Unity

[Arch]

Apr 28, 2008 17:33:38 GMT -6 casey said:

I'd hope with enough peer pressure (or beer pressure as we called it in college ;D) we could call for MM's resignation. Seriously, I think we should have sashimi draft something and we can encourage everyone to sign it. We can give it a big "AYE!" just like AT did when she supported the land purchase. I agree removing MM and DD would go a long way to helping heal this district. Who's game?

I have to take a page from not too long ago.. wait for the courts... Let the truth just come out, whatever it is.

[macy]

Apr 28, 2008 17:28:52 GMT -6 Arch said:

I've encountered his personality type in the corporate world many many times.

So far he's lived up to every single one of my expectations.

Unfortunately, I've encountered his type as well in my work experience.

Every single person with his personality type that I've worked with in a corporate setting hasn't lasted very long as they've been let go prior to damaging the company further.

[specailneedsmom]

Sashimi, if what your are saying is correct, where is the TRO to keep the district from beginning construction?

[jwh]

Reading through the 11 pages here, with most responses I find it quite amazing the title of the thread is "Unity".

[macy]

Apr 28, 2008 18:38:16 GMT -6 @jwh said:

Reading through the 11 pages here, with most responses I find it quite amazing the title of the thread is "Unity".

jwh,

I think it's pretty well understood within the 11 pages of this thread you stated you have read, we are admittedly off topic.

Seems to me from reading the green board there are similar issues.

[twhl]

Apr 28, 2008 18:43:15 GMT -6 macy said:

Apr 28, 2008 18:38:16 GMT -6 @jwh said:

Reading through the 11 pages here, with most responses I find it quite amazing the title of the thread is "Unity".

jwh,

I think it's pretty well understood within the 11 pages of this thread you stated you have read, we are admittedly off topic.

Seems to me from reading the green board there are similar issues.

I actually thought much of this was very much "on topic". When you have a broken bone such as we do, you remove the fractured / damaged pieces (m2, d2) and discard them which is the first step of the repair process. It allows the remaining parts to fuse the bone back together - with steel pins and plates and whatever it takes. You don't have the all the use of the limb 100% but you can get pretty darn close. But until you operate and remove those broken pieces, the limb is useless.

[d204mom]

Apr 28, 2008 16:06:08 GMT -6 macy said:

many residents from all over the district have been used like pawns in a chess match. That is the saddest part of all to me.

Brrrrring! It's Ashbury calling from the year 2000!

[d204mom]

Apr 28, 2008 16:11:59 GMT -6 Arch said:

Apr 28, 2008 16:01:08 GMT -6 rural said:

Arch, I apologize. I thought you were being tounge in cheek.
Very basically: Only criminal matters (misdemeanors and felonies) are tried in criminal court. Everything else is considered a civil matter, tried in civil court. NSFOC's suit is for specific performance: they want the court to make the school district buy the land at BB. They are not looking for any monetary damages. BB's new suits are for specific performance and damages. Both of these lawsuits will be tried in civil court.

Example of difference: OJ Simpson was arrested tried in criminal court and found not guilty. After this trial, he was sued in civil court for damages and Nicole Brown's family won and award in that suit.

I understand the diff between civil/criminal in the OJ trial, etc.. what I am not certain about is if there are statutes that govern how a school district can spend referendum money that is raised under a certain premise/promise... whether that would be a civil or criminal matter and if there was even a law controlling/regulating that.

Specific performance = either buy BB or give the money back. They can ask again.

[d204mom]

Apr 28, 2008 16:35:15 GMT -6 macy said:

Apr 28, 2008 16:25:58 GMT -6 researching said:

I second that! ;D

Technically, I believe a motion can be amended if it is seconded.

Would the motion be to send Dr. D packing?

Looking for clarification.

Discussion should follow. Although, I think there has been a great deal of discussion (pages and pages) on this matter on this board so far to date.

Here is what I just don't get.

Daeschner is a tourist. He will move to Sun City when he's done here. He's not part of the community - no roots and I truly believe he does not care one bit about the D204 community. He cares about test scores. At least he is very straight forward.

I can not for the life of me understand Metzger, Glawe, and Clark. They live here. They have roots. Glawe especially. He runs a local bank. How can they not give a hoot about the community? How can Clark and Metzger and Glawe be a-ok with the legacy of a broken district? I don't get it.

[Arch]

Apr 28, 2008 19:40:19 GMT -6 d204mom said:

Apr 28, 2008 16:35:15 GMT -6 macy said:

Technically, I believe a motion can be amended if it is seconded.

Would the motion be to send Dr. D packing?

Looking for clarification.

Discussion should follow. Although, I think there has been a great deal of discussion (pages and pages) on this matter on this board so far to date.

Here is what I just don't get.

Daeschner is a tourist. He will move to Sun City when he's done here. He's not part of the community - no roots and I truly believe he does not care one bit about the D204 community. He cares about test scores. At least he is very straight forward.

I can not for the life of me understand Metzger, Glawe, and Clark. They live here. They have roots. Glawe especially. He runs a local bank. How can they not give a hoot about the community? How can Clark and Metzger and Glawe be a-ok with the legacy of a broken district? I don't get it.

Some people do what they do because they mistakenly believe they have no other choice. I think some might fall into that category. Everyone always has a choice.

[fence]

They probably really feel like they're doing the right thing. I doubt that any of our SB are intentionally trying to harm the community, in fact, in their own minds, it is probably quite the opposite.

But they believe that their way is the right way, and therefore the only way, and they have stopped listening.

Pride goeth before the fall and all that stuff.

Apr 28, 2008 19:40:19 GMT -6 d204mom said:

Apr 28, 2008 16:35:15 GMT -6 macy said:

Technically, I believe a motion can be amended if it is seconded.

Would the motion be to send Dr. D packing?

Looking for clarification.

Discussion should follow. Although, I think there has been a great deal of discussion (pages and pages) on this matter on this board so far to date.

Here is what I just don't get.

Daeschner is a tourist. He will move to Sun City when he's done here. He's not part of the community - no roots and I truly believe he does not care one bit about the D204 community. He cares about test scores. At least he is very straight forward.

I can not for the life of me understand Metzger, Glawe, and Clark. They live here. They have roots. Glawe especially. He runs a local bank. How can they not give a hoot about the community? How can Clark and Metzger and Glawe be a-ok with the legacy of a broken district? I don't get it.

[macy]

Apr 28, 2008 19:34:20 GMT -6 d204mom said:

Apr 28, 2008 16:06:08 GMT -6 macy said:

many residents from all over the district have been used like pawns in a chess match. That is the saddest part of all to me.

Brrrrring! It's Ashbury calling from the year 2000!

Good one 204mom! You are so correct!

[casey]

Apr 28, 2008 19:40:19 GMT -6 d204mom said:

I can not for the life of me understand Metzger, Glawe, and Clark. They live here. They have roots. Glawe especially. He runs a local bank. How can they not give a hoot about the community? How can Clark and Metzger and Glawe be a-ok with the legacy of a broken district? I don't get it.

To continue down that road, d204mom, I can't understand Bradshaw and Tyle either. They both live here and they have roots. I thought Bradshaw was aiming for higher public office some day? How in the world will he overcome the damage that's been created in 204? I do not look at him and see a strong leader. IMO, he and Alka are both two more of MM's puppets.

Bravo to CV for standing up to DD and MM. That can't be an easy position to be in but she's done a great job of holding her own. She has made it clear from the get-go that she did not support a third HS (based on enrollment) and she has never wavered on that opinion (I guess I'm not counting the whole AME thing that she later rescinded). She's been strong and not afraid to stand up for what is right - even if it's not popular opinion. She has come across a strong voice of reason.

I would like to see other SB members stand up and do the right thing. Quit blindly following DD and MM. When they say jump, don't ask "how high?"

[rural]

Apr 28, 2008 14:52:57 GMT -6 sashimi said:

Rural...come by the White Eagle clubhouse tomorrow night and I will share with you exactly where the (multiple) statements and representations from the District can be found (from the condemnation case). You can drink all the free punch you want. Now this would be a good sign of unity (back to the topic of the blog)..

If you show up, I can also share with you where the District represented to the Bond issuers that the bonds were to only going to used to buy the BB property and build a school at BB. I probably can have someone bring the original flyer sent home in their children's backpack (my neighbor still has it).

Yes, if there is proof that the Board never intended to build on BB, this would be a slam dunk of a case against the District (which again, I really do not think is the case).

If the Board intended the referendum to allow them the flexibility to build somewhere else if BB fell through, then, yes, it deceived the voters by publically eliminating all 10 other sites, not stating this as a possibility, and instead posting information on its website, in flyers, etc. that unequivocally stated the referendum was to specifically build a school on BB.

But I doubt this was the case either.

I think that the Board clearly intended that the referendum only authorized the construction of the school on BB (in that this is what the experts told them they needed to do to get the referendum passed and this is what the record shows the Board authorized to be placed on the ballot). I do not think any of them ever contemplated at the time that the language presented would allow them to switch locations if the BB land fell through (Crause said they could afford BB even at 600K an acre, MM said they did not need a Plan B because they would win the condemnation case, etc.).

The record shows that the Board intended to narrow the scope of the referendum to BB, but consistent with the fine legal guidance they have gotten throughout the process, I really do believe that the drafter either screwed up, or intentionally drafted the language to be inconsistent with the resolution approved by the Board (either way, the referendum would not allow construction at the EOLA site)!

My feeling is that, once he got on board, Dr. D was the brainchild of using the "accidence" of the language of the referendum to try to circumvent the factual representations made by the Board and District, and the Board jumped on board because of the embarrassment of the alternative (getting hung out to dry because they were responsible for having the third school fall through and having no Plan B).

I think they know another referendum would probably not pass and that they really believe the District needs a new school (I do not believe the Board (minus one possible exception) are bad people), and in that Dr. D was not here, I guess he did not feel morally compelled to stand behind the representations of those before him (which I think is reprehensible).

However, not sure why you believe that there needs to be an intent to deceive in regards to the resolutions and representations made by the Board not authorizing the construction of the school on a site other than BB (assuming you believe that the language of the 2006 referendum authorized construction of the third high school on a site other than BB).

Whether the Board intended to defraud the voters (which I do not think is the case) or whether it approved a resolution to present a referendum to build on BB and BB only (which is evidenced by the resolutions and factual representations to the voters), the current behavior of the Board is not legal.

Alas, I have family obligations tomorrow night. Otherwise, I would be there, questions in hand for Mr. Collins, himself. You guys have fun without me, though. Don't drink too much punch and get silly, now. Maybe I'll see you at the next one.

[sashimi]

From Rural...

Maybe I'll see you at the next one.



Rural...looking forward to it (I mean it sincerely).

Your questions are legitimate, thoughtful (and dare I even say challenging). There is a risk that the Court will not accept the arguments set forth by the NSFOC lawsuit for the reasons that you have raised (the language of the referendum being the central legal question to be decided by the Court). I am not so naive to believe that this is not a possibility.

However, I just sincerely believe this is a black and white issue (right vs. wrong). Even though I suspect that the intentions of the Board are good (at least 6 of the 7 believe that the District needs a third school), the process and path they have followed in the last few months is not (the ends justifying the means question).

The Board and Administration clearly and unequivocally represented that the referendum was to build a third school on the BB site, and this site was deliberately and painstakingly selected in order to INDUCE the voters to pass the 2nd referendum after the first referendum failed. Yes there were voters who would have voted yes no matter where the school was to be located, but many only voted yes because of the announced location (you can challenge whether this was due to selfish self interests, etc., but regardless of the reason for this, this is each voter's constitutional right).

The Board was very well aware (in fact, they were the ones who announced this) that the site location was THE essential ingredient NECESSARY to get the referendum passed (and believed that absent identifying the exact location, the referendum would fail again). I think it is clear that the Board believed (and I also believe) that if it had selected the EOLA site, the referendum would have failed (based on its own site selection reports and "polling" research)! Is this something that we can agree on??

The Board did not say (and publish) that the referendum was to authorize the Board to use its best efforts to get BB, and if they did not or could not, it would look at other sites (especially sites that it eliminated as possibilities before the election).

Instead, the Board published document after document specifically, clearly and unequivocally stating that the referendum was to build on BB (and that no matter what the cost, it would accept and could afford the jury's verdict, even if it was 600K per acre--which apparently was another misrepresentation?).

If the Board believes it can not afford the BB site or that paying this much money is not responsible...there is only one ethical and legal alternative available to it...a new referendum to the voters. This is especially true in that the first referendum failed by a vote of 42% to 58% and the second passed by a vote of 58% to 42%. Thus, if even 8.00001% of the voters would have voted differently if there the Board had chosen NO site location or had promised the EOLA site location(something we will never know, but something the District believed would have happened from their own statements), the referendum would have failed again.

As I indicated in a prior post...either the Board authorized that a referendum that was limited to the BB land (in which case the current actions are illegal) OR it intended that the referendum language, despite what it repeatedly told the voters (again, even in my kid's backpack), would allow it the flexibility to change sites if it did not like or could not afford the jury verdict in the condemnation case (in which case, the current action is also illegal and they did commit fraud to get the referendum passed, in that this is in direct contradiction to what they told the voters in order to induce the passage of the referendum).

Either way, the recent action of the Board and Administration is, in my opinion, wrong (both morally and legally).

The fact that it has endorsed, by its silence, the community to battle each other on the "ends" question (turning this into an arguement about justice and entitlement) is simply reprehensible to me.

Finally, I agree with what many have pointed out...that we elected the Board use its best judgment, and that the law gives them great discretion in carrying forth these duties. However, the law ALSO requires the Board to get voter approval when building a new school! Based on its own representations both before and after the referendum was passed, the referendum only authorized the Board to build a school on the BB site.