changes. Having such a broken policy has to end as soon as policy, and the board needs to get it through their head, whether morally or by force of the community, to change their decision. The fact is, they are showing negligence towards the community, who they are meant to represent. If they are showing complete contempt towards the community who elected them, that is grounds for a recall. Guess what? That's exactly what Kathy Knecht is getting, who's negligence not just in this issue, but many others, laid down the wood, and a certain incident on October 23rd providing the match and a gallon of lighter fluid.
I know what a radical is, I didn't have to look it up and your provided definition is verbatim to mine. But these views and practices aren't to an extreme, since a majority of the community, and practically all of the students, are in full support. The radicals are those who supported taking away parental rights and think that a completely inequipped campus is a good idea for students to be in. It's a very small minority who fought for that and most people not involved on blogs or the meetings think the very idea of that is absolutely ridiculous.
You're clearly not listening to the reasons why this policy needs to be changed, because you keep referring to this as "temper tantrums", "hissy fits", or whatever term you would like to use. This isn't simply just a matter of me wanting to go out to get lunch, because in all honesty, I probably wouldn't go off campus every day, and would probably go home more than I'd go to any fast food location around my campus (which I counted to be over ten).
We are being disrespected because they feel so arrogant to believe that they are a better parent to me than my actual, biological parents. With that thought, they also do not listen to any concerns we have with the policy, and give us various smirks and remarks (see namesake for the big one). Having a closed campus policy is one thing, having a closed campus policy with numerous fundamental problems is quite another. If they want to have a closed campus, they could at least have the decency to make it adequate. Look at Buckeye for an example of how they are implementing it and how they will prepare. Then look at ours.
We aren't disrespecting the institution of voting. But when elected officials show complete negligence to the voting populous, they need to be called out on it. They are meant to serve the needs of the people throughout their entire term in a changing environment, not just from the perspective of when they elected. You're forgetting one huge aspect of the American democratic system. Once people are elected into office, doesn't mean they are allowed to do whatever they want despite it being against the wishes of the public. You aren't Zeus once you're elected to the schoolboard, you're merely just Hermes the messenger, telling the administration to do what you're told to do.
I disagree with your position, but if a high school kid actually wrote this, I am truly impressed - with no sarcasm at all in that statement. How old do you have to be to run for the board?
Last edited on Wed Nov 21st, 2007 07:19 pm by gadfly
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2007 02:24 am |
|
dadof3 wrote: Integrity, there are "so many" people coming to board meetings because it's the same "so many" saying the same things. Except for Joe, who keeps coming up with new ways to say that he wants his way and by golly, he's going to keep stomping his feet and holding his breath until he gets it. (I can only imagine what he was like as a two-year-old). The kids are there because Pied Piper Joe has them all riled up and it's about LUNCH, a subject apparently all three or four of them can discuss with great fervor and passion. I was impressed and respected all of them for the first two or three meetings but their feet-stomping tantrums have gotten really old. For instance, "prisoner" (how dramatic) is bellowing in a post below about his Constitutional rights FOR LUNCH. What next, will they try to bring back RECESS to high school?
But Dadof3, it isn't just a handful of people and it isn't just about the lunch policy. In case you haven't been watching the board meetings lately, or for the past 11 months it is more than the lunch policy. This board has become stagnated with arguments, accusations, innuendo and inaction. Diane Douglas ruminates verbally over just about every single item on the agenda...before making a decision and that is IF she makes a decision! Added to that, Kathy Knecht and Rick Murphy follow closely behind with the same actions as Diane Douglas. And at this point Pat Galbraith and Debra Raeder often vote against what the other three vote for, just to disagree, and visa versa. (That is my personal opinion.) As a result of this behavior all five of them spend hours explaining, couched in many different forms, their decisions or inactions. The board meetings drag on and on and on. They have been discussing the Challenger Center and Denton Santarelli contract issue forever and consulting with a lawyer all at the expense of the taxpayer, and added to that cost the lawyer fees for going over Dr. Erb's contract. The lists goes on, and you better believe that the teaching, and administrative staff is sick of it, as well as parents and students.
|
Peoria Dad
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2007 02:23 am |
|
Gadfly, I wasn't trying to be flippant with my last post. It's the truth, and a cursory glance at her record, who financed her elections and the groups she belongs to will show you I'm right.
Diane Douglas isn't a victim, but a politician.
|
onefedupkiddie
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 65 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 20th, 2007 10:57 pm |
|
gadfly wrote: Let me give you a civic lesson, kiddie. In America, we decide who is going to represent us on the board by elections. During a campaign, the candidates state their positions on issues. During this particular campaign, both candidates who won stated they were in favor of completely closing the campuses. Since they received more votes, they are now our representatives on the board. There are only 5 members of the board who get to vote on any particular issue. I don't get to vote, your parents don't get to vote, only these five. As the board makeup is right now, more members are choosing to close the campuses than leaving them open. Therefore, they can do this.
The Radicals, as it sounds like you are one, have decided you now do not like the policy that the duly elected decided to implement. So, instead of waiting until the next board election to change the makeup of the board, you are acting like a bunch of spoiled children who want their candy now!! If you are one of the kids that is giving speeches week after week at the board meetings, I must say I initially respected your guts to be up there and give your position on the issue in front of the board. Once is fine, but to get up week after week after week is just plain annoying and redundant and a complete waste of everybody's time. What is the point of doing this other than trying to bully the board in getting what you want? It is now a complete farce.
Have you looked up radical? A synonym would be extreme - a group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme. Is it extreme to basically throw these temper tantrums until you get your way and not respect the system of voting? Absolutely....
And why is this disrespecting the students - because there is group of you that feel you should be allowed to leave for lunch even though the electorate voted the members in that said you couldn't? I think a much better question would be - is your group disrespecting the democratic system? Again, absolutely you are...
Now let me give you a lesson. Yes, they can do this, because as of right now, there has been no legal challenge. This isn't an issue of wanting our candy, or being spoiled and wanting our lunch, nor is it something that we're just going to wait till the board changes. Having such a broken policy has to end as soon as policy, and the board needs to get it through their head, whether morally or by force of the community, to change their decision. The fact is, they are showing negligence towards the community, who they are meant to represent. If they are showing complete contempt towards the community who elected them, that is grounds for a recall. Guess what? That's exactly what Kathy Knecht is getting, who's negligence not just in this issue, but many others, laid down the wood, and a certain incident on October 23rd providing the match and a gallon of lighter fluid.
I know what a radical is, I didn't have to look it up and your provided definition is verbatim to mine. But these views and practices aren't to an extreme, since a majority of the community, and practically all of the students, are in full support. The radicals are those who supported taking away parental rights and think that a completely inequipped campus is a good idea for students to be in. It's a very small minority who fought for that and most people not involved on blogs or the meetings think the very idea of that is absolutely ridiculous.
You're clearly not listening to the reasons why this policy needs to be changed, because you keep referring to this as "temper tantrums", "hissy fits", or whatever term you would like to use. This isn't simply just a matter of me wanting to go out to get lunch, because in all honesty, I probably wouldn't go off campus every day, and would probably go home more than I'd go to any fast food location around my campus (which I counted to be over ten).
We are being disrespected because they feel so arrogant to believe that they are a better parent to me than my actual, biological parents. With that thought, they also do not listen to any concerns we have with the policy, and give us various smirks and remarks (see namesake for the big one). Having a closed campus policy is one thing, having a closed campus policy with numerous fundamental problems is quite another. If they want to have a closed campus, they could at least have the decency to make it adequate. Look at Buckeye for an example of how they are implementing it and how they will prepare. Then look at ours.
We aren't disrespecting the institution of voting. But when elected officials show complete negligence to the voting populous, they need to be called out on it. They are meant to serve the needs of the people throughout their entire term in a changing environment, not just from the perspective of when they elected. You're forgetting one huge aspect of the American democratic system. Once people are elected into office, doesn't mean they are allowed to do whatever they want despite it being against the wishes of the public. You aren't Zeus once you're elected to the schoolboard, you're merely just Hermes the messenger, telling the administration to do what you're told to do.
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 20th, 2007 10:37 pm |
|
gadfly...you could just as easily put the emphasis on students in good standing. Not once did ANY of the candidates say ( in public) they were considering getting rid of parental permission....NOT ONCE EVER. They may have said it to you...in private. Not until May 8th did we, the public, hear about that BS decision. And I will again ask for any of you to validate such a stupid, controlling decision. Why, again, is it OK for you to decide for me, but I can't decide for you? That is what you have been saying....you closers "voted" in someone that would decide for all of us exactly what kind of lunch we were to experience. So tell us....WHY do you feel the need to control and decide for others.
dadof3....IT"S NOT MY WAY I"M FIGHTING FOR!!! I BELIEVE EVERYONE SHOULD GET THEIR WAY......NOT JUST ME....UNLIKE YOU AND THE CLOSERS FIGHTING TO HAVE EVERYONE CONFORM TO YOUR WAY.....do you understand the difference? What's wrong with all of us, you and me included, getting our way.....for ourselves? Really....what's wrong with that? Joe Bernier
Last edited on Tue Nov 20th, 2007 10:39 pm by Joewrites4rights
|
|
| | |