|
|
Post by Arch on May 23, 2008 21:34:52 GMT -6
You're right, Arch - this situation has caused people to feel like they need to take action. She just took action with the wrong person in this case. See other thread about the 'deflection' tactic sprinkled with emotions. That's what's been going on, and that's exactly what has been playing out. On some level I feel bad for them because they've been manipulated, whether they know it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on May 23, 2008 21:35:47 GMT -6
Which thread are you referring to?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 23, 2008 21:36:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 23, 2008 21:39:59 GMT -6
For the record, the email came from someone attacking NSFOC, their motives and their position. I will not share the name, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it comes out. It is public record now, after all. It is illegal to present evidence to a judge outside of a court of law. what's ironic is that the email comes from one of the most exclusive areas in the district - I guess they are not elitists if you are north of Ogden. Having a few sheckles doesn't matter then.... but it's a crime south of that. |
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on May 23, 2008 21:57:05 GMT -6
I didn't realize where it came from. Again someone possibly motivated by a brand new school practically in their backyard? Shocking.  |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 23, 2008 21:59:02 GMT -6
I didn't realize where it came from. Again someone possibly motivated by a brand new school practically in their backyard? Shocking. couldn't be - they all voted yes for just a 3rd HS anywhere - they read the ballot you know..  |
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on May 23, 2008 22:07:38 GMT -6
Yes. They are much more informed than the rest of us morons. We should have been able to sift through all the BS the district was giving us and...believed Chris Vickers. Or as the motion to dismiss asserts, read the statutes on referendum verbage and what it really means. Oh, sorry, we were too busy attending pep rallies led by our master manipulators.
ETA: I think I overdosed on Sarcasma today.
|
|
|
|
Post by spousestonethrow on May 24, 2008 5:28:30 GMT -6
For the record, the email came from someone attacking NSFOC, their motives and their position. I will not share the name, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it comes out. It is public record now, after all. It is illegal to present evidence to a judge outside of a court of law. How thoughtless can one be to send a letter to Popejoy? I was informed of the person's name but it meant nothing to me since I do not know her. She must be so embarrassed to be called out in court. I am surprised that M2 (Mr. Expert Legal Counsel to the SB) did not block that move before it was made. Wonder what her buddies on green think about that?  I find it amazing how the SB and DrD can still manipulate so many people. It is all a matter of time that they too will find out that their long term best interests are not being fulfilled. Especially when it comes to their pocketbooks! |
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on May 24, 2008 7:11:55 GMT -6
The judge was noticeably annoyed by this attempt to correspond with him and made it quite clear to all. He seems to be a good and fair man. Both the attorneys did a good job. We shall see. Fairness will prevail, that's the important thing. And it's also important to note how far this has come. Kudos to those who excercised their civil rights and voter rights which we are guaranteed as Americans (had to throw that in on Memorial Day Weekend).
|
|
|
|
Post by spousestonethrow on May 24, 2008 12:01:11 GMT -6
I try to read the green board praying that there are some open minds that think out of the box. Yet time and time again they prove me wrong. I don't support everything on either board 100% yet there are those that will fight simple common sense for the sake of just not liking NSFOC: One person has posted:
It's interesting that some nFUD suppporters have thrown out the "you can get an emergeny Ref out in a few weeks" line a few times.
What do they expect that Ref to be for?
What do they expect it to say?
Didn't the SD lawyer say yesterday that if they had to have another Ref it would have the exact same wording that the 06 Ref did? Wouldn't it be rather odd to once again have to vote for "$124M to build a 3rd HS" even though this same Ref passed in 06?
Now one would think that if there was a new ref the district would learn it's lesson and be specific now that the AME land is owned and we know the site selection for the 3rd hs. Oh I forgot - ambiguity makes it free and clear to screw the taxpayers! It is transparent to me that the reason the SB does not want a new ref is because they know that it WILL NOT pass! But then again it is only a few people in the grand scheme that are against how the SB has voted to spend the money approved for the 3rd HS (with countless supporting documents stating BB).
|
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on May 24, 2008 13:50:35 GMT -6
Someone on the other board wrote that it is illegal to put a specific site on the referendum. Not true. A school board does not have to identify a specific site, but is not precluded from doing so.
But not really the point here. In this instance, the first referendum failed and the Board specifically announced that it felt it was necessary to identify a specific site and specific boundaries in order to induce a yes vote (and then did so). Bradshaw explained to his community that he voted for 6A (to their disappointment) because he believed this was the only option that would result in a yes vote.
If the District puts up for a third referendum, they do not have to identify a site or boundaries, and as long as they do not post on the website and in taxpayer pamphlets in our children's backpacks, they would not be tied to any specific site. So yes, the language could be the same as 2006...simple as that.
Also, I just do not get the green board argument. If a judge declares that the school Board's conduct is illegal, it is NSFOC's fault (we should have allowed the Board to break the law because by their estimation a minority wants the school built at AMES but they know what is best for the District?? And because the majority may not now vote for the AMES location (called a democracy), we may not get a third school (by the majority's will), which would also be NSFOC's fault (and since they know what is best..this would be an injustice??).
Sounds like the start of a reallt good dictatorship.
I am tired of the ends justifying the means argument, which is exactly why the Judge needs to require a new referendum. The Board plows forward because it is afraid that it does not have the support of the majority of the residents it serves (and wants to make the situation so expensive to turn back that it has essentially taken the District hostage.
|
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on May 24, 2008 14:56:40 GMT -6
This judge is not going to toss a coin. He is going to make a fair and impartial decision that we all will have to live with.
|
|
|
|
Post by jftb on May 24, 2008 15:47:32 GMT -6
Someone on the other board wrote that it is illegal to put a specific site on the referendum. Not true. A school board does not have to identify a specific site, but is not precluded from doing so. But not really the point here. In this instance, the first referendum failed and the Board specifically announced that it felt it was necessary to identify a specific site and specific boundaries in order to induce a yes vote (and then did so). Bradshaw explained to his community that he voted for 6A (to their disappointment) because he believed this was the only option that would result in a yes vote. If the District puts up for a third referendum, they do not have to identify a site or boundaries, and as long as they do not post on the website and in taxpayer pamphlets in our children's backpacks, they would not be tied to any specific site. So yes, the language could be the same as 2006...simple as that. Also, I just do not get the green board argument. If a judge declares that the school Board's conduct is illegal, it is NSFOC's fault (we should have allowed the Board to break the law because by their estimation a minority wants the school built at AMES but they know what is best for the District?? And because the majority may not now vote for the AMES location (called a democracy), we may not get a third school (by the majority's will), which would also be NSFOC's fault (and since they know what is best..this would be an injustice??). Sounds like the start of a reallt good dictatorship. I am tired of the ends justifying the means argument, which is exactly why the Judge needs to require a new referendum. The Board plows forward because it is afraid that it does not have the support of the majority of the residents it serves (and wants to make the situation so expensive to turn back that it has essentially taken the District hostage. You know, here's the thing. There just may be enough people in unaffected areas who just want a third high school combined with the people in the north who are drooling over the AME site to pass a third referendum. And if so, that's the system. But we should run a third referendum and let the people speak, whatever it is that they end up saying. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 24, 2008 15:59:14 GMT -6
Someone on the other board wrote that it is illegal to put a specific site on the referendum. Not true. A school board does not have to identify a specific site, but is not precluded from doing so. But not really the point here. In this instance, the first referendum failed and the Board specifically announced that it felt it was necessary to identify a specific site and specific boundaries in order to induce a yes vote (and then did so). Bradshaw explained to his community that he voted for 6A (to their disappointment) because he believed this was the only option that would result in a yes vote. If the District puts up for a third referendum, they do not have to identify a site or boundaries, and as long as they do not post on the website and in taxpayer pamphlets in our children's backpacks, they would not be tied to any specific site. So yes, the language could be the same as 2006...simple as that. Also, I just do not get the green board argument. If a judge declares that the school Board's conduct is illegal, it is NSFOC's fault (we should have allowed the Board to break the law because by their estimation a minority wants the school built at AMES but they know what is best for the District?? And because the majority may not now vote for the AMES location (called a democracy), we may not get a third school (by the majority's will), which would also be NSFOC's fault (and since they know what is best..this would be an injustice??). Sounds like the start of a reallt good dictatorship. I am tired of the ends justifying the means argument, which is exactly why the Judge needs to require a new referendum. The Board plows forward because it is afraid that it does not have the support of the majority of the residents it serves (and wants to make the situation so expensive to turn back that it has essentially taken the District hostage. it is the reason they also were doing everything they could to not have to have an ops ref vote in 2009 - they know the fate of the next referendum after the bait and switch ( yes JC I did look it up ) - all this repeating the silent majorrity garbage is just that. Between the people now ticked off in very heavy voting areas - and the anti tax groups ( especially in a down economy) - if the site stays AME - which will be obvious since we actually do own that land - it will fail. ( likely back to 40-60 as it was before BB was chosen and thoe boundaries chosen) - But yes, I love blaming nsfoc for not standing by and allowing illegal activity to go on ( if it is decided that way) - and one wonders how dictators control countries - it is not hard to see. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 24, 2008 16:01:58 GMT -6
Someone on the other board wrote that it is illegal to put a specific site on the referendum. Not true. A school board does not have to identify a specific site, but is not precluded from doing so. But not really the point here. In this instance, the first referendum failed and the Board specifically announced that it felt it was necessary to identify a specific site and specific boundaries in order to induce a yes vote (and then did so). Bradshaw explained to his community that he voted for 6A (to their disappointment) because he believed this was the only option that would result in a yes vote. If the District puts up for a third referendum, they do not have to identify a site or boundaries, and as long as they do not post on the website and in taxpayer pamphlets in our children's backpacks, they would not be tied to any specific site. So yes, the language could be the same as 2006...simple as that. Also, I just do not get the green board argument. If a judge declares that the school Board's conduct is illegal, it is NSFOC's fault (we should have allowed the Board to break the law because by their estimation a minority wants the school built at AMES but they know what is best for the District?? And because the majority may not now vote for the AMES location (called a democracy), we may not get a third school (by the majority's will), which would also be NSFOC's fault (and since they know what is best..this would be an injustice??). Sounds like the start of a reallt good dictatorship. I am tired of the ends justifying the means argument, which is exactly why the Judge needs to require a new referendum. The Board plows forward because it is afraid that it does not have the support of the majority of the residents it serves (and wants to make the situation so expensive to turn back that it has essentially taken the District hostage. You know, here's the thing. There just may be enough people in unaffected areas who just want a third high school combined with the people in the north who are drooling over the AME site to pass a third referendum. And if so, that's the system. But we should run a third referendum and let the people speak, whatever it is that they end up saying. One never knows - but they are unaffected as to the HS they will attend either way - and if proposals are put out there to build a 7th MS to ease the MS crowding - and leave both freshman centers in place- at a savings of well over $100M - there are also those there who would lean that way. Again if this is only a few hundred people as claimed - then it shouldn't be an issue -- |
|
