Petition

[sashimi]

I just received a copy of the petition that was circulated about a month ago and presented to the SB in April (it appears primarily signed by residents from communities within close proximity to the AMES site location).

The petition is in support of the SB, and declares that the signors of the petition would not support a forced purchase of the BB land (and that the signors also would not support a new referendum to approve additional funds to support buying BB).

This is not meant to be an attack on those who signed the petition, in that it is certainly within their rights to advocate their collective position (and the petition is a respectful and constructive attempt to communicate their position).

But I do have an observation that I found interesting.

The first paragraph of the petition read:

"In voting for the 2006 referendum, I understood the verbiage did not include a specific site location, only an allocation of dollars to build a third high school and conversion of the Waubansie Gold Campus to a 7th middle school."

Anyone else see the irony here as it relates to one of the central points against the NSFOC position?

My point is simply as the debate continues to rage within our community and personal attacks continue to fly, it is obvious that most everyone has some self interest in the outcome (and perhaps everyone's viewpoint is slightly skewed depending on these interests).

[yeson321]

May 29, 2008 8:02:42 GMT -6 sashimi said:

I just received a copy of the petition that was circulated about a month ago and presented to the SB in April (it appears primarily signed by residents from communities within close proximity to the AMES site location).

The petition is in support of the SB, and declares that the signors of the petition would not support a forced purchase of the BB land (and that the signors also would not support a new referendum to approve additional funds to support buying BB).

This is not meant to be an attack on those who signed the petition, in that it is certainly within their rights to advocate their collective position (and the petition is a respectful and constructive attempt to communicate their position).

But I do have an observation that I found interesting.

The first paragraph of the petition read:

"In voting for the 2006 referendum, I understood the verbiage did not include a specific site location, only an allocation of dollars to build a third high school and conversion of the Waubansie Gold Campus to a 7th middle school."

Anyone else see the irony here as it relates to one of the central points against the NSFOC position?

My point is simply as the debate continues to rage within our community and personal attacks continue to fly, it is obvious that most everyone has some self interest in the outcome (and perhaps everyone's viewpoint is slightly skewed depending on these interests).

Didn't someone previously point out that the verbiage of the referendum did not include anything about the "conversion of the Waubansie Gold Campus to a 7th middle school"?

[yeson321]

May 29, 2008 8:02:42 GMT -6 sashimi said:

I just received a copy of the petition that was circulated about a month ago and presented to the SB in April (it appears primarily signed by residents from communities within close proximity to the AMES site location).

The petition is in support of the SB, and declares that the signors of the petition would not support a forced purchase of the BB land (and that the signors also would not support a new referendum to approve additional funds to support buying BB).

This is not meant to be an attack on those who signed the petition, in that it is certainly within their rights to advocate their collective position (and the petition is a respectful and constructive attempt to communicate their position).

But I do have an observation that I found interesting.

The first paragraph of the petition read:

"In voting for the 2006 referendum, I understood the verbiage did not include a specific site location, only an allocation of dollars to build a third high school and conversion of the Waubansie Gold Campus to a 7th middle school."

Anyone else see the irony here as it relates to one of the central points against the NSFOC position?

My point is simply as the debate continues to rage within our community and personal attacks continue to fly, it is obvious that most everyone has some self interest in the outcome (and perhaps everyone's viewpoint is slightly skewed depending on these interests).

Was the petition worded in such a way that someone who signed it was "required" to have voted "yes" to the referendum? Has it even been verified that everyone who signed the petition even voted in the election based on voting records? Does anyone want to bet that if any of the two issues above were investigated that "some" signatures may not be valid.....................

[doctorwho]

May 29, 2008 8:02:42 GMT -6 sashimi said:

I just received a copy of the petition that was circulated about a month ago and presented to the SB in April (it appears primarily signed by residents from communities within close proximity to the AMES site location).

The petition is in support of the SB, and declares that the signors of the petition would not support a forced purchase of the BB land (and that the signors also would not support a new referendum to approve additional funds to support buying BB).

This is not meant to be an attack on those who signed the petition, in that it is certainly within their rights to advocate their collective position (and the petition is a respectful and constructive attempt to communicate their position).

But I do have an observation that I found interesting.

The first paragraph of the petition read:

"In voting for the 2006 referendum, I understood the verbiage did not include a specific site location, only an allocation of dollars to build a third high school and conversion of the Waubansie Gold Campus to a 7th middle school."

Anyone else see the irony here as it relates to one of the central points against the NSFOC position?

My point is simply as the debate continues to rage within our community and personal attacks continue to fly, it is obvious that most everyone has some self interest in the outcome (and perhaps everyone's viewpoint is slightly skewed depending on these interests).

This was the petition driven by certain SB members using PTSA leaders from brooks ( had the early e-mails as they were organizing) - and original emails circulating to drum up support were anything but nice. List of who to contact was supplied by another SB member ( also named in emails) -

So no suprise to me where most of the signatures came from -- funny, it didn't circulate much here .

[sashimi]

Didn't someone previously point out that the verbiage of the referendum did not include anything about the "conversion of the Waubansie Gold Campus to a 7th middle school"?[/quote]

Correct...the language of the referendum had no reference whatsoever to a conversion of the WVHS Gold campus to a 7th middle school.

I do not want to overstate the importance of the petition (it has no legal bearing whatsoever, so not very important whether people who signed it voted yes, no or not at all). It is just interesting that such a large number of people signed a document verifying that there understanding of the referendum was that it was to provide money to convert WVHS' Gold campus to a middle school (and these are presumably the same people who attack those who believe that the representations by the District that the referendum was to builda 3d high school at the property located at Commons Drive and 75th Street" should be binding as not being able to read).

[macy]

It didn't circulate in my area either. From my understanding, it went to 19 of 21 different elementary areas .

[doctorwho]

May 29, 2008 8:14:38 GMT -6 yeson321 said:

May 29, 2008 8:02:42 GMT -6 sashimi said:

I just received a copy of the petition that was circulated about a month ago and presented to the SB in April (it appears primarily signed by residents from communities within close proximity to the AMES site location).

The petition is in support of the SB, and declares that the signors of the petition would not support a forced purchase of the BB land (and that the signors also would not support a new referendum to approve additional funds to support buying BB).

This is not meant to be an attack on those who signed the petition, in that it is certainly within their rights to advocate their collective position (and the petition is a respectful and constructive attempt to communicate their position).

But I do have an observation that I found interesting.

The first paragraph of the petition read:

"In voting for the 2006 referendum, I understood the verbiage did not include a specific site location, only an allocation of dollars to build a third high school and conversion of the Waubansie Gold Campus to a 7th middle school."

Anyone else see the irony here as it relates to one of the central points against the NSFOC position?

My point is simply as the debate continues to rage within our community and personal attacks continue to fly, it is obvious that most everyone has some self interest in the outcome (and perhaps everyone's viewpoint is slightly skewed depending on these interests).

Didn't someone previously point out that the verbiage of the referendum did not include anything about the "conversion of the Waubansie Gold Campus to a 7th middle school"?

hey I keep reading anyone who thought the ref was for anything other than a 3rd HS was a moron - looks like the moron union just got larger eh ?

[doctorwho]

May 29, 2008 8:33:51 GMT -6 sashimi said:

Didn't someone previously point out that the verbiage of the referendum did not include anything about the "conversion of the Waubansie Gold Campus to a 7th middle school"?

Correct...the language of the referendum had no reference whatsoever to a conversion of the WVHS Gold campus to a 7th middle school.

I do not want to overstate the importance of the petition (it has no legal bearing whatsoever, so not very important whether people who signed it voted yes, no or not at all). It is just interesting that such a large number of people signed a document verifying that there understanding of the referendum was that it was to provide money to convert WVHS' Gold campus to a middle school (and these are presumably the same people who attack those who believe that the representations by the District that the referendum was to builda 3d high school at the property located at Commons Drive and 75th Street" should be binding as not being able to read).

[/quote]

oh I'm not so sure of the importance, if all those good ( for the kids only ) people understood messages ( and they have verified in wiritng that they have) - that were delviered WITH the 75th and commons message -- then is it not conceivable that others took the other part of the message to the ballot booth with them also?

wouldn't it be great if this orchestrated nonsense of a petition ended up being the clincher in the judge's decision as to what voters read/perceived when voting. We should then send all those people a vote of thanks for supporting the exact point being made.

[doctorwho]

May 29, 2008 8:34:05 GMT -6 macy said:

It didn't circulate in my area either. From my understanding, it went to 19 of 21 different elementary areas .

and what % of the people signing from Brooks / Brookdale....except for 'safe' names sent to them by board memebrs

[Arch]

May 29, 2008 8:39:44 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

wouldn't it be great if this orchestrated nonsense of a petition ended up being the clincher in the judge's decision as to what voters read/perceived when voting. We should then send all those people a vote of thanks for supporting the exact point being made.

It's called a smoking gun and possible perjury.

[proschool]

"In voting for the 2006 referendum, I understood the verbiage did not include a specific site location, only an allocation of dollars to build a third high school and conversion of the Waubansie Gold Campus to a 7th middle school."

When I read verbage like this it makes me think that the switch was in the works prior to the referendum.

[southsidemom]

"In voting for the 2006 referendum, I understood the verbiage did not include a specific site location, only an allocation of dollars to build a third high school and conversion of the Waubansie Gold Campus to a 7th middle school."

When I read verbage like this it makes me think that the switch was in the works prior to the referendum.

Just called my husband at the office to read the interpretation of what we were voting on in the 2006 ref. His exact response, "I voted to convert the WV Golf Campus to a middle school. Where was that written on the ballot?" I thought it was me. Maybe it was written in with all the literature I received saying BB, BB, BB, BB!

[doctorwho]

May 29, 2008 9:42:50 GMT -6 proschool said:

"In voting for the 2006 referendum, I understood the verbiage did not include a specific site location, only an allocation of dollars to build a third high school and conversion of the Waubansie Gold Campus to a 7th middle school."

When I read verbage like this it makes me think that the switch was in the works prior to the referendum.

if it indeed was - who will the best actor academy award go to ?

M2 - " we can afford whatever the jury decides "
CB - visibly upset at making his last decision - boundary 1
HC - Telling BD they are needed at WVHS ( wink wink )

[concerned2]

What I find ironic is that many of these individuals voted no because they were not happy with the boundaries. That they didn't get out of WV. Sounds like they voted accoriding to boundaries and not for a 3rd HS. Isn't that same thing???

I think NSFOC can use their no votes in their case. It shows how the SB information caused many to vote they way they did.

[doctorwho]

May 29, 2008 10:51:47 GMT -6 southsidemom said:

"In voting for the 2006 referendum, I understood the verbiage did not include a specific site location, only an allocation of dollars to build a third high school and conversion of the Waubansie Gold Campus to a 7th middle school."

When I read verbage like this it makes me think that the switch was in the works prior to the referendum.

Just called my husband at the office to read the interpretation of what we were voting on in the 2006 ref. His exact response, "I voted to convert the WV Golf Campus to a middle school. Where was that written on the ballot?" I thought it was me. Maybe it was written in with all the literature I received saying BB, BB, BB, BB!

If we're going to stick to the letter of the law ( what's the matter, can't these people read their ballots ? ) - then there should be no Gold Campus conversion - just a 3rd high school - period.