| Author | Post |
|---|
onefedupkiddie
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 67 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 06:54 pm |
|
Congratulations No_Mood, you're probably going to be banned. Bye bye.
|
Frank1234
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 11:45 pm |
|
Yes, after sleeping on it, I didn’t think lowing myself to the level of gadfly and others is worth it. But thanks for asking.
|
whatacrock
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 01:30 pm |
|
| Frank, why did you delete your previous post with a link to Hitler's Mein Kampf? A little over the top, even for you? Now that's saying something.
|
Frank1234
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 05:29 am |
|
Last edited on Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 12:33 pm by Frank1234
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 12:30 am |
|
dadof3...Thank you....I would just like to point out one thing for your clarification. I think you may have "seen" me and my blogs for the first time well after I was being challenged by the closers to "prove" my opinions and thoughts. It was only after I was challenged to show where I got off stating that this took away parental rights and also I was asked to prove where it stated that students have rights. That's when I started quoting the Constitution and also questioning what others interpretation of the last six words of the Pledge of Allegiance meant to them. Why do we say it, if we don't mean it? I know what you mean about the boos and hisses....I was booed and hissed almost every time I spoke at the Open/Closed committee meetings. The "closers" actions in those meetings was super childish and despicable. Their self serving disrespectful actions at those meetings were enough to get me very fired up about defending our position on this. (I still get boiled about it and that was two years ago). It was so bad that one lady stood up and yelled at me, calling me a "non-conformist"....that's how stupid these closers are!!! Actually calling me a non-conformist because I didn't want to conform to a potentially changing policy. See what I mean? They just aren't happy because they can't force their way onto everybody else. Anyway, I got off track.
Everybody has been asking me to defend my position on all these things, then I do, and I do so by quoting law, regulations, and statistics. Then these same people "label" me as an extremist and are having an argumentative attitude. Hey, they are the ones that asked for my explanations, and they're the ones that don't have any explanations for their opinions. I don't think that's fair of them, but I still don't call them berating names, and I don't condone anyone else partaking in that either. Hope you all understand. Thank you so much. Joe Bernier.
|
onefedupkiddie
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 67 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 11:24 pm |
|
dadof3 wrote: Joe, One last thing  before I too will fight my blogging addiction harder, just like gadfly. Unfortunately, I think this lunch issue will be a fight to the finish, whatever that may be, because so many personal insults have been thrown at the board members involved, including board meetings with boos and hisses. When I mentioned the you tube videos in my earlier post, it was bad enough when they started making fun of Mrs. Knecht for asking for a bathroom break (try imagining if that was your wife and how humiliating that must be), then using out of context the video of her losing her cool (rightly so in many people's opinion, but not all, I understand that), then the latest one which is a complete creative license into personal cruelty, and Bert and Ernie and the like talk about how funny and amusing it is. If a parent let their kid put that together, as it says happened, then that is a disgusting role model of a parent. But I tend to believe it's not a parent and that it's one of the students masquerading. That's the kind of people you've become associated with, unfortunately. I'm betting Apache Mom and others will now fire away at me for associating with the "other side" more often than not. So gadfly, wait up, I'm going to take up smoking to help me break the blogging habit. Good luck to all and just try to be a little nicer to each other.
The bathroom break video isn't funny, nor is it in any way insightful. It's just immature.
As for the other videos on Youtube, it wasn't out of context, but rather what she was losing her cool about was taken out of context by both her and those who thought her outrage was justified. It just wasn't. Her outrage has been considered by many people, especially all the students I still hear quoting the video (pretty much everyone has seen it). The issue has gotten so out of hand, that things like this, and these actions being defended, have turned into self-parody that students just can't believe is actually happening. Once every student is paying attention and almost finds the other side funny in their actions, how much worse can it get?
When someone yells not just at a student, but the whole student populous (i.e. kiddie), making your rant humorous is all fair game.
|
dadof3
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 10:06 pm |
|
| Joe, One last thing before I too will fight my blogging addiction harder, just like gadfly. Unfortunately, I think this lunch issue will be a fight to the finish, whatever that may be, because so many personal insults have been thrown at the board members involved, including board meetings with boos and hisses. When I mentioned the you tube videos in my earlier post, it was bad enough when they started making fun of Mrs. Knecht for asking for a bathroom break (try imagining if that was your wife and how humiliating that must be), then using out of context the video of her losing her cool (rightly so in many people's opinion, but not all, I understand that), then the latest one which is a complete creative license into personal cruelty, and Bert and Ernie and the like talk about how funny and amusing it is. If a parent let their kid put that together, as it says happened, then that is a disgusting role model of a parent. But I tend to believe it's not a parent and that it's one of the students masquerading. That's the kind of people you've become associated with, unfortunately. I'm betting Apache Mom and others will now fire away at me for associating with the "other side" more often than not. So gadfly, wait up, I'm going to take up smoking to help me break the blogging habit. Good luck to all and just try to be a little nicer to each other.
|
dadof3
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 09:06 pm |
|
| Joe, Since I am still in "Thanksgiving" nice mode, I will second some of what gadfly has to say. I know many people who honestly and purely believe that campuses should be closed, (just as some believe otherwise), but who would have listened to you and tried to see your reasoning if only you didn't start talking about the Constitution, kidnapping, prisons, incarceration, national media, and all that. I also believe that some of it stems from the bad feelings about the previous board members and how badly they treated Mrs. Douglas. And if some of the people who are on your "side" weren't so foul mouthed and didn't take such obvious pleasure in being downright cruel, I'm thinking of quite a few, in particular the bloggers that gadfly calls Bert and Ernie or whatever. The you tube videos are disgusting character assassination of someone who has been brow-beaten since the first day of her term from what I can tell. If you had called them off, a lot of people would have respected that, but it just keeps getting worse. I do see some of your points, but you've backed a lot of people, including yourself, into a corner with so much over the top rhetoric. We're all parents and may disagree, but the hatred is nasty. People on all sides are even afraid to use their names for fear of being targeted next. It's not a debate, it's an inquisition.
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 08:41 pm |
|
gadfly...Accepted.....I understand your points and I see where you are coming from. I agree with your observations....I do tend to be a bit "over the top" and "in your face" about this sometimes. (OK, a lot of the time ) Thanks for the advice. I will take it. And thanks for the honesty. That was a very stand up comment you just made. Thank you. Joe BernierLast edited on Mon Nov 26th, 2007 08:42 pm by Joewrites4rights
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 08:02 pm |
|
Joe -
One more to you, Joe and then I'm done, promise.
- First, I want to apologize to you for some of the things I said to you in the heat of blog battles. As you indicated to me that you are over the top sometimes, I believe I have the same affliction. I am sure they are several heads nodding in agreement right now.
- Second, I have a great deal of respect for anyone that will do what you're doing and is basically doing it by the seat of your pants. I think your intentions are in the right place and you should be congratulated by everybody for having the guts to stand up for what you believe in.
- Third, I have alluded to the post by Nick Coury a lot, but I think what really struck me about what he said so eloquently was it really may be more than 'just lunch' for these parents that I have been hammering on you about. Maybe it is 'just who do they think you are to tell me I can't do this.' I still disagree with what you're doing in that whatever you do now I don't think it's going to change anything, but at least I understand a lot more why you all are doing what you're doing.
It is easy for me to be a Monday morning quarterback, but I think if would you have laid off on the rhetoric and quoting law, your message would have been better received by a lot more people. If you would have stuck to the message that may have the right to do this because they more votes, but do they have they the right to tell me what to do as a parent. I understand fully that this has been your central theme in all of this, but people like me were entangled in the jungle of That's a fact!!! and that's the Law!!!!, they don't have a right to do what they are doing!!! and never got through to what you were really fighting for.
That's all, Joe. Unless you doing something really outrageous that I have to get back to this blogging addiction, I'm done....tell my wife you haven't seen me for a week or so, will you...
|
rdg7359
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 135 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 05:51 pm |
|
Last edited on Mon Nov 26th, 2007 06:00 pm by rdg7359
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 04:04 pm |
|
| gadfly...Thanks for you positive words. I wish I knew of a more effective way to do this. I'm new to this entire process and (though I don't know of other ideas) I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with how I'm doing it now, as I haven't violated any rules or laws....let me know (if you have one or two) what ideas you would employ if you were in my shoes. I'd appreciate it....I'm all for expanding one's horizons....especially mine. Joe Bernier
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 02:21 am |
|
| That's good Peoria Dad, you stay on the sidelines, leave the thoughtful thinking to people like Nick, and you be the cheerleader who never quite knows what the score is or who is even playing.... Last edited on Mon Nov 26th, 2007 02:32 am by gadfly
|
Peoria Dad
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 02:10 am |
|
"Is that all you got?" You're right Gadfly, proving you wrong isn't exactly rocket science.
Nick, thanks for your contributions. Well done.
And, just to rub it in Gadfly, Mike and Frank have said the same thing many times on their blogs. Maybe you should open your mind instead of your mouth.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 11:43 pm |
|
| Hey Joe - Good luck to you. I'm going to quit this blogging for a while, it almost becomes a addiction for me and takes up too much of my time. I disagree with your methods, but I admire your passion.
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 09:25 pm |
|
| gadfly....yes, there is recall coming....driven by the students, not me. Although, as you know, I will definitely help them anyway I can. As far as legal action....not yet, I don't think we have exhausted all of our avenues yet, and we don't want to be blamed for the district spending lawyer monies on this until we have pursued all other means. We do care!! Joe Bernier
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 09:19 pm |
|
| dadof3...yes...I have taken it up with the principal....he said "it was the boards decision....he is just following their wishes". I then took it to the Superintendent and received the same answer but along with it came the promise of looking into it some more. I know that the board specifically put that language in their May Mistake Policy for a reason....they won't say why....so I don't know what they are up to. I brought it up to the board more than once (during the three minutes we are given) and they have not done anything about it. They just ignored it like they have everything else they don't agree with. So it is them who I place the blame on. The administration is handcuffed by the boards decisions on this. Joe Bernier
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 08:30 pm |
|
| By the way Peoria Dad - These posts by Nick are a perfect example why I choose to exchange my views on a forum like this rather than Frank and Charley's. Every once in a while someone says something on here that makes me take a look at my views and forces me through logic and reason that maybe, just maybe, my views have some cracks in it. This Nick, who I now find out is nineteen years old, did just that. Frank and Charley's readers, on the other hand, are probably 99.3% thinking all the same and thinking becomes set in stone........
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 07:37 pm |
|
| I agree with you Gadfly, he is very mature and insightful. More so than any of the bloggers that I have read, or for that matter any of the current board members. He also is respectful and fair. I think he could win, if he were given the opportunity to discuss these issues publicly.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 07:28 pm |
|
| And it's too bad he is related to Ms. Coury because many people would immediately disqualify him because of that. I would not do that. What he wrote made more sense than anything I have seen written on these blogs times two (including me). Last edited on Sun Nov 25th, 2007 07:29 pm by gadfly
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 07:21 pm |
|
gadfly wrote: How old is he
I believe he is probably 19 or close to 20.
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 07:20 pm |
|
| As a side note, both of her children are very bright and are very capable of thinking and working independent of their parents.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 07:20 pm |
|
| How old is he
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 07:18 pm |
|
gadfly wrote: Integrity - Well said - do you know Nick - is this something he would consider?
Believe it or not Gadfly, Nicks mother is Pati Coury.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 07:09 pm |
|
| Integrity - Well said - do you know Nick - is this something he would consider?
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 07:06 pm |
|
To be fair it isn't just the two newest board members, in fact it is every one of the board members currently seated that are screwing up. And the only selfless board member is Pat Galbraith. The truth is, the newest board members winning this election wouldn't have happened if people weren't dissatisfied with the previous board members, ALL OF THEM. As I have stated before, I believe that both Pati Coury and Pat Galbraith were the only board members whose agenda was only to serve the community and students. However, all too often, they gave the appearance of not listening to the community, and going along with whatever the administration wanted. There should be some debate amongst the board members, this shows they are actually thinking about the issues that are brought before them. And there should be times that they disagree with each other, because that shows they are actually investigating issues and their decisions are based on what they have learned…ON THEIR OWN. That being said, I am not suggesting they should ignore or not seek out the opinions of the administration, unions, organizations, parents, students and teachers, because they should seek opinions from all of these sources if possible. What I am saying is that they should then use their own independent judgment when making a decsions. (Because everyone else administrators etc., all have their on personal bias that they bring to the table on issues.) And board members should ALWAYS be open to changing their mind about an issue up until a vote is taken. And even then, a board member should be willing to revisit an issue if there is enough interest from the public to warrant the issue being revisited. Currently, I personally believe that none of the board members are truly weighing the issues, they don't even appear to care so much about what is on the agenda, but how they can oppose the other side. Or, how they can explain their position on the various issues. Basically, they are dysfunctional! We need someone like Nick that can set aside their emotions and hopefully set aside being persuaded by one group or another and vote according to what is best for ALL.
|
dadof3
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 06:57 pm |
|
| Joe, It seems at least part of your beef is with administration, not the board. I remember the board specifically asking administration, both district and principals, food service, to provide more vendors, shade, and all that. If that hasn't happened at your school, that is an issue with administration. Also your issue about coming back for a 5th hour class and eating lunch on campus if done for the day seems to be an issue with administration not the board. Have you complained to the principal? I'm guessing probably yes, so did you then take it up the administration chain?
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 06:50 pm |
|
| But you stated that these three will never change their minds, which I completely agree with. So, I am assuming you are going to recall one of them or take this decision to court, am I right?
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 06:45 pm |
|
gadfly....Everything we have been fighting for.
#1. Our rights to be reinstated...both the parents and the students.
#2. The ability for the PARENTS to decide what is best for their student.
#3. The ability for a student to take a fifth hour class without remaining on campus all day.
#4. The ability for a student to enjoy lunch with their friends (and siblings)....not to be "thrown off campus" if they actually decide to stay on for lunch (even though they are done for the day).
#5. Improving the conditions of "the on campus lunchtime experience"....something that was promised by the board....but NEVER delivered.
#6. For the district (board) to actually care about HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS as HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS....treat them as such...educate them as such.....and respect them as such....face the fact that THEY ARE NOT LITTLE KIDDIES!!!
#7. The ability for our students to come home for lunch if we (they) choose to.
#8. To show the citizens of Peoria that they don't have to sit back and put up with this #$%^.
I can come up with more....but I think that's enough. Thanks for asking....Joe Bernier
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 06:22 pm |
|
| So, Joe, please answer the question. What do you hope to accomplish by continuing this fight?
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 06:17 pm |
|
gadfly...I agree with you. And I agree that very few qualified leaders actually run for leadership positions in our community. As I have posted before, there really needs to be minimum standards that are set for these positions. For example...common sense and I.Q. tests, that must be taken and passed (at least the scores shown to the public) by anyone who wishes to run for these positions. And I will take it a step further. They should pass an interview process that would discover if the individual is selfless....or selfish.
As you and many others pointed out...these two new board members voted selfishly. You said it yourself....they had their minds made up BEFORE they were elected, and WITHOUT doing ANY research about this subject whatsoever. That's ignorance at it's best. As you point out (correctly) in your post....they now have their minds made up....NO MATTER what anyone says. That's not serving your community....that's serving yourself. Again....people like this should not be "leaders". And we shouldn't blindly follow them just because they, and their supporters, self appoint them as all powerful. They ARE NOT....and we won't give them the powers that they don't have! We would be poor stewards of citizenship if we were to just cower down. Analogy...they have been let loose....they are running amuck...it's time to cage THEM up!!! Joe Bernier
Last edited on Sun Nov 25th, 2007 06:20 pm by Joewrites4rights
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 05:58 pm |
|
Joe,
Do you really think that no matter what you do, any of the three board members are going to change their mind? I think the answer is when hell freezes over. So, what is it you are going to accomplish through continuing this fight? Would it make more sense to circle your wagons and prepare for the 2008 election? There are so many issues that will need the board's attention other than this open campus issue. I think it only serves to divert attention from these issues and to further divide the board and the community.
Joe, something off the subject, but I have stated it bothers me that the votes are most always three to two. Both sides - don't they have minds of their own??? I'm sure you must have read Nick's post of last night. We need to get people on the board like Nick who appears to be somebody who really thinks and can take a position on something, but completely understand the other side's thinking. We need people who don't appear to have an agenda, but are really there to help the kids of this district. You appear to be an ardent supporter of Galbraith and Raeder. I think they have been there too long, too many alliances have been formed, and they are much too defensive about decisions made in the past. I have stated I am a supporter of Diane Douglas, mainly she is somebody who is questioning what is happening within the district and not buying into the whole concept of the "Peoria family". But when you hear someone like this Nick, why can't we have someone like this? Probably because people like this see what toll it would take on their personal lives and families and conclude it's not worth it. Unfortunately, he is probably too intelligent for the position.... and that's a sad commentary.
|
Joewrites4rights
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 295 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 03:40 pm |
|
gadfly (and others)....Filibuster? You are complaining about a three minute filibuster?
I have to strongly disagree with that term. Let me (calmly) explain WHY WE have gotten up to speak week after week. There are a few reasons that are easily skipped over and missed.
#1. When the board (hastily and wrongfully) voted to remove parental permission in May....THEY did not follow proper protocol (THEIR OWN POLICY CREATION POLICIES) that's right....this board of supreme intelligence (as so many of you think they are) DID NOT DO IT RIGHT!!! They tried to sneak it in....under the radar. We discovered this....and it took several three minute calls to the public, and several trips to the Attorney Generals office (by me) to get the board to bring it up on the agenda to correct their May Mistake....I found it very interesting that the board (nor the closers) ever admitted to blunder. For if the same mistake was made for Dr, Erb's contract, or the Challenger thing....I'm sure we would have never heard the end of it. The FACT of the matter is....there was NO new policy made UNTIL the October 23rd meeting. We were speaking out against the removal of parental permission from the new policy that was coming. Gadfly....you call us radicals....I'll have you know that we could have put this district on it's head during this, because of the boards inadequate attempt at creating this "policy" in May....that policy didn't exist AND the only policy on the books was last years "parental permission policy". We could have went to town with that and (maybe we should have) embarrassed the three board members AND the district by forcing the district to abide by THAT policy. But we (maturely) didn't. Out of respect for the process and the board. I look back on that as a mistake, because the board didn't even thank us for our cooperation and they still continue to slap us in the face.
#2. To change the "policy" language that was (wrongfully) voted on in May. If you remember, the May policy language was so restrictive that even a parent could not ever pick up their own student unless it was a "limited and verifiable" doctors visit. They tried to get us to bring verifiable paperwork PRIOR to the doctors appt. to the office, and then THEY were going to place limits on it? Again....your supreme intelligent board members came up with this stuff. These are the same board members that you entrust your students so called "safety" too. This is when I accurately quoted the kidnapping and unlawful incarceration laws. But that gets lost by the closer mentality now.
#3. Public awareness. Would we be where we are today with this if none of us got up to speak our minds about this. I don't think so.
#4 Because....WE DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!! And many more reasons that I don't need to list here, because I have already done it many times before.
My main point is this....We have made a big difference. Those who wish to quiet us will tell you otherwise....but as I like to say, the FACTS speak for themselves. The closers know this and that's why they want us to stop....now. But we will not!!! We have just started to defend ourselves....we understand this will be a long process and we will never back down. We aren't asking for anything drastic...just our own choice.....like a lot of you have stated before.....it's just lunch. If that were true......why don't they just let us have it? You and I both know it's bigger than "just lunch" Joe Bernier
|
onefedupkiddie
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 67 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 02:52 am |
|
The closed campus issue isn't a filibuster for anything, and if anyone is saying that it is preventing progress in other areas, that is for the lack of a better word, dullchit.
The reason it's brought up every reason is how the issue has been handled. They refuse to fix any of the problems with the policy, they refuse to listen to any concerns, they even make it clear that they made this decision with no regard to the community or the amount of research done on the topic. That is a level of ignorance that cannot be tolerated in a school district, and cannot be ignored, ever. It's almost a policy only in place to say "We don't care what you want, students, parents, teachers. We do what we want and that's final." This may sound ridiculous, but it seems like they care more about the needs of the Pachyderm Federation than they do about the students.
The electorate can't make a farce out of a Democratic system when the electored already did a long time ago. Considering all the constant speaking at the meetings as just picking up the pieces.
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 02:46 am |
|
gadfly wrote: I would second that, Integrity.
I think a lot of people would..
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 02:46 am |
|
Last edited on Sun Nov 25th, 2007 02:46 am by integrityforPUSD
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 02:45 am |
|
| I would second that, Integrity.
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 02:40 am |
|
Nick,
I know you are considered to be very young, but you are also very wise in many ways. Would you consider running for a Governing Board seat in 2008? I think you could probably win...
|
dadof3
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 02:39 am |
|
| Nick, Although I do not agree with all your positions, your arguments are the arguments of reason, which is so unlike the arguments of many. I have said that I respected the speeches, especially of the students, the first two or three times. After that, it got real old, real fast, as they ratcheted up the rhetoric about woe is me because I can't go out to lunch. I cannot respect Joe's rantings about the Constitution, kidnapping, "they can't stop me," etc. He is mad, which you even allude to in your post, because he can't have lunch with his daughters whenever he wants, which isn't even true, he can sign them out every day if he wants to.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 02:23 am |
|
Nick -
Thank you. I really mean that. I learned something tonight.
|
Nick
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 02:07 am |
|
Gadfly,
It sounds like we're on the same page.
I might be able to help you understand part of the thinking behind those that speak every week, whether you agree with it or not. I was active and vocal on the committee that examined this and I spoke at meetings a couple times immediately following the decision against a complete closure. I would consider myself a part of the circle of people you speak of, so I've heard more than what they say at the meetings.
One reason many people cite for keeping up a fight against a closed campus is that it is more or less a "battle front" for a more philosophical power struggle between the "old board" and the "new board". It makes some sense, since this is largely the issue that started when the governing board conflicts began. I don't hold this as a righteous reason to continue the fight over closed campus, as it doesn't accomplish anything. I completely agree with you when you say the current board won't change their decision based on these speeches, or likely based on anything. I personally would find it more productive to speak on the important issues we know are being skipped. I think it would be great if we could have people speak about technology, high school modernization, and other issues like they are about lunch.
Although that is the big reason that I hear given, I think there is a bigger reason these parents and students speak out about this policy specifically. I think it is hard for parents and students to connect with what the district will be doing with technology in 5 years when they don't understand the state of IT in education and will be gone in 5 years. Its not easy for most of these people to understand the great importance of instructional specialists and curriculum planning in second grade science classes. But it is very prevalent when Joe Bernier wants to have lunch with his daughters because his work schedule is sporadic and sometimes that is when he can manage to spend some time with them. The thing I have gotten from talking with some of these parents and students that are so passionate about defending this issue isn't that they want to beat the new board members, or that they must have the policy changed so that justice is done throughout the district. Although they would love this, it isn't their primary concern. For parents, it is their desire to be able to raise their children in the way that they know is best. For the students, it is that they are fighting for a privilege they once had but was stripped from them for illogical reasons, even though the students present the logical reasons they should have the privilege in a mature manner.
I believe these parents and students are fighting for the right reasons, even though I often also wish that so much time wasn't devoted to this issue specifically. Although I can't speak for them, I do get the feeling that their deep, true motivations for this fight get lost in the methods they are using to fight. I know they have exhausted many of the silent channels like letter writing, emails, phone calls, and meetings with the board members and thus have turned to the board meetings as their channel. I do sympathize because the new board members once argued that we needed a more expansive call to the public so the public could be heard, and now that the public is using it they complain. But I also long for the time when a meeting was running late because it ended at 9.
I really hold nothing against your annoyance with the closed campus filibusters, I often feel the same way. Hopefully, though, this gives a bit more perspective on the reasons behind it as I've seen them, since most people don't see more than their 3 minutes at the meeting. One of my biggest fears is that this may go on for this issue and other issues as long as this board is divided, which very well may last through the next election or beyond.
Last edited on Sun Nov 25th, 2007 02:24 am by Nick
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 12:59 am |
|
Nick wrote: Hi Gadfly,
I have been following a couple of these threads in small bits and pieces, and I've heard you say a couple times that once we vote the board members in, we must wait until the next election to give our input into the decisions of the school board.
I know these forums can bring about a lot of argument because of the nature of these issues, but I also think it can be a place where we can learn about views we don't understand. I haven't read many of the posts lately so please forgive me if I missed something and correct me if I'm off the mark, but I don't agree that this is correct. Please allow me to explain:
We live in a democratic society and a large part of this is voting for our representatives to make decisions for us. This is a great and powerful thing because it allows every person to have a part in the ultimate decisions of our governmental process. I believe this is a large part of where you are coming from and I agree about this much. The part I disagree with is that this is the only time we have a say.
Many times we do not fully agree with what candidates say. I may support one candidate over another, but still not fully agree with what the second has to say. A candidate may never address some issues that they face later in office. And they may change their stance after being elected. All of these together present a problem with why voting alone is an imperfect measure of the will of the people. One solution to this is often proposed with respect to national issues. I often hear people say that if you have a problem with what the legislature is going to do, write a letter to your congressman. This is one form of voicing an opinion. Similar to the school board, many citizens will speak at city council meetings to voice complaints about urban development, city codes and policies, and other local issues. These channels are made available so that we as citizens can tell our elected officials that we disagree (or agree) with what they intend to do. It is useful if we like a candidate but not a specific decision they are going to make, or if we dislike a candidate and want them to hear our voice.
To imply that once we elect an official into office, that person is allowed to make decisions unchecked until the next election is an unfortunate view. If we did allow this to happen, it would be a dangerous thing. Conceivably, someone could run on one platform to get elected, then turn around and do the exact opposite and we couldn't do a thing about it.
I think I might be going a little far with this explanation, because I believe the big issue you have isn't the speaking out, but instead the continual speaking out on the same issue. I would personally not like to see so much time spent on this issue every meeting when there are far more important issues to address (high school modernization, perhaps the most important issue last meeting, was the only one skipped). But I do believe that allowing this is an important balance against candidates going against their electorate. I have been involved with this issue since it came up two years ago, and I have spoken at a couple of the meetings, and I will tell you why I believe this.
When the issue first came up, it was the same situation from the other side of the argument. A couple parents came to several meetings voicing their opposition to an open campus until the issue was reviewed. The issue was finally reviewed, and there was a split between open and closed campus. The school board chose a compromise between the two options with a partial closure. After the election, the newly elected school board decided to close the campuses completely, despite evidence that showed that the majority of parents did not want the campuses completely closed. The new parents are fighting against these board members who ignore the will of their electorate.
You might say that because the board members ran on a platform of closing the campuses and won, they did follow the will of the people. Honestly, this does present a bit of a challenge to my stance initially, because I do believe in elected officials running on platforms of what they intend to do. But there is a last piece of information about our democratic system to keep in mind. Although I do love the idea of democracy and would have a hard time finding a better system, there are inherent flaws in it that bring about some potential problems. Two of these are voter apathy and a lack of information. Many voters in the PUSD boundaries don't have kids in school, or do not know anything about the school board. Because of this, even though they vote, they don't research the candidates and may vote arbitrarily for candidates based on criteria unrelated to the people running. For example, I strongly believe Rick Murphy won by such a strong margin because the school board election is nonpartisan (no candidate had a party affiliation on the ballot) but since he was running for the legislature with the (R) next to his name, voters saw he was a Republican. Certainly he may have won without this, but it did get him Republican voters that didn't know any candidates.
In this case particularly, the election of Kathy Knecht and Rick Murphy does not mean that the parents of PUSD want the campuses closed. The only two statistically valid surveys about the opinion of parents both show that between a half and two thirds of parents do not want campuses completely closed. (I think I saw some argument about these statistics - I am a math major and if you'd like links and an explanation of what I mean by "valid", just ask).
I appologize for the length of this but I felt that with any less I wouldn't be able to be clear. If you can respond, I'm interested to hear if I understood your view correctly and if you can agree with what I am saying.
Nick -
A wonderful quote from Winston Churchill was:
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried.
I think I am in agreement with almost everything you have stated on this post. The point once the vote is in, the constituents have no right to protest or to attempt to change the members' votes is not my position, however. They absolutely have the right to do that and as I have stated several times in these blogs, I applauded the speeches (especially by the kids) that were given in protest of the policy.
Having said that, it is my opinion that this group has made their position clear through the board meeting speeches and to continue to do this week after week is making a complete farce of the system. You were absolutely correct when you stated there are far more important issues to address at these board meetings than whether my children eat in a school cafeteria. I do not believe these three minute calls to the public were intended to be a form of filibuster. I realize a filibuster is designed to keep the members from voting on an issue, but this is a form of filibuster in that are going to keep doing this until they get what they want. I think this is disrespecting the system. I think they have a right to respectfully express their opinion through emails, letters, phone calls, whatever, not to do what they're doing.
I actually support the parental permission for the lunches, as I have stated on numerous occasions. It was way down on my list of positions I looked for in my candidates, but I was in favor of it. I cannot for the life of me understand how this can be so important to this group. They can dress it up with anything they want, it's still about lunch. But what's important to me may be very unimportant to other people, I completely understand that. But, when members of this group state these board members have no right to do what they're doing, this is unconstitutional, against the law, whatever, it annoys me to no end. Even if the candidates didn't publicly state they were going to completely close the campuses (which they did), they have every right to do what they're doing. They do not have to go out to public opinion polls and gauge how the public sentiment is blowing. It may be politically unwise if a majority of the voters is committed to this issue as this group is, but I sincerely doubt they are. After all, I would have been included as favoring the open campuses, but I am clearly opposed to the actions of this group. I would guess, but cannot by any means prove, there are many more people out there like me.
Finally, your last point about voters not really understanding what they are voting for is valid. I'm not sure what the answer is, it is definitely a flaw in the system, but hopefully the uninformed will cancel each other out. Whether this happened in your scenario we will never know and the only thing I would suggest is the open campus group win by such a margin next time this will not be material.
I hope I addressed your points and thanks for the thoughtful positions you have brought up.
Last edited on Sun Nov 25th, 2007 02:12 am by gadfly
|
integrityforPUSD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 12:21 am |
|
| Gadfly, I do believe the ball is in your court.........
|
Nick
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24th, 2007 10:45 pm |
|
Hi Gadfly,
I have been following a couple of these threads in small bits and pieces, and I've heard you say a couple times that once we vote the board members in, we must wait until the next election to give our input into the decisions of the school board.
I know these forums can bring about a lot of argument because of the nature of these issues, but I also think it can be a place where we can learn about views we don't understand. I haven't read many of the posts lately so please forgive me if I missed something and correct me if I'm off the mark, but I don't agree that this is correct. Please allow me to explain:
We live in a democratic society and a large part of this is voting for our representatives to make decisions for us. This is a great and powerful thing because it allows every person to have a part in the ultimate decisions of our governmental process. I believe this is a large part of where you are coming from and I agree about this much. The part I disagree with is that this is the only time we have a say.
Many times we do not fully agree with what candidates say. I may support one candidate over another, but still not fully agree with what the second has to say. A candidate may never address some issues that they face later in office. And they may change their stance after being elected. All of these together present a problem with why voting alone is an imperfect measure of the will of the people. One solution to this is often proposed with respect to national issues. I often hear people say that if you have a problem with what the legislature is going to do, write a letter to your congressman. This is one form of voicing an opinion. Similar to the school board, many citizens will speak at city council meetings to voice complaints about urban development, city codes and policies, and other local issues. These channels are made available so that we as citizens can tell our elected officials that we disagree (or agree) with what they intend to do. It is useful if we like a candidate but not a specific decision they are going to make, or if we dislike a candidate and want them to hear our voice.
To imply that once we elect an official into office, that person is allowed to make decisions unchecked until the next election is an unfortunate view. If we did allow this to happen, it would be a dangerous thing. Conceivably, someone could run on one platform to get elected, then turn around and do the exact opposite and we couldn't do a thing about it.
I think I might be going a little far with this explanation, because I believe the big issue you have isn't the speaking out, but instead the continual speaking out on the same issue. I would personally not like to see so much time spent on this issue every meeting when there are far more important issues to address (high school modernization, perhaps the most important issue last meeting, was the only one skipped). But I do believe that allowing this is an important balance against candidates going against their electorate. I have been involved with this issue since it came up two years ago, and I have spoken at a couple of the meetings, and I will tell you why I believe this.
When the issue first came up, it was the same situation from the other side of the argument. A couple parents came to several meetings voicing their opposition to an open campus until the issue was reviewed. The issue was finally reviewed, and there was a split between open and closed campus. The school board chose a compromise between the two options with a partial closure. After the election, the newly elected school board decided to close the campuses completely, despite evidence that showed that the majority of parents did not want the campuses completely closed. The new parents are fighting against these board members who ignore the will of their electorate.
You might say that because the board members ran on a platform of closing the campuses and won, they did follow the will of the people. Honestly, this does present a bit of a challenge to my stance initially, because I do believe in elected officials running on platforms of what they intend to do. But there is a last piece of information about our democratic system to keep in mind. Although I do love the idea of democracy and would have a hard time finding a better system, there are inherent flaws in it that bring about some potential problems. Two of these are voter apathy and a lack of information. Many voters in the PUSD boundaries don't have kids in school, or do not know anything about the school board. Because of this, even though they vote, they don't research the candidates and may vote arbitrarily for candidates based on criteria unrelated to the people running. For example, I strongly believe Rick Murphy won by such a strong margin because the school board election is nonpartisan (no candidate had a party affiliation on the ballot) but since he was running for the legislature with the (R) next to his name, voters saw he was a Republican. Certainly he may have won without this, but it did get him Republican voters that didn't know any candidates.
In this case particularly, the election of Kathy Knecht and Rick Murphy does not mean that the parents of PUSD want the campuses closed. The only two statistically valid surveys about the opinion of parents both show that between a half and two thirds of parents do not want campuses completely closed. (I think I saw some argument about these statistics - I am a math major and if you'd like links and an explanation of what I mean by "valid", just ask).
I appologize for the length of this but I felt that with any less I wouldn't be able to be clear. If you can respond, I'm interested to hear if I understood your view correctly and if you can agree with what I am saying.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24th, 2007 10:17 pm |
|
Peoria - that's all you've got??? Really??? Come on, are you putting me on? That was truly PATHETIC.....
Frankly, Peoria, I think you may be better suited if you remained a cheerleader for Apache Mom and Frank and Earl - I don't think you should be allowed to be put in the game anymore......
Last edited on Sat Nov 24th, 2007 10:29 pm by gadfly
|
Peoria Dad
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24th, 2007 09:33 pm |
|
And P.S. Gadfly, I told you exactly where to find this information. Pity you're not smart enough to follow directions. Frankly, I'm beginning to feel sorry for you.
|
Peoria Dad
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24th, 2007 09:30 pm |
|
Gadfly, you should read what you post before commenting. You say they don't publish any opinions that disagree with them, but here, just two or three comments in we find this:
"I do not believe that the letter intended to be a threat, but I cannot see how public opinion finds the letter acceptable either. The teen was trying to make a point, but I would expect my child's administrator to at least do as this one did. (without the yelling!)."
Looks like you made a fool of yourself again.
Speaking of propoganda, I liked your rant about democracy, but it never did addressed my point. Better watch out. This habit of not answering questions is making you look rather cowardly.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24th, 2007 03:08 am |
|
Peoria Dad wrote: Wow. Guess you told me a thing of two Gadfly. Never mind that you went into a mindless rant and completely skated around the topic.
The evidence you ask for is on the school district's web site under the lunchtime procedures section. There you will find evidence that a majority of the committee supported a policy that allowed parents a say in their kids' lunch; that 69 percent of parents in a random sample survey wanted to leave that policy alone. Look it up for youself. I figured a smart, intelligent guy like you could figure out where to find them for himself. My mistake. I also figured you were smart enough to base your opinions on facts, but clearly that's just too inconvenient (although it is fun to watch Apache Mom smack you around when you try to do it and fail so miserably).
And the reason thousands of us read Frank and Mike is because, unlike you, they present us facts and let us decide for ourselves. You wouldn't know that because you claim to not read them (of course how you can claim they're hacks without having read them is a whole other leap of logic I'm sure you'll try to defend). Li | | |