| Author | Post |
|---|
Buckle Up
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 47 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 6th, 2008 12:17 am |
|
LES -- It must take real guts to make anonymous gutter crawling remarks like yours. Nancy Wagner should be real pleased to have a supporter like you.
Perhaps you are willing to follow Bob Reeder's lead and identify yourself. Just kidding – individuals like you rarely risk coming out into the open.
In fact I have a better idea that might prove me wrong about your lack of bravery. Since you know who Bob is why don't you repeat your post to his face. I saw in the Dover Post that he is teaching a defensive driving class at the Modern Maturity Center this coming Monday evening.
I personally spoke to Bob and asked him if he would be concerned about me inviting you to tell him personally what you have so "bravely posted about him anonymously". His response was interesting. I quote: "Having a Soviet built MIG closing in on my 6 o'clock position off the coast of Cuba in 1963 was a concern. Anonymous mud slinging bloggers the likes of Les are of no concern."
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 5th, 2008 06:38 pm |
|
I do believe les is going to have a new forum name soon 
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5847 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 07:25 pm |
|
Bob....good luck...I think you are going to need it.
|
Poltergeist
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 129 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 01:22 am |
|
Last edited on Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 09:44 am by Poltergeist
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 53 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 11:22 am |
|
Two weeks from today (June 16, 2008/2:00 PM) legal counsel for Nancy Wagner, Auditor Thomas Wagner and Capital School District Superintendent Michael Thomas will appear in Superior Court to petition the dismissal of the “double dipping” complaint filed against them. The decision by the Judge on this petition does not equate to guilt or innocence of the charges. It basically will be a determination of whether I as a taxpayer have a right to ask the Court to hear the complaint.
When I return home from the Court Hearing on 6/16/08 I intend to blog the result if available. However, I doubt the judge will make his decision on the spot. It may even be weeks before a decision is rendered. But as soon as I learn the result I will publish that result.
My decision to blog this information is based on my belief there are many of you who are interested in the outcome. However, I do recognize there are a few brainless contributors to this blog site that will engage in petty personal attacks -- I will not respond. You have that right just the same as Nancy Wagner and her codefendants have the right to request the complaint be dismissed on technicalities rather than a hearing of the evidence.
Bob
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 30th, 2008 02:44 am |
|
Poltergeist wrote: Sort of reminds me of the funny announcer who comes in right as Batman and Robin are about to be done in by the evil doer....Will Fred's words continue to be twisted??? Will Skjuda reveal his secret identity??? Can Bob keep his unrequited love under wraps??? Find out next week...Same Bob channel, Same Bob time!!!
LOL and the really funny thing is my first name is Robert and everyone calls me Bob hehe
|
Old Dover guy
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | Cambodia |
| Posts: | 70 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30th, 2008 01:22 am |
|
Poltergeist wrote: Sort of reminds me of the funny announcer who comes in right as Batman and Robin are about to be done in by the evil doer....Will Fred's words continue to be twisted??? Will Skjuda reveal his secret identity??? Can Bob keep his unrequited love under wraps??? Find out next week...Same Bob channel, Same Bob time!!!
I believe you meant - Same Bob time, Same Bob channel....but whatever...a cartoon in the works. I think someone has run out of dynamite sticks and is royally p'd off that Acme cut him off.....as one infamous roadrunner once said, "BEEP BEEP"!.....
ODG - out.
|
Poltergeist
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 129 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30th, 2008 01:13 am |
|
| Sort of reminds me of the funny announcer who comes in right as Batman and Robin are about to be done in by the evil doer....Will Fred's words continue to be twisted??? Will Skjuda reveal his secret identity??? Can Bob keep his unrequited love under wraps??? Find out next week...Same Bob channel, Same Bob time!!!
|
Old Dover guy
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | Cambodia |
| Posts: | 70 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29th, 2008 11:54 pm |
|
| 11921...
|
Buckle Up
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 47 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29th, 2008 06:34 pm |
|
Fred, the 2006 Dual Employment Audit is a public document. I have a copy of it. In that public document Auditor Wagner actually states that he asked for an Attorney General Opinion on the State Compensation Policy as it relates to Nancy Wagner. However, his own legal Counsel Deputy Attorney General Broujos warned him in that same legal document that he did not ask for an Attorney General Opinion on the State Compensation Policy. It seems our Auditor only asked the Attorney General if the Capital School District contract allowed Nancy Wagner to leave the school building during the contract school day. When the answer came back yes Nancy Wagner could leave the school during the contract workday the same as all other teachers Auditor Wagner proclaimed Nancy Wagner innocent of “double dipping”.
Fred, I believe even you would have to admit intentional deception by Auditor Wagner. Our Auditor is obviously counting on technicalities rather than face the wrath of Nancy Wagner to sliver out of this potential career buster. “Double dipping” is not leaving the school building during the workday. “Double dipping” is receiving a second state pay during the Capital School District contract workday – that is the law.
In there anyone out there who doesn’t believe Auditor Wagner should have immediately ask for a State Compensation Policy once his own legal counsel (Deputy Attorney General Broujos) warned him no such AG Opinion was requested?
Fred, I’m actually beginning to believe you are playing the devil’s advocate. If you are you are doing a great job.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 29th, 2008 05:01 pm |
|
I agree they may feel it is not warranted to pursue the matter based on what they persieve of the evidence. But once someone brought the matter to a court someone should have asked for an investigation just to cover their collective butts.
At the point it was taken to court the choices would have been 1 - pay lawyers to keep it out of court 2 - ask for an investigation that may prove the case is fruitless or 3 - have the ag make an opinion on all matters.
Option one was chosen and I wonder what the reason for that decision. Seems to be collusion to protect something or someone. Maybe and I say maybe with no evidence that a deal was made between the parties for some gain in political power. Each could gain from collusion since she sits on a powerful board.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5847 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29th, 2008 04:28 pm |
|
Skjuda wrote:
Wagner and Biden both could have asked for an investigation to see how much is actual and how petty it really turns out to be. Since neither chose to do so it appears they are in collusion or agreement at least to not pursue the matter. .
Or, it means that neither sees any validity to the case. You have to at least admit that is a possibility.
Look....If you read much of what I write, you know that I lean the exact opposite of Nancy. My point is that just because one doesn't ask for an investigation doesn't mean that they are hiding something.
I don't think Bob's PURSUIT is petty; I think that the AG and Auditor either think there is nothing actionable, subject to their interpretation, OR that "provable" material is petty. Big difference, and please don't misconstrue what I said. I'm seeing a lot of this attempts at me (saying I attacked Bill's Marine background, for instance) because I don't buy that Nancy, Beau, and Tom are all in cahoots to hide something. Some here think that their reading of the law makes things simple and clear, but it ain't always so.
I really try hard to be fair to all politicians, and probably am MORE fair to Repubs then Dems. I think she needs to go; for me, the final straw was the discovery of her push to get her husband's job on the various bills through the years. However, I don't see that as a legal matter as much as a character or ethical one.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 29th, 2008 03:40 pm |
|
Fred, how petty is it really? At this point we do not know how many times she double dipped and according to the estimate it could be up to 50,000.
Wagner and Biden both could have asked for an investigation to see how much is actual and how petty it really turns out to be. Since neither chose to do so it appears they are in collusion or agreement at least to not pursue the matter. Asking for an investigation would not have cost either anything in political terms and could be used to further thier own goals. It seems by the facts so far the three and maybe others have decided to forego investigation for some unknown reason, or least unknown to us the citizens.
Again truth dude is just trying to get a straight answer and some accountability in what happened. Whether it was petty or not an investigation should have been started long ago. By not asking I consider that collusion.
|
Buckle Up
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 47 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29th, 2008 12:02 pm |
|
Fred, I wonder how many hard working Delawareans think it is "petty" when a State Representative who also holds another State job (combined salary approximately $125,000 per year) decides to violate the law and “double dipped”. I suppose you would even think it "petty" if more of Wagner’s political colleagues joined in and took your hard earned money by duplicating Nancy Wagner’s “double dipping” behavior because that is exactly what will happen if she is allowed to get away with her greedy “double dipping” maneuver.
Fred, I’m certain Bob Reeder knows his chances of holding a powerful legislator accountable are not good. However, to describe his efforts as addressing “a relatively petty matter” is a low blow. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5847 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29th, 2008 09:41 am |
|
| I've said as much, that both want to move on, but find it hard to believe that they would put those political futures at risk to conspire not to look at what amounts to a relatively petty matter. I think if they (especially Biden) went after her it would look much more political if there wasn't much there.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 727 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29th, 2008 12:10 am |
|
| Wagner won't go after her because he wants to run for governor in 8 years after Markell finishes. Biden won't say crap because he wants to fill Daddy's shoes. What planet are you on these days Fred?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5847 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 11:32 pm |
|
Okay, I'll concede the point that they are not at the beck and call of the governor...but do you really think that these two, both of whom have visions of higher office, would do something as obvious as this? I just don't see it, especially when you've got two pretty straight-shooting guys who would love to bring down a seasoned politician.
We'll see, but I will be MORE surprised if Bob gets anywhere with his case...be it procedural, be it evidentiary, but I suspect that he'll have a hard time getting traction.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 727 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 09:32 pm |
|
| I'm sure that both Biden and Wagner would cringe and singe at being called members of her majesty's staff. Especially the Republican Wagner.
|
Buckle Up
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 47 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 06:14 pm |
|
Fred, you won’t quit will you? You continue on this path of trying to develop a conspiracy so broad that it would be impossible to accomplish so Bob must be wrong. First, you bring the Governor and the court into the mix and say Bob did it. After it was demonstrated that it was you and not Bob who added the Governor and the court you change directions to keep your theory alive. You have now used another false position to include the Governor. Your quote not mine:
“And while Bob has kept the Governor out of it....I cannot believe that TWO of her key staff (the AG and the Auditor) would not have discussed it with her”
Fred, the Attorney General and the Auditor are not on the Governors staff. They are elected by the people just like her. They are not accountable to her. If you were talking about the Secretary of Transportation then she would be accountable to the Governor but neither Biden or Auditor Wagner are required to listen to Minner or update her.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5847 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 01:05 pm |
|
The "barb" was done with a smile and wink, and I am sure Bob is smart enough to know that is was done in jest, from a Soldier to a Marine. If you know a Marine, you know that they tend to be a bit more, er, "determined" then the average person. It is people like him that get changes made...or get labeled as a troublemaker.
And while Bob has kept the Governor out of it....I cannot believe that TWO of her key staff (the AG and the Auditor) would not have discussed it with her, especially when the lawsuits start, AND would place their own careers in jeapordy. I can't believe that Biden would miss the opportunity to dig some dirt....imagine the political hay one gets for taking down a supposedly corrupt legislator.
|
Poltergeist
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 129 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 01:44 am |
|
... Last edited on Wed May 28th, 2008 09:45 am by Poltergeist
|
Buckle Up
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 47 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 09:19 pm |
|
Fred, I am going to take Bob at his word when he last signed off with the phrase THE END. Therefore, I believe a significant corrections needs to be made to one of your comments. You emphasize how difficult it would be to have a conspiracy that involved the Governor, Nancy Wagner, Auditor Thomas Wagner, the Attorney General and the court system. I agree. That is why you should correct your comment. I spent some time reading back on “Truth Dude’s” statements. To my knowledge he never mentioned the Governor or the court system as being part of a conspiracy. The only one I could find who brought the Governor and the court system into this equation was you. Without the Governor and the court system the collusion theory has much greater plausibility. Bob already identified how our Auditor made false statements in his double dipping report in order to cover for Nancy Wagner. That only leaves the Attorney General who depends on the Joint Finance Committee for the funds to run his office. Nancy Wagner is a member of that committee.
Poltergeist, you also misquoted Bob. He did not say “he doesn’t give a rat’s a__ about what the public thinks”. He said “It doesn’t mean a rat’s a__ what you and your uniformed perception of what most of the population cares. DOUBLE DIPPING is a violation of Delaware Law.” That is a big difference. Bob was not demeaning the public in anyway. He was referencing the law. I'm certain you were not intending to demean Bob but knowing some of the readers of this blog they would happily jump on the theory that Bob doesn't give a "rat's a__" about them. Now that I know who Truth Dude (Bob Reeder) is I recall reading his name many times in the news media standing up for all us against corrupt government.
|
Poltergeist
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 129 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 08:13 pm |
|
Shame on Fred for denegrating Bob's service in the Marine Corps. While probabley meant as a friendly barb, it was inappropriate given the man's service and committment to community and country.
That aside, it seems that Fred has hit the nail on the head. While improper and inappropriate, I don't think that Nancy, Dr. Thomas or the Capital School District set out to steal money from the State. I do recognize Bob's desire to ensure that the letter of the law is followed as he doesn't "give a rat's a__" about what the public thinks. Bob's job as John Q. Citizen is complete when he brings proof of wrong doing to Nancy's Constituency. That evidence of leadership then can be weighed in an election.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5847 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 07:11 pm |
|
It doesn't take much to bait a Marine, does it? ;-)
Again...I think her ethics are questionable, and look forward to seeing her gone (which, if you go back to the first post in this forum, shows that I have changed my mind about her). In order, however, for your lawsuit to have merit it would mean that Nancy, the auditor, the attorney general, and the governor, and the court system are all conspiring against you and your interpretation of the facts. I find this very, very, difficult to believe....not impossible, but it leads me to believe that the evidence is, at best , questionable. I am not saying that your reading is wrong; I am saying that there probably is an alternative explantion that will stand up to court, and you are in the unenviable position of being the fielder where ties go to the runner.
As I've said...good luck. You will need it.
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 53 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 06:45 pm |
|
Fred I said I wouldn’t spend more time with this bolg but I just couldn’t resist a response.
Your quote #1 – “If she used her planning time to cut out early for a commitee meeting, I really don't think that most of the population really cares that deeply about that.”
I have said this to you before Fred but you somehow can’t get the message. It doesn’t mean a rat’s a__ what you and your uniformed perception of what most of the population cares. DOUBLE DIPPING is a violation of Delaware Law.
Your quote #2 – “The fact that she rearranged her work schedule and did her planning in the evening (which will certainly be her story....it would be mine) with her supervisor's blessing is going to negate the whole DOUBLE DIPPING bit.”
Nancy Wagner’s contract with the Capital School District did not permit her to rearrange her schedule – even with the blessing of her supervisor. Her contract workday called for 7 1/2 continuous hours. Therefore, any time during that 7 1/2 continuous workday she went to legislative hall by law was required to be ducted from her Capital School District salary.
Your quote #3 – “I don't see how you get the 50K mark, given as the one job pays what...30-35K?”
As stated above the reduction by law would come from her Capital School District salary not her legislative salary. Her DOUBLE DIPPING was extensive and covered more than a decade. During that time her Capital School District salary averaged somewhere close to $65,000.
THE END -- Bob
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5847 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 05:27 pm |
|
If she used her planning time to cut out early for a commitee meeting, I really don't think that most of the population really cares that deeply about that. The fact that she rearranged her work schedule and did her planning in the evening (which will certainly be her story....it would be mine) with her supervisor's blessing is going to negate the whole DOUBLE DIPPING bit. I don't see how you get the 50K mark, given as the one job pays what...30-35K?
And, like most Marines I have known, you appear to be determined to the nth degree. I'm a bit more pragmatic. I think she should leave, but my gut reaction is that the amount of effort AND the unlikelihood of winning means that I would focus my energies elsewhere...such as finding, promoting, finding OR running against her.
If nothing else, I will be watching closely on the 16th....but I will not be in the least bit surprised if you are not happy with the results.
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 53 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 03:41 pm |
|
Final Blog On This topic until after june 16, 2008:
On June 25, 2007 Auditor Thomas Wagner released his Dual Employment (DOUBLE DIPPING AUDIT) for the fiscal year 2006. In that public document the following quote appears on 2 different pages:
“Auditor of Account concluded the employee’s (Nancy Wagner) use of the duty free planning period did not result in the employee being paid from more than one tax-funded source during coincident hours of the workday because there were no instances where the employee used the duty free planning period to offset time spent performing legislative duties.”
Very clear -- Auditor Wagner is stating Nancy Wagner never used her duty free planning period to DOUBLE DIP. She is innocent so stated Auditor Wagner in a public document on June 25, 2007.
THE REST OF THE STORY: On February 15, 2007 4 months prior to proclaiming Nancy Wagner never used her duty free planning period to perform legislative duties a letter was sent to the Attorney General from Auditor Wagner's office which included the following statement:
“During the Office of Auditor of Accounts fiscal year 2006 Dual Employment Audit the Auditor of Accounts found that a State Representative subject to the Capital School District’s Teachers Contract (Nancy Wagner) used their duty free planning period for work related to their legislative duties.”
Very clear – In February 2007 it was discovered by Auditor Wagner that Nancy Wagner used her duty free planning period to perform legislative duties but by June 25, 2007 that discovery somehow magically disappeared.
There is an old saying that to be a good liar one must have a good memory. Either Auditor R. Thomas Wagner doesn’t have a good memory or he never expected I would get my hands on the February 15, 2007 document identifying Nancy Wagner’s DOUBLE DIPPING. Does anyone smell a cover-up?
In closing a special note to Fred. The following is a quote from Fred’s recent blog: “You've got a high bar to get over, and the bar is set that high (maybe impossibly high) for a good reason.”
Fred – I served my country as a United States Marine Jet Pilot during the Cuban Missile crisis time period. High bars don’t intimidate me. Losing is not part of my nature.
Bob is now signing off until after the June 16, 2008 Motion To Dismiss Trial.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5847 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 02:04 pm |
|
truth dude wrote: 5) All Nancy Wagner needs to do to settle this entire unfortunate affair is to request an up to date Attorney General Opinion on her alleged DOUBLE DIPPING behavior. The problem with that is obvious. She is afraid of the answer. It could amount to political suicide at this point in time. Therefore, she has decided to seek dismissal of the complaint on technicalities rather than the hearing of the evidence. That is her constitutional right.
6) What bothers me and should bother most of you is that both Nancy Wagner and Auditor Tom Wagner are using taxpayer money to get the case dismissed. Attorney General Biden has the authority to withdraw the taxpayer funded legal defense but has refused to make that move. His office is in possession of the documents in this case and has chosen to ignore them. I can only assume he is not interested in making an enemy of Nancy Wagner while she still sits on the powerful Joint Finance Committee – the committee that funds the Attorney General’s Office.
First, I do appreciate your efforts, and do think that our representatives should hold themselves to a higher standard. I think Nancy has probably not done this, and certainly has not done anything to dispel the innuendo around this issue and her husband's hiring.
However, I suspect that she knows exactly what she is doing, and has her ducks in order legally.
Most of my issues are the ancillary ones that you seem to think are very important. I don't blame Nancy for trying to get the case dismissed; even in your bit above, you think she should but acknowledge that she the right to do so. The problem is that you place such a high value on these secondary issues, using them as "proof" of wrongdoing, that you lose my support.
I also, specifically, don't have a problem with the funding of the case. You are suing them in the execution of a key part of their job. Yes, it would be a lot easier/cheaper if the state wasn't providing the legal backup and resources that you a private citizen can't tap, but I see this as suing them in their official capacity (especially the auditor) and fail to see the logic of not providing the state's resources.
I also don't deny that you've given the AG the documents, and I also suspect that you've also provided your interpretation of them. Fine; but I suspect that there is another one. You may be right, and they may well be wrong, but I would want to hear what they say...don't you think that makes sense?
You've got a high bar to get over, and the bar is set that high (maybe impossibly high) for a good reason.
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 53 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 12:41 pm |
|
POINTS OF INTEREST:
1) In today’s News Journal a letter to the editor is titled “AG Beau Biden needs to show leadership on FOIA”. The signer of the letter is Robert P. Reeder. Yes, that is me. I bring this to your attention to demonstrate that I am what is know as a “public advocate”. It is my way of giving back to the people of our state. However, I recognize that those who don’t know me will insist my only focus in life is Nancy Wagner’s DOUBLE DIPPING. That is your right.
2) I worked with Nancy Wagner at Dover High School for 15 years. I watched the abuse of the system first hand – particularly after with the help of her husband Bud she was able to have her job changed to a nonclassroom job. Her entire day became a duty free planning period.
3) A couple of years ago I learned about the DOUBLE DIPPING law. That is when I began to question her behavior.
4) I honestly don’t believe Nancy Wagner started out to violate the DOUBLE DIPPING law. However, once it became public she may be in violation of the law that is when the cover-up and stalling began to surface.
5) All Nancy Wagner needs to do to settle this entire unfortunate affair is to request an up to date Attorney General Opinion on her alleged DOUBLE DIPPING behavior. The problem with that is obvious. She is afraid of the answer. It could amount to political suicide at this point in time. Therefore, she has decided to seek dismissal of the complaint on technicalities rather than the hearing of the evidence. That is her constitutional right.
6) What bothers me and should bother most of you is that both Nancy Wagner and Auditor Tom Wagner are using taxpayer money to get the case dismissed. Attorney General Biden has the authority to withdraw the taxpayer funded legal defense but has refused to make that move. His office is in possession of the documents in this case and has chosen to ignore them. I can only assume he is not interested in making an enemy of Nancy Wagner while she still sits on the powerful Joint Finance Committee – the committee that funds the Attorney General’s Office.
7) This blog is long enough – more later.
Bob
|
Buckle Up
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 47 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 11:10 am |
|
Old Dover guy wrote:
"Buckle Up" sure has been quiet lately...
Old Dover Guy – I am still here. I’ve just been enjoying watching Truth Dude (Bob) make you and your clown friend Number 1 look more like Number 2. Bob obviously knows the inside information. The ball is in his hands. I realize you are attempting to change the focus away from Nancy Wagner but it will not work. Buckle Up signing off. I forget. I do plan on attending the June 16, 2008 hearing. Why don't you join me!
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 02:38 am |
|
While I agree we do not want every citizen asking the AG for an opinion but in this case it seems the only remedy for a solution has been removed, either by collusion or stupidity. I believe the judge should have asked for one, he has that right or at least someone should have asked. By asking I mean he should have sent it back to the lawyers with instructions to get an opinion.
Without an alternative the US District Court may be the only course open to the average citizens.
I do not know if she did the double dipping on purpose or if she was jsut doing what every politician had been doing for 30 + years. What I do know is I commend truth dude for at least trying to bring the issue to the courts. It is something that should be addressed and corrected if it is as large as stated. This case is what makes our country the best in the world, nowhere else could you do this without some penalty. Keeps politicians at least thinking harder to be corrupt.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5847 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 01:26 am |
|
Skjuda wrote: Heya Fred, I was kinda referring to the part about noone asking the AG for an opinion on the double dipping issue. If the only people who can get it started are in collusion to not ask that is criminal I believe. BY denying a citizent he right to ask for an opinion from the AG that kinda seems like a smack to the average person in Delaware.
If the only people who can ask are avoiding asking I would consider that somewhat of a confirmation of some wrong doing. By your theory one of the parties should have asked for an opinion since one is a democrart and one likes his name out there. But given noone is asking it might be collusion.
Well, there may be a lot of reasons why you don't want a rulling on a legal issue. Until something specifically is put down one can argue that the specifics are "subject to interpretation."
As for why they might not want the average citizen to ask....it is perhaps because then "average" citizens might swamp the AGs office with requests to issue rulings on every issue.
As I've said, it would not surprise me to see that she has transgressed in some way. I just can't believe that she would be that stupid, however, not to cover her tracks IF she was doing something that she knew was illegal.
|
Old Dover guy
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | Cambodia |
| Posts: | 70 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 12:43 am |
|
| "Buckle Up" sure has been quiet lately...
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 11:59 pm |
|
Heya Fred, I was kinda referring to the part about noone asking the AG for an opinion on the double dipping issue. If the only people who can get it started are in collusion to not ask that is criminal I believe. BY denying a citizent he right to ask for an opinion from the AG that kinda seems like a smack to the average person in Delaware.
If the only people who can ask are avoiding asking I would consider that somewhat of a confirmation of some wrong doing. By your theory one of the parties should have asked for an opinion since one is a democrart and one likes his name out there. But given noone is asking it might be collusion.
As far as the lawyers trying to get it dismissed before trial is standard practice and if it were not done somoene would say that lawyer is not to bright. Heck even in Murder trials with a confession they try to get it dismissed. The only difference is the judges in those cases are not politically involved or part of the system of abuse.
I would also say this case breaks ground on so many politicians that if it were to go to court I would assume the senate would invoke its right to solve congressional member issues on its own rarther than allow it to go to court. A right the senate holds.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5847 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 11:07 pm |
|
I wish you luck on your court case, but the degree of collusion seems to me to be a bit hard to believe. The Auditor (who seems to like getting his name out there), the AG (a Democrat who certainly has sights on higher office), and the Governor all are in league with each other? And the two newspapers aren't interested? Or the radio stations, even Al Mascitti? If you can't get them interested, I tend to be a bit suspicious.
As for wanting to get it dismissed before the case is heard....that is standard practice among lawyers. For one thing, it is cheaper to argue at this level rather then take it to court. Second, I would rather have a case against me thrown out before it even gets tried. Would you not agree that a trial would be bad publicity? Would you also agree that, unless it comes out exactly the way you want, you will claim that it is simply further proof of collusion?
I take it that you have gotten the records, and it may show some irregularities. It would be interested to see what their answer is going to be....
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 53 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 06:10 pm |
|
SKJUDA: Again you have come up with an interesting post. First, there is no lawyer. That would cost close to $50,000. Pro Se (I am the lawyer) will cost me about $3,000. Still not pennies but do able.
Your info on the Feds is interesting and will definitely be considered as a fall back position.
I have in my possession documents that strongly point in the direction that State Auditor Wagner made false statements in his 2006 Dual Employment Performance Audit (DOUBLE DIPPING AUDIT) in order to cover-up illegal behavior by Nancy Wagner. These documents are already in the hands of the court so Auditor Wagner knows I have them. It is certainly not difficult to understand why these people don’t want the evidence heard. Incidentally, that would be referred to as “tampering with public documents” – a criminal offense. He would be in far more trouble than Nancy Wagner or the Capital School District.
Making matters worse the Attorney General knows these documents exist but is still trying to have the case dismissed on technicalities.
In my next post I will quote word for word from these court documents.
Thanks again for your suggestion.
Bob
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 03:13 pm |
|
Hey truth dude I was doing some checking and found out that the Us district court has a section that deals with collusion of state officials. I could not find a link but essentially the code states if a citizen of a state feels there has been collusion on state officials to hide an illegal act the federal gevernment can be called to look at the issues and based on merit can pursue the matter.
I believe it was based on the tammanny debacle of the 20 and 30's. Have your lawyer check it out and you may be able to get the US District court to request the attorney general to investigate. In this case it seems that the key players are avoiding the issue and no remedy is available to the citizens.
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 53 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 01:38 pm |
|
SKJUDA: Great comments. You probably are right on all of them. As for the slander comment. That would be a dream come true but unfortunately there is no chance. The evidence is overwhelming against all three defendants. They would be fools to try it. Their best shot is to have the case dismissed before the evidence is heard.
By the way Wagner does have an opponent. However, I had nothing to do with his decision to run.
Bob
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 53 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 01:14 pm |
|
FOOTBALL COACHES: How about Baseball, Softball, Hockey, Tennis, etc? There are those who would argue the extra money paid coaches takes into account they will at times be missing actual school time. I don’t know if that is correct or not. So if you have a problem with it be my guest and take it to court. You might even win.
Bob
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 53 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 12:50 pm |
|
Some great postings that deserve a response:
FIRST FRED: You claim I brought this lawsuit because Auditor Tom Wagner considered it to be no more than a 5 MPH over the speed limit violation and not worth pursuing -- WRONG. You are just making wild speculations without access to all pertinent information. You have that right. I obtained copies of Nancy Wagner’s payroll records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). I will categorically state it is more like 120 MPH in a school zone. Incidentally, Nancy Wagner hired a lawyer in an attempt to keep her payroll records secret – she lost. FRED, we are not talking about pennies here. We are talking about sums of DOUBLE DIPPING money in excess of $50,000.
Does Auditor Tom Wagner work for the people or does he work for elected officials (Nancy Wagner)? Auditor Tom Wagner recently asked for an Attorney General Opinion on Nancy Wagner’s potential DOUBLE DIPPING. Then again maybe he didn’t. Our State Auditor and watchdog of the peoples’ money cleverly forgot to ask about Nancy Wagner being paid twice by taxpayers for the same hours of the day in his opinion request. He only asked the Attorney General if the Capital School District contract allowed her to leave the school building during the school day. He ignored asking if she could receive two taxpayer paychecks for concurrent time periods. However, the Attorney General threw him a curve ball. The following is a direct quote from the Attorney General Opinion response: “It is important to note, however, that this conclusion has no bearing on the issue of whether the conduct engaged in by the teacher during that period violates the State Compensation Policy (DOUBLE DIPPINGP)”. This opinion request by our Auditor was an obvious deceitful attempt to cover-up for Nancy Wagner’s behavior and it backfired. The Attorney General did not fall for the charade by our State Auditor.
To date, none of the three defendants (Wagner/Wagner/Superintendent Thomas) are willing to request a legitimate Attorney General Opinion on the State Compensation Policy (DOUBLE DIPPING). It is not hard to guess why! They would rather take their chances on 6/16/08 and dismissal by technicalities than defend on the evidence. If any of them did request such an opinion this case would be over and no more taxpayer dollars would be used in their defense.
Private taxpaying citizens like you and me are not permitted to request an Attorney General Opinion on DOUBLE DIPPING. I tried that. The only thing we can due to pursue justice is to go to court. Not exactly a cheap option!
More to come later.
Bob
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5847 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 11:18 am |
|
HighandInside wrote: Playing the Game wrote: Dear Fred - The State Auditor is a Republican as is Ms. Wagner. See any connection in his lack of willingness to prosecute?
Dear Playing the game - So for whom are you voting OBama or Clinton?
You certainly are barking up the wrong tree there....
|
gators
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 03:37 am |
|
HighandInside wrote: So, Bob, how would you handle the Football Coach whose teacher "contract day" ends at say 3:00 and yet is tending to coaching duties at 2:30?? Is that Coach or coaches breaking the law? Afterall they are getting two paychecks: one for coaching and one for teaching. Why not go after them? Or how about the teacher attending to "private business" during their planning period...Have you went after these folks?
Borrowing a phrase from a frequent poster, "Just curious"
Coaching is extra-duty pay for teachers. Assuming the coach has planning period at the end of the day and is in the school environment tending to coaching duties is reasonable. If the coach is tending to coaching duties during class time-they are a bad teacher but are not necessarily breaking the law. To leave on your planning period excessively for "private business" is obviously an issue and clearly not something that should be supported by districts. It doesn't set a good example for all the other teachers in the building/district. If you allow one to "abuse", why not all? To group coaches and others that may need to run out here and there compared to this situation shouldn't be an arguement.
|
HighandInside
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 02:45 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Dear Fred - The State Auditor is a Republican as is Ms. Wagner. See any connection in his lack of willingness to prosecute?
Dear Playing the game - So for whom are you voting OBama or Clinton?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 727 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26th, 2008 01:02 am |
|
Dear Fred - The State Auditor is a Republican as is Ms. Wagner. See any connection in his lack of willingness to prosecute?
Fred wrote:
The reason you've brought the lawsuit is because the state auditor, not one to shy away from a chance to get his name in the paper pursuing cases, has decided it is not worth his time or effort to pursue it. While I see the technical point of your case, I tend to agree with the auditor. It is somewhat similiar to a cop in a speedtrap who has someone tracked at 5 MPH over the limit. Yeah, may be a violation of the law, but it isn't worth the effort...maybe he stops him and chews him out, but no ticket.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5847 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25th, 2008 11:49 pm |
|
I reviewed one of the documents in the court case...
http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/(hudjad45da1gxxraycbc0zr1)/download.aspx?ID=85070
So I get that the main point of contention is the planning period....the court case contends that she used it as a free time versus taking the time off.
The point is that this is not "free time", but rather time granted her for her planning for the execution of her job. Because this is time she is paid for, even it is her planning, she is supposed to be here.
I suspect that technically, you are right....I just don't know that if this violation dicates the whole nine yards that you think it does. If you take her at her word, and if you ask her boss about her performance, I am guessing that they would say that she did her planning after hours.
The reason you've brought the lawsuit is because the state auditor, not one to shy away from a chance to get his name in the paper pursuing cases, has decided it is not worth his time or effort to pursue it. While I see the technical point of your case, I tend to agree with the auditor. It is somewhat similiar to a cop in a speedtrap who has someone tracked at 5 MPH over the limit. Yeah, may be a violation of the law, but it isn't worth the effort...maybe he stops him and chews him out, but no ticket.
To say it again...I see your point, but don't think it warrants the steps you are taking. Voting Nancy out IF there is someone better is the solution....maybe even if there is not a better one.
|
HighandInside
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25th, 2008 11:22 pm |
|
So, Bob, how would you handle the Football Coach whose teacher "contract day" ends at say 3:00 and yet is tending to coaching duties at 2:30?? Is that Coach or coaches breaking the law? Afterall they are getting two paychecks: one for coaching and one for teaching. Why not go after them? Or how about the teacher attending to "private business" during their planning period...Have you went after these folks?
Borrowing a phrase from a frequent poster, "Just curious"
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 53 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25th, 2008 03:44 pm |
|
Fred, a legitimate response by you so here goes my attempt to answer. First, it really doesn’t matter what you think about Wagner’s use of her taxpayer paid planning period to go to legislative hall and receive additional taxpayer money. What matters is the law. The DOUBLE DIPPING law was passed in the 1980’s specifically to prohibit individuals from doing exactly what Nancy Wagner was doing. By excusing Wagner from following the law on the bases that you have no problem would be akin to saying any school district can hire a legislator with taxpayer money and allow them to spend the paid school day working as a legislator. I think even you might have a problem with that.
The lawsuit is not an attempt to send Wagner to jail. It is to have the court issue a statement that her behavior was illegal. That would put and end to it. Incidentally, in 1998 the Capital School District added a phrase to their teachers contract. It said the “primary function” of the duty free planning was for in school planning. The reason for the addition was because of the abuse of the duty free planning period. That “primary function” addition didn’t seem to bother Nancy Wagner.
Finally, by taking the position that her superiors didn’t have a problem with her behavior is ignoring the fact that she was elected to the House of Representatives and her husband was on the Capital Board of Education. She knew she held a strong hand.
Your opinion and my opinion don’t count. It is the law that counts and the law is exactly what Nancy Wagner, Capital Superintendent Michael Thomas and State Auditor Thomas Wager are trying to avoid on June 16, 2008. They don’t want the evidence to be heard.
Bob
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5847 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25th, 2008 02:59 pm |
|
| His biggest challenge is that what Nancy may have done is improper, but p |