| Author | Post |
|---|
areyounotkidding me
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 187 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 11:33 pm |
|
Apache Mom:
 Joemccord said...
Joe McCord wrote
Because I, too, was curious I checked into it. The cost is NOT covered by the PUSD insurance plan since it involved the cancellation of a contract and that is specifically excluded under the insurance terms. The money will have to come from the M & O budget and that's a real shame.
I will make certain that something like that never happens when I am on the board.
Joe McCord
Thank you, Mr. McCord
Would you like also to retract your statement while Mr. Erickson does the same thing? You lived through Watergate, didn't you? It wasn't the crime that was committed, it was the coverup afterwards that hung Nixon and crew....You aren't looking particularly good right now. Who in the district office specifically did you talk to, Apache Mom?
And, to answer another of your inane questions: yes, PUSD is self-insured, but like all self-insured agencies carries and pays for liablity insurance from an independent provider. The very reason for carrying this insurance is, in fact, to pay off law suits.
This information comes straight from the district administrator in charge of insurance.
I suggest in the future you pick up a phone and gather a little information before making a fool of yourself again.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 11:47 pm by areyounotkidding me
|
areyounotkidding me
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 187 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:47 pm |
|
Apache Mom
We will see if Frank participates in this changing of the posts (he will probably delete the whole thing), but here is Tractor Pull Guy's full post on September 1 that I copied this morning.
Credibilty anyone? Screen photos, huh?
Anonymous said...
"You left out one important fact - Douglas was on the board at that time, too. Funny how you leave that part out when you look to lay blame...."
"During a discussion at the Aug. 12 school board meeting, all three took shots at the former school board for its unanimous approval of a rental contract to ease overcrowding at Sunrise Mountain High School. We’ve come to expect that of Murphy, of course, because that’s the sole reason he ran for the school board. Douglas, naturally, forgot to remind everyone that she was one of five board members who voted to approve the contract in the first place."
"In May 2003, we subleased to the Unified School District No. 11, of Maricopa
County, Arizona, the premises at which we had previously operated our Fletcher
Heights Charter Elementary School, and in August 2003, we sold to Partnership
With Parents, Inc. (an Arizona non-profit corporation) the premises at which we
had previously owned and operated our Desert Heights Charter Elementary School.
As a result of these two transactions in 2003, we exited both the Arizona market
and our direct ownership of charter schools."
I know I keep say I'm going to leave, but just like Columbo, just one more thing I'm having a problem with...
There are three quotes above. One from a poster on this site, the second one from Michael Erickson, and the third from the 10K of Nobel Learning Centers. My question is: how did Diane Douglas "approve the contract in the first place"? The contract was approved in May 2003, Douglas was elected in November of 2004 (please coorect me if I'm wrong), how did she have any hand in approving this contract?
While we're at it, here is another post from Michael Erickson regarding Nobel that I'm having a problem with:
"Who does she think she’s kidding? Not a penny of that settlement will come at the come from the classroom or any other part of the school district’s maintenance and operations budget. I will come from the district’s insurance carrier".
Please "educate" me again here. If the Peoria School District is self-insured (again correct me if I'm wrong if it is not), doesn't that mean that PUSD does not have an insurance carrier to pay this and that is the reason there was discussion from the board about budgeting for the future for this $1.25 million?
I'm surprised none of you asked these same questions.
Well, a big day today. Off to the monster truck show.
September 1, 2008 8:10:00 AM MST
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 325 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 06:18 am |
|
Apache Mommy:
So you called someone from the district and the district's liability carrier is going to pay this....Isn't that what you have stated below....Well, someone should probably tell the board that because it appears to me they are budgeting for this. See minutes below. You really do make stuff up, don't you?
The Board was advised that the District might also be responsible for attorney fees. The total loss to the District could reach $2,700,000. If PUSD were to win the verdict, the amount the District would owe would be $0. The amount of the settlement proposal that resulted from the mediation hearing was $1,250,000, roughly half the amount of a jury trial loss.
Mr. Cantelme and his partner Mr. Aaron Brown reviewed the settlement proposal and recommended Board acceptance in the best interest of the District. This recommendation was made by Mr. Cantelme and Mr. Brown due to the ambiguity of the language of the sublease and the uncertainty of the outcome of a jury trial.
Mediation Conference Memorandum Between Nobel Learning Communities, Inc. and PUSD
Mr. Cantelme outlined the specifics of the settlement proposal, which include four payments, the first for $500,000 due on or before July 18, 2009. The final three payments of $250,000 each would be payable on July 18 each year with the final payment on July 18, 2012.
Mr. Murphy moved to accept the results of the mediation hearing and proposed settlement agreement as outlined by counsel. The motion was seconded by Ms. Raeder. There was further discussion in which Board members expressed dismay at the need to accept a compromise that could redirect district funds from educational programming, but acknowledged the risks associated with a jury trial. Board members voted on the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mrs. Douglas reported that Mrs. Galbraith was excused due to illness
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 325 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 05:47 am |
|
By the way, Apache Mom, you have screen photos of Erickson's blog? What are you, a blog groupie? I find that more than a bit strange...
Look it up on Frank's blog, it's right there...before you call him and ask him to change it....
So, why is the district budgeting for this $1.25 million, Apache Mommy?
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 06:36 am by gadfly
|
Apache Mom
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 95 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 05:41 am |
|
Oh, I get it. We're supposed to take you at your word. Again, do you have any proof? The answer is, no, you don't. You're a liar, and we all know it.
And, to answer another of your inane questions: yes, PUSD is self-insured, but like all self-insured agencies carries and pays for liablity insurance from an independent provider. The very reason for carrying this insurance is, in fact, to pay off law suits.
This information comes straight from the district administrator in charge of insurance.
I suggest in the future you pick up a phone and gather a little information before making a fool of yourself again.
I'd comment on your credibility, but you can't comment on something that doesn't exist.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 325 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 05:25 am |
|
Apache Mom
Before Frank changes this, here is my post on September 1 on his site where I copied from Erickson's blog. Look it up for yourself. Ouch, credibility of Apache Mom also takes a hit......again.
"You left out one important fact - Douglas was on the board at that time, too. Funny how you leave that part out when you look to lay blame...."
"During a discussion at the Aug. 12 school board meeting, all three took shots at the former school board for its unanimous approval of a rental contract to ease overcrowding at Sunrise Mountain High School. We’ve come to expect that of Murphy, of course, because that’s the sole reason he ran for the school board. Douglas, naturally, forgot to remind everyone that she was one of five board members who voted to approve the contract in the first place."
"In May 2003, we subleased to the Unified School District No. 11, of Maricopa
County, Arizona, the premises at which we had previously operated our Fletcher
Heights Charter Elementary School, and in August 2003, we sold to Partnership
With Parents, Inc. (an Arizona non-profit corporation) the premises at which we
had previously owned and operated our Desert Heights Charter Elementary School.
As a result of these two transactions in 2003, we exited both the Arizona market
and our direct ownership of charter schools."
I know I keep say I'm going to leave, but just like Columbo, just one more thing I'm having a problem with...
There are three quotes above. One from a poster on this site, the second one from Michael Erickson, and the third from the 10K of Nobel Learning Centers. My question is: how did Diane Douglas "approve the contract in the first place"? The contract was approved in May 2003, Douglas was elected in November of 2004 (please coorect me if I'm wrong), how did she have any hand in approving this contract?
While we're at it, here is another post from Michael Erickson regarding Nobel that I'm having a problem with:
"Who does she think she’s kidding? Not a penny of that settlement will come at the come from the classroom or any other part of the school district’s maintenance and operations budget. I will come from the district’s insurance carrier".
Please "educate" me again here. If the Peoria School District is self-insured (again correct me if I'm wrong if it is not), doesn't that mean that PUSD does not have an insurance carrier to pay this and that is the reason there was discussion from the board about budgeting for the future for this $1.25 million?
I'm surprised none of you asked these same questions.
Well, a big day today. Off to the monster truck show.
September 1, 2008 8:10:00 AM MST
|
Apache Mom
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 95 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 05:14 am |
|
Got proof, gadfly? I actually have screen photos of the blog from months and months ago, and it says the same thing it said today.
You're just not a good liar.
|
gadfly
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 325 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 05:02 am |
|
Michael Erickson is back after a bit of time away from his blog. Since I have been blacklisted on Frank's blog, I am unsure if he will post this, I wanted to post here also:
Mr. Erickson:
I was hoping you would come back. I've been wanting to address you.
It is so interesting this Nobel lease was so conveniently swept under the rug by you and others. It seems your assertion regarding this lease was not exactly accurate. First of all, would you like to retract this statement (see below) about the insurance carrier, and second, do you think people who read this blog should question the credibility of someone who gets this so wrong. $1.25 million wrong??? If it'S coming from the "insurance carrier", why is the board having to budget for this? And, if you are wrong, which you are, who should be held accountable for this, in your opinion? Erb? Not Erb? If not Erb, the attorney who wrote the contract? If the attorney, the same attorney that indicated Erb's contract was legal,doesn't this just buttress the present board's assertion that this attorney was incompetent and perhaps too close to Erb? And your argument about attorney fees pales now in comparison to the $1.25 million the district has to pay for the Nobel lease?
Per Erickson:
Who does she think she’s kidding? Not a penny of that settlement will come at the come from the classroom or any other part of the school district’s maintenance and operations budget. I will come from the district’s insurance carrier.
So that leaves Knecht with one of two explanations: she was either lying, or she didn’t know. Either way, Knecht stuck her foot in her mouth . . . again.
Tractor Pull Guy:
What is interesting is you have changed the original post after I started questioning it. Instead of simply being accountable and admitting you really blew this, you changed your post, you actually went back and changed your post regarding this. You see, as you are probably well aware, I have been trying for months to get a response from you regarding this. Since you left, I have been trying to goad you into responding to me through Frank's blog. To no avail, of course, but I did copy your original post of:
"During a discussion at the Aug. 12 school board meeting, all three took shots at the former school board for its unanimous approval of a rental contract to ease overcrowding at Sunrise Mountain High School. We’ve come to expect that of Murphy, of course, because that’s the sole reason he ran for the school board. Douglas, naturally, forgot to remind everyone that she was one of five board members who voted to approve the contract in the first place."
Here's what you changed it to now:
During a discussion at the Aug. 12 school board meeting, all three took shots at the former school board for its unanimous approval of a rental contract to ease overcrowding at Sunrise Mountain High School. We’ve come to expect that of Murphy, of course, because that’s the sole reason he ran for the school board. Douglas, naturally, forgot to remind everyone that she was one of five board members who voted to cancel the contract in the first place.
A big difference, isn't it? Talk about transparency, maybe you should have disclosed this slight little difference?
I have been waiting for your reponse for a while. Hopefully, I will get one this time.
Last edited on Tue Oct 28th, 2008 12:17 am by gadfly
|
Current time is 07:55 pm | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
|
|