Meet the Candidate - Peoria Public Issues Forum - Arizona Public Forums

Not logged in - Login | Register

Newszap Forums > Arizona Public Forums > Peoria Public Issues Forum > Meet the Candidate

Meet the Candidate

Author

Post

Joined:	Thu Jan 5th, 2006
Location:
Posts:	270
Status:	Offline

Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 04:12 pm

Quote

areyounotkidding me wrote:
"It is nice to see someone do some research before he shoots his mouth off. I get tired of people getting on these forums, blogs, not knowing what they're taliking about....jabber, jabber, jabber...."

It's time for you to practice what you preach.

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Tue Nov 11th, 2008 04:09 am

Quote

areyounotkidding me wrote: Augustine wrote: Paula/aynkm

Frank was referring to you, it was a typo, too bad you can't be adult enough to let the little things like that go.

The nastiness just keeps on coming, making fun of children?! I think your break-down left you without a conscience. Arguing the issues is one thing, getting personal, and picking on kids, shame on you. Be the adult, get some help, and stick to the topic.

I have said my peace, I hope you can focus on the topic and be a grown-up.

Augustine
And really, is nasally putting someone down? It's kind of like calling a person tall, light-skinned or that person has red hair......It's not like I called him boring or repetitive or nonsensical or full of hot air or anything like that....he's simply nasally....

<<Note from the Webmaster: While the essence of this post has been retained, a personal attack that included profanity and name-calling has been deleted by Webmaster after another member pointed out that it violated the “Free Speech With Civility” pledge that forum members make when they register. Remember, it’s possible to challenge another member’s opinions without attacking the individual. Let’s work together to keep your Public Forum clean and civil. >>

I APOLOGIZE TO ANYONE I OFFENDED BY QUOTING WHAT MICHAEL ERICKSON HAD POSTED ON HIS BLOG. I USED VERY POOR JUDGMENT AS NEWSZAP DEFINITELY ATTRACTS A MORE SOPHISTICATED AND CEREBRAL CROWD AND THERE IS NO ROOM FOR THAT TYPE OF CRUDE LANGUAGE ON THIS FORUM.

Last edited on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 04:10 am by areyounotkidding me

cheerleaderforclosers
Member

Joined:	Sun Dec 9th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	40
Status:	Offline

Posted: Mon Nov 10th, 2008 04:30 am

Quote

You just have to ignore AYNKM. He's not right in the head....

Cincinnatus
Member

Joined:	Wed Mar 28th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	35
Status:	Offline

Posted: Mon Nov 10th, 2008 04:18 am

Quote

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Is it just possible that we can carry on this discourse without calling each other names? That tends to get in the way of the topics and ideas we are discussing.

So my suggestion is more discussing and far less cussing. Perhaps none at all?

Thank you,

Joe McCord

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 04:22 pm

Quote

Augustine wrote: I do, but they have yet to make fun of any children or call any parent a nasty name because they disagree.

I am aware of their opinions about the Board, but when is the last time they attacked a kid or reader because they disagreed?

You, on the other hand, attack any one who has the nerve to disagree.

Good night, Paula, sweet dreams.

My Augustine. No one disagrees with anything these two guys say. Hence:

rdg7359
Member

Joined:	Sun Feb 12th, 2006
Location:
Posts:	186
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 01:27 pm

Quote

Cincinnatus wrote: Could I clarify that there are two "Joe's" involved here.

I'm the "other Joe."

Joe McCord
Sorry Mr. McCord. I was referring to Joe Bernier as the desparate Joe.

Thank you for clearing this up

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 06:23 am

Quote

Really, my Augustine, you seem to have a very selective memory. Good night, Sweet dreams and sleep like a sheep......

Augustine
Member

Joined:	Thu Dec 14th, 2006
Location:
Posts:	94
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 05:02 am

Quote

I do, but they have yet to make fun of any children or call any parent a nasty name because they disagree.

I am aware of their opinions about the Board, but when is the last time they attacked a kid or reader because they disagreed?

You, on the other hand, attack any one who has the nerve to disagree.

Good night, Paula, sweet dreams.

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 04:42 am

Quote

Obviously you don't read Frank's and Michael's blogs then????

Augustine
Member

Joined:	Thu Dec 14th, 2006
Location:
Posts:	94
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 04:39 am

Quote

There you go, nasty as usual. Enjoy yourself, I can do without the hate and name calling.

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 04:36 am

Quote

Augustine wrote: Paula/aynkm

Frank was referring to you, it was a typo, too bad you can't be adult enough to let the little things like that go.

The nastiness just keeps on coming, making fun of children?! I think your break-down left you without a conscience. Arguing the issues is one thing, getting personal, and picking on kids, shame on you. Be the adult, get some help, and stick to the topic.

I have said my peace, I hope you can focus on the topic and be a grown-up.

Augustine
And really, is nasally putting someone down? It's kind of like calling a person tall, light-skinned or that person has red hair......It's not like I called him boring or repetitive or nonsensical or full of hot air or anything like that....he's simply nasally....

<<Note from the Webmaster: While the essence of this post has been retained, a personal attack that included profanity and name-calling has been deleted by Webmaster after another member pointed out that it violated the “Free Speech With Civility” pledge that forum members make when they register. Remember, it’s possible to challenge another member’s opinions without attacking the individual. Let’s work together to keep your Public Forum clean and civil. >>

Augustine
Member

Joined:	Thu Dec 14th, 2006
Location:
Posts:	94
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 04:33 am

Quote

Paula/aynkm

Frank was referring to you, it was a typo, too bad you can't be adult enough to let the little things like that go.

The nastiness just keeps on coming, making fun of children?! I think your break-down left you without a conscience. Arguing the issues is one thing, getting personal, and picking on kids, shame on you. Be the adult, get some help, and stick to the topic.

I have said my peace, I hope you can focus on the topic and be a grown-up.

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 04:26 am

Quote

Frank1234 wrote: rdg7359 wrote: Here we go again..

Someone will have to get Joe his soapbox to stand on.

Where did we leave off, it was so long ago?

I remember Joe crying that his Constitutional Rights were being violated, He cried about a State Statute being violated, He threw his own daughter to the wolves and let us not forget the best one of all.....his reference to Columbine.

When all the dust settled from Joe throwing everything at us in desperation including the kitchen sink, it all came down to Joe himself being inconvenienced by the policy of the PUSD pertaining to student's being able to leave campus for lunch.

If memory serves me correctly the PUSD policy is that parents are required to give daily permission for their children to leave campus at lunch.

There are members on the PUSD that ran an election campaign supporting closed campuses and they ended up being elected onto the board. It all comes down to the child's safety and the PUSD's responsibility to ensure a child's safety while at school, PERIOD.

Let the games begin!

It is nice to see you did some research before you shot your mouth off.

It is nice to see someone do some research before he shoots his mouth off. I get tired of people getting on these forums, blogs, not knowing what they're taliking about....jabber, jabber, jabber, Nobel lease, jabber, jabber, jabber. And then, what I hate, is the people that get on there and agree with the people who shoot their mouth off even though they know this person is telling fibs....

I'm with you, Frankie......you are right on the money

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 03:29 am

Quote

Frank1234 wrote: areyounotkidding me wrote: Okay Adam's in, too. What's nasally Preston doing, can we bring him back and dust off his stump speech?
Paula, Areyoukiddingme, whatever you call yourself. I have hit a new low with this. Comments about a kid’s voice!

Wow, for you to hit a new low, you must have been plenty disgusted.....

Last edited on Sun Nov 9th, 2008 04:34 am by areyounotkidding me

Frank1234
Member

Joined:	Fri Dec 15th, 2006
Location:
Posts:	101
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 01:43 am

Quote

rdg7359 wrote: Here we go again..

Someone will have to get Joe his soapbox to stand on.

Where did we leave off, it was so long ago?

I remember Joe crying that his Constitutional Rights were being violated, He cried about a State Statute being violated, He threw his own daughter to the wolves and let us not forget the best one of all.....his reference to Columbine.

When all the dust settled from Joe throwing everything at us in desperation including the kitchen sink, it all came down to Joe himself being inconvenienced by the policy of the PUSD pertaining to student's being able to leave campus for lunch.

If memory serves me correctly the PUSD policy is that parents are required to give daily permission for their children to leave campus at lunch.

There are members on the PUSD that ran an election campaign supporting closed campuses and they ended up being elected onto the board. It all comes down to the child's safety and the PUSD's responsibility to ensure a child's safety while at school, PERIOD.

Let the games begin!

It is nice to see you did some research before you shot your mouth off.

Frank1234
Member

Joined:	Fri Dec 15th, 2006
Location:
Posts:	101
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 01:41 am

Quote

areyounotkidding me wrote: Okay Adam's in, too. What's nasally Preston doing, can we bring him back and dust off his stump speech?
Paula, Areyoukiddingme, whatever you call yourself. I have hit a new low with this. Comments about a kid’s voice!

Cincinnatus
Member

Joined:	Wed Mar 28th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	35
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 12:44 am

Quote

Could I clarify that there are two "Joe's" involved here.

I'm the "other Joe."

Joe McCord

rdg7359
Member

Joined:	Sun Feb 12th, 2006
Location:
Posts:	186
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 08:32 pm

Quote

Here we go again..

Someone will have to get Joe his soapbox to stand on.

Where did we leave off, it was so long ago?

I remember Joe crying that his Constitutional Rights were being violated, He cried about a State Statute being violated, He threw his own daughter to the wolves and let us not forget the best one of all.....his reference to Columbine.

When all the dust settled from Joe throwing everything at us in desperation including the kitchen sink, it all came down to Joe himself being inconvenienced by the policy of the PUSD pertaining to student's being able to leave campus for lunch.

If memory serves me correctly the PUSD policy is that parents are required to give daily permission for their children to leave campus at lunch.

There are members on the PUSD that ran an election campaign supporting closed campuses and they ended up being elected onto the board. It all comes down to the child's safety and the PUSD's responsibility to ensure a child's safety while at school, PERIOD.

Let the games begin!

Last edited on Sat Nov 8th, 2008 10:34 pm by rdg7359

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 04:59 pm

Quote

Okay Adam's in, too. What's nasally Preston doing, can we bring him back and dust off his stump speech?

Adam Maras
Member

Joined:	Wed Dec 5th, 2007
Location:	Glendale, Arizona USA
Posts:	201
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 04:25 pm

Quote

cheerleaderforclosers wrote: Joewrites4rights wrote: RUNKM...

The closers didn't let it go...neither will I....and to explain to Mr. McCord that someone was giving him false information.

Joe, but once again, they have at least 3 votes, and probably 4, the openers don't have three votes. So, until your side gets the three votes, let's put this to rest for two years.
No, let's not.

cheerleaderforclosers
Member

Joined:	Sun Dec 9th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	40
Status:	Offline

Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 10:18 pm

Quote

Joewrites4rights wrote: RUNKM...

The closers didn't let it go...neither will I....and to explain to Mr. McCord that someone was giving him false information.

Joe, but once again, they have at least 3 votes, and probably 4, the openers don't have three votes. So, until your side gets the three votes, let's put this to rest for two years.

Last edited on Fri Nov 7th, 2008 10:19 pm by cheerleaderforclosers

Joewrites4rights
Member

Joined:	Fri May 25th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	298
Status:	Offline

Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 09:03 pm

Quote

RUNKM...

For the same reason the closers brought it back up once new board members were elected. The closers didn't let it go...neither will I....and to explain to Mr. McCord that someone was giving him false information.

It does do me good....and the district good...to get the truth out there. Too many lies and urban myths are going around and around, some people are starting to think the closers statements are true....even the post below by unhappy wrongly assumes we must go in to sign our students out on a daily basis....NOT TRUE!!! The word daily is not found anywhere in the policy!! Joe Bernier

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 08:31 pm

Quote

Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee. Pray for us sinners and for us who may have to hear these three minute speeches about lunch at the board meetings again because it appears Joe is going to rev up the BS machine again, now and until the hour of our death. Amen.

Last edited on Sat Nov 8th, 2008 02:36 am by areyounotkidding me

Peoria Dad
Member

Joined:	Thu Jan 5th, 2006
Location:
Posts:	270
Status:	Offline

Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 07:28 pm

Quote

Because it's his right as a citizen to do so. Hammer them hard Joe.

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 06:26 pm

Quote

Joe

It's simple math. At least 3 out 5 are not changing their minds, so why are you starting this up again???? It does you no good and ,more importantly, it does this district no good....So what's the point?

Joewrites4rights
Member

Joined:	Fri May 25th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	298
Status:	Offline

Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 04:02 pm

Quote

Mr. McCord and others...

I'm sorry you feel that way, I'm sorry that you won't take the time to correct a wrong done by your future colleagues on the board. If you continue with the outlook of " nothing needs to be done because everything has already been decided", why even show up to any meetings?

Just a quick note to set the record straight. The only research that was done by the district or board was done just prior to the previous boards actions to create the "parental permission" closed campus environment. There was absolutely NO research done on this subject by the current board or the district when they voted to close the campuses at lunchtime. No "new" evidence....NOTHING!!!!

The ONLY thing that changed was Knecht and Murphy taking their board positions. THEY brought it back up onto the agenda and CHANGED the policy from what had been created just the prior year. They did this with NO further research by the board or the district. In fact KK brought up a motion to disband and end the Open/Closed Campus Committee (which the three voted to do) just prior to their motions to vote on (against committee recommendation) changing the campuses from "parental permission" to "closed all the way". This current policy is a farce and EVERY board promise about more food choices, more lines, and a better lunch environment have been nothing but blatant lies. Now that the lunch times have been decreased by 8-10 minutes....the students are even more angry and upset....Now I learn that the attitude of the districts personnel regarding all of this is (said to my face at a district meeting) "oh well...they didn't give us the resources to do what they said would happen, and there is nothing we can do about it". This is unacceptable!!

This is good enough for the closers.....but not for those of us (and the students) who have been lied to over and over again. If you want to just sit back and wait for something that creates "new" evidence....go ahead. There was NO "old" evidence that supported closing the campuses at lunch....only power starved people wishing to control others, and parents that can't control their own kids forcing the district to control everyone else's. It really was that simple. I guess we all get the shaft until we find evidence of that changing. Joe Bernier

Cincinnatus
Member

Joined:	Wed Mar 28th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	35
Status:	Offline

Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 05:28 am

Quote

Mr. Bernier and others:

I fear that my last reply was written late in the evening after a very long day which followed a very long election night and that I probably was tired and didn't pay as much attention to my words as I should have, and for that I apologize. Normally I choose my words very carefully so that there are no ambiguities and no chance for misinterpretation. I was, perhaps, a tad hasty last night.

Let me state, in clear and certain terms, what my position is on the "open vs closed campus" issue.

The issue is dead as far as I am concerned and "internum mortius." It was debated fully, information and data were presented on both sides, the board considered everything and voted in favor of a closed campus policy. i have stated, and I say again, I would consider reopening the issue only if overwhelming new (here I have added the word "new") evidence is presented which would justify a reconsideration. Lacking that, it would be a total waste of time because three of the members (Douglas, Knecht, and Murphy) who voted for closed campuses last time still are on the board and one can only presume that they will vote the same way again if the same data and information is presented.

What is "overwhelming" new evidence? I have no idea, but it would have to be strong enough to convince one of those three to vote to reopen the issue and, frankly, I just don't see that happening.

Therefore, let us give the dead a proper burial, sprinkle a little dirt on it, say the proper words to send it on its way to whatever destination it is headed, and move on.

I can see no reason to spend any more effort on it considering we have so many more issues to occupy our time. Shall we talk about budget shortfalls? salary increases for teachers and others? shortages of classroom supplies? raising funds from other sources? creative and innovative classroom projects? truancy and dropout problems? early releases? social promotions? "teaching to the test" problems? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum?

C'mon, folks. It truly is time to move on.

Mr. Bernier, I will be happy to meet with you any time but let us talk about things we can do something about.

Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.

Joe McCord

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 12:34 am

Quote

Yeah, Joe, why are we stirring this up again? It sounds as if you have figured out a method to sign your child out every day, so what's the problem?

Let's move on to the next thing.....

unhappyinpusd
Member

Joined:	Sun Oct 26th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	6
Status:	Offline

Posted: Thu Nov 6th, 2008 10:01 pm

Quote

Mr. McCord: I voted for you based upon the belief that you hold true to the conviction that closing campuses was the RIGHT thing to do. Administrators throughout the district agree that closing campuses was the right thing to do and there are more than enough other issues on the Board's agenda to deal with rather than wasting any more time on this moot point. The students should remain on campus during the school day. Period. If Joe Bernier is unhappy with that policy, he has always been welcome to come to the campus and personally sign his child out for lunch on a daily basis. In the alternative, Joe Bernier also has the option of home schooling or locating another school in the area where his children may leave campus freely (good luck - Joe B - finding any school in the immediate area with an "open" policy) PLEASE - Joe B - give it up, once and for all. PLEASE.

Cincinnatus
Member

Joined:	Wed Mar 28th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	35
Status:	Offline

Posted: Thu Nov 6th, 2008 04:23 am

Quote

Dear Mr. Bernier:

I would be delighted to meet with you and discuss this. My statements were based on what I was told by PUSD administrators and board members. Could they be wrong? Of course. Could you be right? Of course.

Obviously, we cannot arrange anything through this particular medium so please email me at: joemccord@cox.net and I will respond (yes, I know I am broadcasting my email address to the world but I have no problem with that -- if someone else wants to contact me that way, its fine. If I think they are abusive I will merely state: "Ite domum saturae, venit Hesperus, ite capellae!" and it will serve them right! After which I will assign their email address to my junk list and all future email addresses from them will go directly to the round file).

Procul, o procul este, profani!

Joe McCord

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 09:05 pm

Quote

Peoria Dad wrote:
Again, I seriously question the example you set for your children.

I am questioning the example also because I think I hate teenagers....Why can't they stay seven

I love these sayings as I am finding myself with too many teenagers:

Adolescence is perhaps nature's way of preparing parents to welcome the empty nest.

Adolescence is a period of rapid changes. Between the ages of 12 and 17, for example, a parent ages as much as 20 years.

Last edited on Tue Nov 4th, 2008 09:13 pm by areyounotkidding me

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 05:09 pm

Quote

Okay, here we go......

Joewrites4rights
Member

Joined:	Fri May 25th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	298
Status:	Offline

Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 03:51 pm

Quote

a. Open/closed campuses. Is this really still an issue? It seems to me that it was fully debated and resolved last year. a school has the legal obligation to care for those children in its custory (and anyone under 18 is, legally, a child) and do everything it can to insure their safety. This is the concept of "in loco parentis" or, to translate it from the Latin and put it in simple English "the school is the 'parent' of the child as long as the school has custody of the child," -- literally "in place of the parent"). Students leaving a campus during a lunch hour placed an impossible legal burden on the schools and this matter was, in my opinion, rightly resolved by the PUSD board. I would not change that precedent unless overwhelming evidence to the contrary was presented and I do not see such evidence forthcoming.

Mr McCord...

Thank you for taking the time to respond about what I wrote. I want you to know that I respect your willingness to serve on the board...Thank you. While I don't wish to rewrite everything I have before about this...I do want to address a few things so you can see our point of view about this. Please keep in mind that I write like I talk...very bluntly. It is not meant to be rude or snide, so please don't take it that way. BTW...I would love the chance to meet you in person on day and discuss some of this.

First, I have shown (many times in the past) that campuses are LESS safe when closed. I can show you this in person (I have 3 binders of info). I was on the Open/Closed campus committee and I took it very seriously. If you are going to challenge my evidence, then you must first challenge yours, (since the "safety statement" was the first to be made). Where did you get your facts about campuses being made safer once they are closed? I have heard this statement many, many times...but NO ONE can bring forth ANY evidence that supports it. Furthermore, I have visited 17 high schools in 5 states regarding this...Each and EVERY one has had an increase in on-campus violence and incidences since closing. Not one has been made safer. All of the evidence I can find shows this same thing. And to use your words....the sun still rose before the campuses were closed. What changed to cause this increase? Simple...human beings were locked up tight in a small space, given very few choices of what to do with their time, forced into long lines,given a short time to eat, feeling despotically controlled and disrespected for no reason...logical thinking? Is this the way to treat students?

Second...there can only be "in place of the parent" when there is an "absence of the parent". If you do the research of when this was introduced in the schools...it pertains to punishment. It has NO business being used to supersede and overturn the parents lawful decisions. Parents DON'T grant "custody" of there child to the schools. Parents are still 100% responsible for their children's actions 100% of the time...even when they are at school. There is no absence of the parent in this issue, and the parents have not agreed to have the schools be "in their place" when they sign the permission form to leave the campus for lunch...quite the opposite.

Your statement about precedence was following your sentence about the legal burden placed on the schools about this issue. Obviously, that's what lead me to think you were actually talking about a legal precedence that was set somewhere.... I have heard this argument many times as well, even though no one can produce any evidence to support it. I wanted to clear that up. And as I have shown in the past...the precedence IS that the schools are NOT liable for the students actions off campus at lunch....especially with parental permission. To use your argument that you would overturn this precedence if any evidence was found....the precedence was the open campus...NO evidence was found to overturn that precedence when they decided to close it...so I trust that you will vote to open it back up to the parents to decide. All the evidence showed that THAT was working just fine.

I would also like to comment about the privacy thing (regarding correspondence). We need to consider the source when putting any weight behind the opinions and comments we consider. The opinions of those that wish to hide behind a veil should have little weight or even be discarded. One really needs to ask why someone would want to voice an opinion and hide at the same time? If someone has an opinion worthy of voicing....they will stand behind their words and their identity. Simply put...if they didn't want to identify themselves in an email sent to a board member, they would have sent it anonymously. But they choose to send it personally in order to but their name behind their words, and in doing so, they are corresponding publicly. They should not have assumed otherwise....all correspondence with a public official is public, this is the basis for openness and transparency. Actions speak louder than words....The current actions of these members of the board clearly show that they have something to hide.

Thanks for taking the time to read this....Joe Bernier

Peoria Dad
Member

Joined:	Thu Jan 5th, 2006
Location:
Posts:	270
Status:	Offline

Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 05:40 am

Quote

areyounotkidding me wrote: These are Joe McCord's words. I only said I agreed with them, because I do. This whole thing is a fishing trip orchestrated by someone who is not honorable whose only intent was to cause trouble.
How do you know that? Where's your proof? And is it OK for elected officials to disobey the law?

Again, I seriously question the example you set for your children.

Cincinnatus
Member

Joined:	Wed Mar 28th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	35
Status:	Offline

Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 03:14 am

Quote

Joe McCord writes:

On the night before the election I probably shouldn't bother to answer but since I really don't like these charges to fly on their own I feel the need to, at the very least, comment.

Let's look at the Latin first. My accuser says that "in loco parentis" means "in the absence of the parent" whereas I wrote that it means "in the place of the parent." Those are two widely divergent definitions so let's see what Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary says: "In the place of the parent." Not good enough? OK, let's go to the Revised and Updated Illustrated Oxford Dictionary: "In the place or position of the parent." Two rather reliable sources, wouldn't one think? And I never said anything about corporal punishment, nor did I imply it. That comment came out of thin air.

My accuser points to the National Safety Institutes "#'s" as being proof that closing campuses makes them more unsafe. Nice broad statement. Now prove it! He said: "Even PUSD's campuses (shouldn't that be campi?) have experienced more fights and drug related incidents since this has happened." Well, back to Latin again. This kind of statement is what Latin scholars (and debate specialists) call "post hoc ergo propter hoc." Literal translation: "after this therefore because of this." You might as well say that "the 9/11 tragedy happened after the sun arose in the east, therefore it was the sun rising which caused it!" Pretty awful analogy, wouldn't you agree? Certainly, but there are people who love to use "post hoc" arguments because it fits their mindset. Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.

My accuser also said I used the phrase "legal precedent." Sorry, friend, go back and reread what I wrote. Oh, OK, I'll do it for you since you seem to have trouble finding what I actually wrote. Here, word for word, is what I wrote; "I would not change that precedent unless overwhelming evidence to the contrary was presented and I do not see such evidence forthcoming."
Nowhere did I use the phrase "legal precedence" since I fully understand that school board rulings and decisions do not have the force of law and can be overturned by any court. I also said, by reasonable inference, that I would change the precedent if overwhelming evidence to the contrary was presented. In this I am merely following what virtually every court in this land does, follow precedence unless there is good reason to overturn or reverse it. Isn't that the temperament most people want in a board member, or do you think I should bend with every shift of the wind and every turn of the tide? If that's what you want in a board member, then please do not vote for me. I am mindful of the Roman warning: "Tempus fugit, gloria mundi!" No, I'm not going to tell you. Look it up for yourself.

As to Peoria Dad's problem with my protecting the average person's privacy, sorry I see no logical reason to reveal the name of a private citizen communing with an elected official. I can seen nothing to be gained by any such revelation but I do see enormous harm being done in that, in the future, the average citizen will feel constrained from such a communication, for obvious reasons. Its why we have shield laws, silent witness laws, and protections for whistle blowers. If people are fearful of speaking up then they won't, even if what they have to say is vitally important to the body politic. Experto credite.

Finally, you may call me names if you wish, but name calling usually implies a lack of vocabulary and, at best, a tenuous argument. Nonetheless, to quote Francois Marie Arouet "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Let me close with what I recognize to be so true: "Non omnia possumus omnes."

Don't forget to vote!

Joe McCord

Last edited on Tue Nov 4th, 2008 03:22 am by Cincinnatus

Cincinnatus
Member

Joined:	Wed Mar 28th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	35
Status:	Offline

Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 03:14 am

Quote

Last edited on Tue Nov 4th, 2008 03:23 am by Cincinnatus

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 10:53 pm

Quote

These are Joe McCord's words. I only said I agreed with them, because I do. This whole thing is a fishing trip orchestrated by someone who is not honorable whose only intent was to cause trouble.

Last edited on Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 10:58 pm by areyounotkidding me

Peoria Dad
Member

Joined:	Thu Jan 5th, 2006
Location:
Posts:	270
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 10:47 pm

Quote

areyounotkidding me wrote: e. Public Records (actually access to documents). This may, or may not, be an issue. It's genesis is the passing back and forth of emails last year between certain board members and citizens. Are such documents actually "public records"? There are serious legal questions here. Just because a citizen and a board member exchange emails, is it right to identify the citizen involved? I have my doubts. No question about identifying the board member. Anyone who is in, or runs for, public office must forfeit certain privacy rights. That is the way it ought to be. But, just because a citizen asks questions of a public officer, does he or she also forfeit those same privacy rights? My inclination is to say "No." I have no problem in identifying the matter being discussed but I have serious problems with disclosing the identity of the citizen involved. Certainly that would have a chilling effect on citizens communicating with public officials. This question probably will have to be referred to an attorney for his opinion or, ultimately, to a court for a legal determination. I am not qualified to make such a legal judgment but, if I were, I most certainly would come down on the side of protecting the citizen's privacy.You're wrong, and you know it. The ombudsman's report specifically noted that the name of the person is a matter of public record.

And, for your information, this WAS referred to an attorney. The person who repsonded for the ombudman's office is an attorney who specializes in Arizona's public records law. In otherwords, all "serious legal issues" were already addressed, you're just too stupid to see it.

What you can't admit is that Diane Douglas and Rick Murphy both remain in violation of the law, and that you fully support people who think they don't have to obey the law.

Quite an example you've set for your kids.

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 07:29 pm

Quote

Joe

These are Joe McCord's words. I agree with what he is saying. Whether his Latin is correct, I could care less. Whether your assertions are correct without any backup as usual, I could also care less.

Joe, let's not resurrect this closed campus issue. This is so insignificant compared to the budget constraints we are about to face in the district.

Please.....

Joewrites4rights
Member

Joined:	Fri May 25th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	298
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 05:32 pm

Quote

RUnotKidding...

I have to comment about this post by you because you are blatantly wrong about "in loco parentis"...it means in absence if the parent. FYI...there is no absence of the parent with the parental permission form. It does NOT mean the school is the parent of the child.

The history of "in loco parentis" pertains to corporal punishment (i.e. the spanking/slapping of children by school personnel) Fact....schools are no longer able to use corporal punishment (even "in loco parentis") AND schools are not allowed to act on their own against a student without first notifying the parents/guardian.

Second...your assumption of safety is false...NOT EVEN ONE campus has been made safer. NOT ONE!!! In fact, closing campuses makes the campus more UNSAFE!!! Just look up the National Safety Institutes #'s online and see for yourself. Even PUSD's campuses have experienced more fights and drug related incidences since this has happened.....only a matter of time before something worse happens. Then the legal burden you speak of will be real.

One more thing....your statement of it being a legal precedent is FALSE (and an outright misleading lie)....not one campus in America has been held liable for a high schooler leaving campus at lunch...People have tried to sue districts over this...AND LOST....every judge has found that it is THE PARENTS that carry the burden of responsibility for the student's actions...NOT the schools...and THAT is the true precedent!!! !!! Joe Bernier

rdg7359
Member

Joined:	Sun Feb 12th, 2006
Location:
Posts:	186
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 10:34 pm

Quote

Last edited on Sat Nov 1st, 2008 10:34 pm by rdg7359

No1SphL
Member

Joined:	Sun Apr 13th, 2008
Location:	Homeless, Florida USA
Posts:	116
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 04:58 pm

Quote

Vote McCain/Palin for a free America

areyounotkidding me
Member

Joined:	Tue Aug 12th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	187
Status:	Offline

Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 02:19 pm

Quote

Last edited on Sat Nov 1st, 2008 02:20 pm by areyounotkidding me

avlpoaresident
Member

Joined:	Thu May 18th, 2006
Location:
Posts:	15
Status:	Offline

Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 02:48 am

Quote

Mr. McCord,

I just read your reply to "Not" - and I am Not impressed.

Possibly, "Not" was eluding to the idea of your eloquent speeches, and then your inaction once in office - thus not ruffling the feathers of your peers.

During your almost two terms on the Ventana Lakes Board there have been many, many injustices directed by the Board toward the residents of Ventana Lakes and you sat idly by, saying little to nothing - but Not standing up for the residents of Ventana Lakes.

Currently our community is in turmoil due to the Board's (of which you are a member) members acting like they are highly experienced, but failing to produce a credible budget, then overspending on unplanned and unnecessary paving and kitchen work, while our facilities and landscape are going to ruins.

Your response to "gadfly" sounded familiar from past pre- election speeches of not resting until our community was the Best in the Nation. Please, Mr. McCord, do not run our school system into the ground.

Cincinnatus
Member

Joined:	Wed Mar 28th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	35
Status:	Offline

Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 09:44 pm

Quote

Dear "Not"

The first time I was elected it was for a one year term only (it was the last year of Chuck Shumm's 3 year term). Last March I was elected to a one year term and that was fine with me. I never intended to make a career on the Ventana Lakes board but only to help in any way I could.

And, for the record, I have given credit to all the people who helped in the recall effort (and there were many). All I ever said was that I started the recall campaign, which was true. That it was successful was not because of me but because so many Ventana Lakes residents wanted to change the then board. Since it worked, I really don't care who gets the credit. If someone else had started it, I would have worked with that person.

Joe McCord

not in this lifetime
Member

Joined:	Thu Jan 4th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	36
Status:	Offline

Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 04:56 pm

Quote

I have just read your comments, Joe. How would you rate your performance on the Board of Ventana Lakes? I believe you have been on that board more than once, each time you run you are only elected for a one year term while others get the 3 year terms.

You have suggested in the past that you were the force behind the recall in Ventana Lakes, have you ever given credit to all the residences that helped you obtain signatures by going door to door, gave you donations, and/or supported you by signing?

Many of these same residence are not supporting you any longer, could that be because you took all the credit and shared none of it with them?

I sincerely hope that when you are elected to the Peoria school board you will be more humble.

Cincinnatus
Member

Joined:	Wed Mar 28th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	35
Status:	Offline

Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 04:17 am

Quote

Dear Gadfly:

Thank you for your comment.

I will do my best to justify your vote.

If i ever falter then I expect you to hold my feet to the fire, but i also think that you won't ever have to do that (well, OK, maybe a smoldering briquet or two from time to time but never a full-fledged conflagration).

My ultimate goal is to make the PUSD the envy of not just the state but the entire nation. I won't quit until we reach that point. Maybe not even then.

Joe McCord

gadfly
Member

Joined:	Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	325
Status:	Offline

Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 04:02 pm

Quote

Mr. McCord:

If you turn out to be only half as good a board member as you write and express yourself, you are going to be awesome. What you wrote here is truly impressive.

You have my vote!

Last edited on Sat Oct 25th, 2008 05:18 pm by gadfly

JulieAnne
Member

Joined:	Tue Jan 9th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	359
Status:	Online

Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 05:49 pm