|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 16, 2009 17:57:12 GMT -6
I'd like to see REAL numbers put to that 'can of worms' as people call it. As a carrot to dangle, have a cut-off year for bus service, and if the parents ELECT to go under a sibling plan, THEY are responsible for transportation to/from the school from that point going forward.
I'd bet dollars to donuts the number of parents who would opt for it wouldn't fill that proverbial can even half way.
|
|
|
|
Post by kidsfirst on Mar 17, 2009 7:53:05 GMT -6
Does anyone know where the meeting is for tonight for this group?
My friend emailed them on 3/13 and she still hasn't heard back from them. There's 4 of them for goodness sakes, can't they send a quick reply?
There is also no update on their website. It just says there is a meeting on 3/17 and to email them for details. Not very good way to communicate IMO. If I want an unanswered email, I can go to the current board for that.
I am assuming they didn't find a place that would let them hold their meeting but it sure would be nice to communicate that to the public since good communication tends to be their platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Mar 17, 2009 8:03:06 GMT -6
Unless I'm mistaken (and I often am) there is no meeting tonight. There is one scheduled tomorrow at the White Eagle Homeowners' Club.
I received this from a friend: Just a reminder about the Open House meeting for the candidates running for the school district 204-Taxpayers for Excellence. The meeting is this Wednesday, March 18 at the White Eagle Homeowners Club (again not the Golf Club) from 7-8:30. The Homeowners Club is located off of White Eagle Drive.....enter WE off of Montgomery Road (1st WE entrance going west from RT59) and you will not be able to miss it on the left. Everyone is welcome!
Tonight, you're on your own to go have a green beer in your local pub ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Mar 17, 2009 8:09:58 GMT -6
I'd like to see REAL numbers put to that 'can of worms' as people call it. As a carrot to dangle, have a cut-off year for bus service, and if the parents ELECT to go under a sibling plan, THEY are responsible for transportation to/from the school from that point going forward. I'd bet dollars to donuts the number of parents who would opt for it wouldn't fill that proverbial can even half way. That's the thing that really gets me going. The people that talk about the "whole can of worms". In the case of the class of 2012 kids at NV it is less than 50 kids. I saw a spreadsheet that listed every single one of the families with a sibling that would also be at Neuqua. It was exactly 44 kids! That's right, 44 more kids would have to fit into the main campus at Neuqua next year. I don't know the number for WV but I would have to guess it would be relatively comparable. Who in their right mind, thinks that that is NOT a doable number? You're going to screw my family's life (my kids are best friends and now they don't go to school together? I'm going to try to pick kids up from practices at 2 different high schools, How can I get to meets/games at two different locations, etc.) because we can't get 44 more kids in the main campus??? Sorry but I'm just not good with that! You want to talk hardship? Well it is to me! |
|
|
|
Post by anteater on Mar 17, 2009 8:45:09 GMT -6
You flatter me, Arch. Truly, I don't have an answer for you. I'm sure it is addressed somewhere in the BM Handbook they get once they are elected (Is there such a thing?). My gut guess is that they would be required to recuse themselves from any vote or discussion where they would have a conflict of interest, but honestly, I'm not positive. ETA: Ethically, I would hope anyone with a conflict of interest would volunteer to stay out of votes and discussions.  |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 17, 2009 9:00:32 GMT -6
You flatter me, Arch. Truly, I don't have an answer for you. I'm sure it is addressed somewhere in the BM Handbook they get once they are elected (Is there such a thing?). My gut guess is that they would be required to recuse themselves from any vote or discussion where they would have a conflict of interest, but honestly, I'm not positive. ETA: Ethically, I would hope anyone with a conflict of interest would volunteer to stay out of votes and discussions. Perfect find. Thanks. From my reading of the policy, his wife does not have to resign her position and he is not forbidden from being on the Board of Education because of it.... The contract part mentioned 'purchasing' but had language about: "Nor furnish directly and labor...." Would it fall under this or not, since his wife is furnishing labor via her current employment and not Doug directly. *shrug* Again, I'm not a lawyer and this is the distinction that I don't know for certain what it means/implies. Rural, any help on this? |
|
|
|
Post by anteater on Mar 17, 2009 9:04:08 GMT -6
Perfect find. Thanks. From my reading of the policy, his wife does not have to resign her position and he is not forbidden from being on the Board of Education because of it.... The contract part mentioned 'purchasing' but had language about: "Nor furnish directly and labor...." Would it fall under this or not, since his wife is furnishing labor via her current employment and not Doug directly. *shrug* Again, I'm not a lawyer and this is the distinction that I don't know for certain what it means/implies. Rural, any help on this? My reading of the School Code sections cited in the policy would seem to suggest that abstaining from voting on the teachers contract would be required/sufficient. Of course, that's now a moot point for this year, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 17, 2009 9:40:06 GMT -6
Perfect find. Thanks. From my reading of the policy, his wife does not have to resign her position and he is not forbidden from being on the Board of Education because of it.... The contract part mentioned 'purchasing' but had language about: "Nor furnish directly and labor...." Would it fall under this or not, since his wife is furnishing labor via her current employment and not Doug directly. *shrug* Again, I'm not a lawyer and this is the distinction that I don't know for certain what it means/implies. Rural, any help on this? My reading of the School Code sections cited in the policy would seem to suggest that abstaining from voting on the teachers contract would be required/sufficient. Of course, that's now a moot point for this year, anyway. I agree that would be the 'proper' thing to do... but I also was curious if legally he had to. Again, I personally think he should whether he legally has to or not, but I'm simply curious where the technicality is. Also, I've been digging and trying to find if ANY teacher contract that was submitted to the Board of Education for a vote has ever been voted down... I can't find any evidence of that ever occurring... so in light of that, I don't think there's any difference in the outcome whether 6 people vote on it or 7. |
|
|
|
Post by kidsfirst on Mar 17, 2009 10:10:46 GMT -6
Thanks, arch. A green beer does sound kind of good tonight! I guess my friend and I will attend WE on Wednesday.
Casey, are your numbers just for siblings and obviously not addressing those that want to stay for sports, correct?
Also, these 44 families... is this just a case where they currently have a child at NV? Would they only get a one-time grandfathering and their younger kids in say ES are out of luck? I really don't see a problem with grandfathering if you make it elective but I think the policy-making could be tough. Do you reward the family with an already existing older child and get to grandfather the younger one this year but if you have an 9th grader who is your second oldest being grandfathered, then what happens to your youngest when he/she enters a year or two later? Out of luck because the grandfathering is done or do we keep extending the grandfathering and for how long? There could be multiple families with multiple kids spaced 3 years apart where this could be drawn out for years. I guess I am confused as to what the policy would be and would it be fair to all?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 17, 2009 10:15:14 GMT -6
KidsFirst,
I think it should be as long as there are 2 children that could attend the same school, it should continue. If there is a gap, like say a senior and an 8th grader.... the senior graduates, and the incoming freshman goes to regular assigned school because there would no longer be 2 that could attend the same school. My opinion only...
This minimizes the 'can of worms' further.
|
|
|
|
Post by kidsfirst on Mar 17, 2009 10:25:17 GMT -6
KidsFirst, I think it should be as long as there are 2 children that could attend the same school, it should continue. If there is a gap, like say a senior and an 8th grader.... the senior graduates, and the incoming freshman goes to regular assigned school because there would no longer be 2 that could attend the same school. My opinion only... This minimizes the 'can of worms' further. I agree with you that once the cycle is broken, it should stop. This is more a transportation/parent convenience issue. I'm also sure that there wouldn't be that many families that would have multiple kids affected for years but obviously, this policy would have to be "kept open" for at a few years and possibly longer, especially if a family had multiple kids where at least 2 would be together at multiple points. I agree though, if we really are talking those numbers, it should be looked at. The problem is that we have many more families moving to MV from WV so it might not be that simple on that northern end. And you can't make an exception for the NV families because NV "has the room". I think you need to look at the WV numbers before determining if this could work. Problem is I don't see a new board being able to examine this and make the necessary policy and then implement it in time. HS schedules are being determined as we speak, band and orchestra assignments are being made etc. IMO that is a whole other "can of worms" I'm afraid. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 17, 2009 11:09:37 GMT -6
KidsFirst, I think it should be as long as there are 2 children that could attend the same school, it should continue. If there is a gap, like say a senior and an 8th grader.... the senior graduates, and the incoming freshman goes to regular assigned school because there would no longer be 2 that could attend the same school. My opinion only... This minimizes the 'can of worms' further. I agree with you that once the cycle is broken, it should stop. This is more a transportation/parent convenience issue. I'm also sure that there wouldn't be that many families that would have multiple kids affected for years but obviously, this policy would have to be "kept open" for at a few years and possibly longer, especially if a family had multiple kids where at least 2 would be together at multiple points. I agree though, if we really are talking those numbers, it should be looked at. The problem is that we have many more families moving to MV from WV so it might not be that simple on that northern end. And you can't make an exception for the NV families because NV "has the room". I think you need to look at the WV numbers before determining if this could work. Problem is I don't see a new board being able to examine this and make the necessary policy and then implement it in time. HS schedules are being determined as we speak, band and orchestra assignments are being made etc. IMO that is a whole other "can of worms" I'm afraid. as far as room - remember the capacity numbers being thrown around today have been massaged for this agenda. In 2004 I have a copy of a SD presentation that shows capacity for the 2 HS's and freshman centers as over 10,000 ( counting 600 for Frontier Campus) - 5500 at WVHS - 1200 freshman center ( optimum capacity ID' as 1200 ) = 4300 -- now apply the 90% rate to that and you have 3870.. Of course at that time they were trying to show the freshman centers were the be all end all - when they wanted a shiny new school the occupancy numbers now read 3000 for WVHS gold. Did the school shrink ? My daughter attended at 3600 - and you know what - no split shifts or anything. There is room to do any of the requests mentioned - if they wanted too. btw- hearing more and more rumors about the 4 freshman on NV BB girls team being granted approval to stay @ NV. Mike Williams is a smart coach - it would not surprise me... if true they better get ready for a flood of requests -- Pandora's box may already be open |
|
SouthernWolf
Junior
Dean Wermer; when is the parade?
Posts: 139
|
Post by SouthernWolf on Mar 17, 2009 11:35:30 GMT -6
My reading of the School Code sections cited in the policy would seem to suggest that abstaining from voting on the teachers contract would be required/sufficient. Of course, that's now a moot point for this year, anyway. I agree that would be the 'proper' thing to do... but I also was curious if legally he had to. Again, I personally think he should whether he legally has to or not, but I'm simply curious where the technicality is. Also, I've been digging and trying to find if ANY teacher contract that was submitted to the Board of Education for a vote has ever been voted down... I can't find any evidence of that ever occurring... so in light of that, I don't think there's any difference in the outcome whether 6 people vote on it or 7. I like him as a candidate and SB member. His wife has already stepped down from the union leadership. Historically, the SB has not been heavily involved in the day to day negotiations (I think that should change and at least one SB member should be present first hand at the negotiating table to ensure SB gets not only Dr. D admin take on it but also gets a boardmembers view as well.) Doug would need to recuse himself on teacher contract votes to ensure there is no hint of "funny business" and maintains the integrity of the office/SB. I am sure this will not be a problem and it will not affect my vote in the least. |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 17, 2009 11:52:53 GMT -6
Perfect find. Thanks. From my reading of the policy, his wife does not have to resign her position and he is not forbidden from being on the Board of Education because of it.... The contract part mentioned 'purchasing' but had language about: "Nor furnish directly and labor...." Would it fall under this or not, since his wife is furnishing labor via her current employment and not Doug directly. *shrug* Again, I'm not a lawyer and this is the distinction that I don't know for certain what it means/implies. Rural, any help on this? My reading of the School Code sections cited in the policy would seem to suggest that abstaining from voting on the teachers contract would be required/sufficient. Of course, that's now a moot point for this year, anyway. I agree with Anteater's read on this. He will have to abstain from vote and discussion on anything that would be considered a conflict of interest. Does that include any discussion involving teacher greiveance or misconduct, etc. where the union needs to be involved? Seems to tie his hands for anything there also. But again, as with all laws, it's open to interpretation.  ETA: typo |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 17, 2009 11:58:45 GMT -6
I agree that would be the 'proper' thing to do... but I also was curious if legally he had to. Again, I personally think he should whether he legally has to or not, but I'm simply curious where the technicality is. Also, I've been digging and trying to find if ANY teacher contract that was submitted to the Board of Education for a vote has ever been voted down... I can't find any evidence of that ever occurring... so in light of that, I don't think there's any difference in the outcome whether 6 people vote on it or 7. I like him as a candidate and SB member. His wife has already stepped down from the union leadership. Historically, the SB has not been heavily involved in the day to day negotiations (I think that should change and at least one SB member should be present first hand at the negotiating table to ensure SB gets not only Dr. D admin take on it but also gets a boardmembers view as well.) Doug would need to recuse himself on teacher contract votes to ensure there is no hint of "funny business" and maintains the integrity of the office/SB. I am sure this will not be a problem and it will not affect my vote in the least. If his wife is no longer involved with the TU, then "legally" there is nothing barring him from any vote or discussion as there is "legally" no conflict of interest. |
|
