SouthernWolf
Junior
Dean Wermer; when is the parade?
Posts: 139
|
Post by SouthernWolf on Mar 16, 2009 13:57:11 GMT -6
sorry to get off line. the point was that MM most likely has some information (and experience) that could help a future or current board member. If you think the people we deem smart enough to vote in are not smart enough to think for themselves then that is your issue. the statement was MM was the godfather and no one is smart enough or has the balls to stand up to him and this is based on what? I didn't make the Godfather remark about Mark. I do know Mark's personality type is a very controlling one, amongst other things. It just is what it is. Many people think we'll be lost without Mark. I happen to disagree. Sometimes information and experience from someone comes at too high of a cost. I've decided for myself that his is no longer worth it. Agreed this is my perception as well of M2.. Just wanted to ensure we are taking about the same Mark (M2) not Mark (MR Rising) which is this thread  . |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Mar 16, 2009 23:21:50 GMT -6
sorry to get off line. the point was that MM most likely has some information (and experience) that could help a future or current board member. If you think the people we deem smart enough to vote in are not smart enough to think for themselves then that is your issue. the statement was MM was the godfather and no one is smart enough or has the balls to stand up to him and this is based on what? I didn't make the Godfather remark about Mark. I do know Mark's personality type is a very controlling one, amongst other things. It just is what it is. Many people think we'll be lost without Mark. I happen to disagree. Sometimes information and experience from someone comes at too high of a cost. I've decided for myself that his is no longer worth it. I know you didn't make the comment arch, but that was the topic at hand so I repeated it. I agree all is not lost with out MM because the district will continue to be one of the best in state because of the parents. unfortunately it is one of the most tumultuous for the same reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 16, 2009 23:39:22 GMT -6
I didn't make the Godfather remark about Mark. I do know Mark's personality type is a very controlling one, amongst other things. It just is what it is. Many people think we'll be lost without Mark. I happen to disagree. Sometimes information and experience from someone comes at too high of a cost. I've decided for myself that his is no longer worth it. I know you didn't make the comment arch, but that was the topic at hand so I repeated it. I agree all is not lost with out MM because the district will continue to be one of the best in state because of the parents. unfortunately it is one of the most tumultuous for the same reason. It keeps people in check. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Mar 16, 2009 23:44:44 GMT -6
I know you didn't make the comment arch, but that was the topic at hand so I repeated it. I agree all is not lost with out MM because the district will continue to be one of the best in state because of the parents. unfortunately it is one of the most tumultuous for the same reason. It keeps people in check. based on your commentary here..maybe not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 17, 2009 0:10:12 GMT -6
It keeps people in check. based on your commentary here..maybe not so much. The fat lady hasn't sung yet. |
|
SouthernWolf
Junior
Dean Wermer; when is the parade?
Posts: 139
|
Post by SouthernWolf on Mar 17, 2009 11:15:49 GMT -6
the spin/flagrant/miss-truths/omissions/conspiracy theories..etc have been regarding decisions that don't have a whole lot to do with educating our kids/running a school district right? they were more about building a new HS? and since you don't like the outcome, all decisions must be scrutinized and spun in a negative fashion? Should they be given a free pass ? There's lots more money to be spent - how much is too much $150M $160M+ and another ref to finish ? What's OK by you ? If this was your personal money being spent in this fashion - still OK with it ? I somehow doubt it. Hello Arch and Dr. Who Agreed there were many ommissions/half truths/dare I say bald faced lies in the mad dash to push through the new HS. All of these errors in judgement should be laid at the feet of the current SB members who were on the board at the time. I do not see how rank and file 3rd HS supporters can have this put on their shoulders to carry. This thread is on MR and he was not on the board at the time. MR was pro 3rd HS ANYWHERE at the time. I did not see MR communicating any of this "half truth" data nor did he have any data not available to the general public. Beleive me I know as he and I jousted many times over the 3rd HS issue and all the divergent paths that quagmire took over the 18 months. One moot point issue does not a candidate make (or break). I am not voting for Cathy P (SB appointee) or Sue R (campaign manager email was way to scary and North/South overtones. Unfortunate as it didnt come directly from Sue, but all the same it is her campaign and she is ultimately responsible and I have not seen an apoligy although I have not checked her web site lately). However, I do like MR and Jerry and Doug and Eric. What I would really like to see is M2, CB and AT all voted out in 2011 to make the circle compete. Lets wipe the slate clean and begin anew. Starting in April 2009 and completeing the circle in April 2011. I am so excited to get 4 quality new candidates on the board!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 17, 2009 11:48:28 GMT -6
Fasttimes,
Agreed, MR was not on the board at the time of the decisions but as has been pointed out was a pavement pounder for a petition that basically said inaccurate things regarding what was on the ballot. Is that an automatic disqualification? No. But he had to have known at the time that the petition statement he was gathering signatures for was factually inaccurate and it was that spin that was used as a driving wedge of N v S by many in that camp including known PTA people.
I'm curious if he raised the flag to the Pro-Eola group about this, and why the language was still left factually inaccurate... Or was it a simple oversight?
|
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 17, 2009 12:04:04 GMT -6
Should they be given a free pass ? There's lots more money to be spent - how much is too much $150M $160M+ and another ref to finish ? What's OK by you ? If this was your personal money being spent in this fashion - still OK with it ? I somehow doubt it. Hello Arch and Dr. Who Agreed there were many ommissions/half truths/dare I say bald faced lies in the mad dash to push through the new HS. All of these errors in judgement should be laid at the feet of the current SB members who were on the board at the time. I do not see how rank and file 3rd HS supporters can have this put on their shoulders to carry. This thread is on MR and he was not on the board at the time. MR was pro 3rd HS ANYWHERE at the time. I did not see MR communicating any of this "half truth" data nor did he have any data not available to the general public. Beleive me I know as he and I jousted many times over the 3rd HS issue and all the divergent paths that quagmire took over the 18 months. One moot point issue does not a candidate make (or break). I am not voting for Cathy P (SB appointee) or Sue R (campaign manager email was way to scary and North/South overtones. Unfortunate as it didnt come directly from Sue, but all the same it is her campaign and she is ultimately responsible and I have not seen an apoligy although I have not checked her web site lately). However, I do like MR and Jerry and Doug and Eric. What I would really like to see is M2, CB and AT all voted out in 2011 to make the circle compete. Lets wipe the slate clean and begin anew. Starting in April 2009 and completeing the circle in April 2011. I am so excited to get 4 quality new candidates on the board!!! May I ask why Chris Vickers does not make your list? |
|
SouthernWolf
Junior
Dean Wermer; when is the parade?
Posts: 139
|
Post by SouthernWolf on Mar 17, 2009 12:31:13 GMT -6
Fasttimes, Agreed, MR was not on the board at the time of the decisions but as has been pointed out was a pavement pounder for a petition that basically said inaccurate things regarding what was on the ballot. Is that an automatic disqualification? No. But he had to have known at the time that the petition statement he was gathering signatures for was factually inaccurate and it was that spin that was used as a driving wedge of N v S by many in that camp including known PTA people. I'm curious if he raised the flag to the Pro-Eola group about this, and why the language was still left factually inaccurate... Or was it a simple oversight? Good question. do not know, but I dont think Mark knows either. We agree that the petition wording was condescending, and the intent of the petition is open for interpretation. Let me draw an analogy? MR believes in the 3rd HS and is a "pavement pounder" (as you say) to get signatures where he believes this will help push through the 3rd HS. The actual wording (I have heard several rumors as to the author) whether written by a lawyer in Brookdale (not a very good one based on the WV gold inclusion ;D) or by a member of the Administration (Dr. D, M2 etc etc) is irrelevant to a "pavement pounder" whose only goal is to see a 3rd HS built. If the wording/intent of the petition had other goals attached to it as well (I believe there were) a pavement pounder would not be privy to those behind the scenes goals and quite frankly is solely focused on the primary goal to really notice. Take the NSFOC for example: I was a "pavement pounder" and supported NSFOC (financially as well). My only goal was to get the SB/Admin to slow down and do their do diligence (safety/monetarily), stop obsessing over what I viewed to be an artificial timetable and live up to their original intent on the 2nd ref which was passed by the voters. Hell I didn't even believe we needed a 3rd HS (alternate solutions for the bubble were available at a vastly lower cost) HOWEVER the voters spoke and I believe,the voters wanted the 3rd HS at BB. If SB put Eola up for confirmation vote and it still passed just as the 2nd ref did, fine continue on as quickly as possible. If not, then back to BB and figure it out if you still want the ref money achieved by the flyer/email sell job. (IMO they opened the can of worms to get the money and then decided they wanted to reseal the can instead of deal with it upfront in a consistent manner with their constituents.) Now, for the Analogy; Was I privy to the inner workings of the "leadership: of the NSFOC? no. Could there have been other intents/goals of the group or parts of the group that were inconsistent with mine? of course. Lets say one subgroup didnt care about anything else other than the boundaries (dont know for sure, but need this for my example). Does that make me (a "pavement pounder") trying to ensure the SB is consistent and is acting in a way consistent with how the second ref was passed; forever linked with someone else's possible intent/goal on boundary concerns? I think not. My goal is what concerns me and that is why I supported NSFOC. From your examples/questions to Mark; Lets say I was running for SB. Would the same questions come raining down on me? Most likely from Green  Fasttimes, why didnt you probe the inner workings of the NSFOC. why didnt you find out who wrote what and why? Craziness. I would have spent all my time following up on all that crap versus trying to help achieve my only goal. Hold the SB accountable for their actions and make them live up to their promises that got them the ref money OR put it back to a vote with no location or Eola or whatever they wished. Bottomline, when people are passionate about a goal or cause; they spend little time worring about hidden agendas and potential alternate objectives etc. Mark was passionate about the 3rd HS. I was passionate about holding the SB accountable for their actions. In the past those two positions were mutually exclusive. In the present it just makes for two passionate people wanting what is best for D204. |
|
SouthernWolf
Junior
Dean Wermer; when is the parade?
Posts: 139
|
Post by SouthernWolf on Mar 17, 2009 12:35:08 GMT -6
Hello Arch and Dr. Who Agreed there were many ommissions/half truths/dare I say bald faced lies in the mad dash to push through the new HS. All of these errors in judgement should be laid at the feet of the current SB members who were on the board at the time. I do not see how rank and file 3rd HS supporters can have this put on their shoulders to carry. This thread is on MR and he was not on the board at the time. MR was pro 3rd HS ANYWHERE at the time. I did not see MR communicating any of this "half truth" data nor did he have any data not available to the general public. Beleive me I know as he and I jousted many times over the 3rd HS issue and all the divergent paths that quagmire took over the 18 months. One moot point issue does not a candidate make (or break). I am not voting for Cathy P (SB appointee) or Sue R (campaign manager email was way to scary and North/South overtones. Unfortunate as it didnt come directly from Sue, but all the same it is her campaign and she is ultimately responsible and I have not seen an apoligy although I have not checked her web site lately). However, I do like MR and Jerry and Doug and Eric. What I would really like to see is M2, CB and AT all voted out in 2011 to make the circle compete. Lets wipe the slate clean and begin anew. Starting in April 2009 and completeing the circle in April 2011. I am so excited to get 4 quality new candidates on the board!!! May I ask why Chris Vickers does not make your list? She does: I am not voting for her either: |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 17, 2009 12:47:21 GMT -6
Fasttimes, Agreed, MR was not on the board at the time of the decisions but as has been pointed out was a pavement pounder for a petition that basically said inaccurate things regarding what was on the ballot. Is that an automatic disqualification? No. But he had to have known at the time that the petition statement he was gathering signatures for was factually inaccurate and it was that spin that was used as a driving wedge of N v S by many in that camp including known PTA people. I'm curious if he raised the flag to the Pro-Eola group about this, and why the language was still left factually inaccurate... Or was it a simple oversight? Good question. do not know, but I dont think Mark knows either. We agree that the petition wording was condescending, and the intent of the petition is open for interpretation. Let me draw an analogy? MR believes in the 3rd HS and is a "pavement pounder" (as you say) to get signatures where he believes this will help push through the 3rd HS. The actual wording (I have heard several rumors as to the author) whether written by a lawyer in Brookdale (not a very good one based on the WV gold inclusion ;D) or by a member of the Administration (Dr. D, M2 etc etc) is irrelevant to a "pavement pounder" whose only goal is to see a 3rd HS built. If the wording/intent of the petition had other goals attached to it as well (I believe there were) a pavement pounder would not be privy to those behind the scenes goals and quite frankly is solely focused on the primary goal to really notice. Take the NSFOC for example: I was a "pavement pounder" and supported NSFOC (financially as well). My only goal was to get the SB/Admin to slow down and do their do diligence (safety/monetarily), stop obsessing over what I viewed to be an artificial timetable and live up to their original intent on the 2nd ref which was passed by the voters. Hell I didn't even believe we needed a 3rd HS (alternate solutions for the bubble were available at a vastly lower cost) HOWEVER the voters spoke and I believe,the voters wanted the 3rd HS at BB. If SB put Eola up for confirmation vote and it still passed just as the 2nd ref did, fine continue on as quickly as possible. If not, then back to BB and figure it out if you still want the ref money achieved by the flyer/email sell job. (IMO they opened the can of worms to get the money and then decided they wanted to reseal the can instead of deal with it upfront in a consistent manner with their constituents.) Now, for the Analogy; Was I privy to the inner workings of the "leadership: of the NSFOC? no. Could there have been other intents/goals of the group or parts of the group that were inconsistent with mine? of course. Lets say one subgroup didnt care about anything else other than the boundaries (dont know for sure, but need this for my example). Does that make me (a "pavement pounder") trying to ensure the SB is consistent and is acting in a way consistent with how the second ref was passed; forever linked with someone else's possible intent/goal on boundary concerns? I think not. My goal is what concerns me and that is why I supported NSFOC. From your examples/questions to Mark; Lets say I was running for SB. Would the same questions come raining down on me? Most likely from Green Fasttimes, why didnt you probe the inner workings of the NSFOC. why didnt you find out who wrote what and why? Craziness. I would have spent all my time following up on all that crap versus trying to help achieve my only goal. Hold the SB accountable for their actions and make them live up to their promises that got them the ref money OR put it back to a vote with no location or Eola or whatever they wished. Bottomline, when people are passionate about a goal or cause; they spend little time worring about hidden agendas and potential alternate objectives etc. Mark was passionate about the 3rd HS. I was passionate about holding the SB accountable for their actions. In the past those two positions were mutually exclusive. In the present it just makes for two passionate people wanting what is best for D204. Maybe I have too high of a standard. I purposefully backed away from NSFOC, did not become a member, did not give financially and basically flew solo with respect to the safety issues of the property (that still exist today) because I did not agree with all claims in the lawsuit. I knew the SB had the legal right to do what they did regardless of how ethically wrong I thought it was with the way they did it. For that very singular reason I stayed out of the group. I still shared all the data I collected to those who asked for it and posted a plethora here if you recall... but it was the singular disagreement that I stayed out of it both in name and in money. |
|
SouthernWolf
Junior
Dean Wermer; when is the parade?
Posts: 139
|
Post by SouthernWolf on Mar 17, 2009 13:08:57 GMT -6
Good question. do not know, but I dont think Mark knows either. We agree that the petition wording was condescending, and the intent of the petition is open for interpretation. Let me draw an analogy? MR believes in the 3rd HS and is a "pavement pounder" (as you say) to get signatures where he believes this will help push through the 3rd HS. The actual wording (I have heard several rumors as to the author) whether written by a lawyer in Brookdale (not a very good one based on the WV gold inclusion ;D) or by a member of the Administration (Dr. D, M2 etc etc) is irrelevant to a "pavement pounder" whose only goal is to see a 3rd HS built. If the wording/intent of the petition had other goals attached to it as well (I believe there were) a pavement pounder would not be privy to those behind the scenes goals and quite frankly is solely focused on the primary goal to really notice. Take the NSFOC for example: I was a "pavement pounder" and supported NSFOC (financially as well). My only goal was to get the SB/Admin to slow down and do their do diligence (safety/monetarily), stop obsessing over what I viewed to be an artificial timetable and live up to their original intent on the 2nd ref which was passed by the voters. Hell I didn't even believe we needed a 3rd HS (alternate solutions for the bubble were available at a vastly lower cost) HOWEVER the voters spoke and I believe,the voters wanted the 3rd HS at BB. If SB put Eola up for confirmation vote and it still passed just as the 2nd ref did, fine continue on as quickly as possible. If not, then back to BB and figure it out if you still want the ref money achieved by the flyer/email sell job. (IMO they opened the can of worms to get the money and then decided they wanted to reseal the can instead of deal with it upfront in a consistent manner with their constituents.) Now, for the Analogy; Was I privy to the inner workings of the "leadership: of the NSFOC? no. Could there have been other intents/goals of the group or parts of the group that were inconsistent with mine? of course. Lets say one subgroup didnt care about anything else other than the boundaries (dont know for sure, but need this for my example). Does that make me (a "pavement pounder") trying to ensure the SB is consistent and is acting in a way consistent with how the second ref was passed; forever linked with someone else's possible intent/goal on boundary concerns? I think not. My goal is what concerns me and that is why I supported NSFOC. From your examples/questions to Mark; Lets say I was running for SB. Would the same questions come raining down on me? Most likely from Green Fasttimes, why didnt you probe the inner workings of the NSFOC. why didnt you find out who wrote what and why? Craziness. I would have spent all my time following up on all that crap versus trying to help achieve my only goal. Hold the SB accountable for their actions and make them live up to their promises that got them the ref money OR put it back to a vote with no location or Eola or whatever they wished. Bottomline, when people are passionate about a goal or cause; they spend little time worring about hidden agendas and potential alternate objectives etc. Mark was passionate about the 3rd HS. I was passionate about holding the SB accountable for their actions. In the past those two positions were mutually exclusive. In the present it just makes for two passionate people wanting what is best for D204. Maybe I have too high of a standard. I purposefully backed away from NSFOC, did not become a member, did not give financially and basically flew solo with respect to the safety issues of the property (that still exist today) because I did not agree with all claims in the lawsuit. I knew the SB had the legal right to do what they did regardless of how ethically wrong I thought it was with the way they did it. For that very singular reason I stayed out of the group. I still shared all the data I collected to those who asked for it and posted a plethora here if you recall... but it was the singular disagreement that I stayed out of it both in name and in money. Yes, you do have a higher standard than most (which I totally respect and admire!!). If you were running you would have my vote in a hearbeat. I guess most folks decide what is the lesser of two evils. If you beleive in the 3rd HS, you hope there is no alternate agenda you might be inadvertently fostering. DItto with NSFOC. We only have 13 candidates to choose from (from my perspective 9 removing Sue, Janey not sure where she has been, Cathy, CV). I wont agree with everything from any of the 9 remaining candidates. I Just got to try and find the ones that are most capable and share as many of my beliefs as possible. Hopefully everyone else is doing the same, but I get the feeling it will be the casual "vote like your freind that did the research" folks that decide this election. |
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on Mar 17, 2009 13:12:19 GMT -6
Does your standard include eliminating all the women candidates?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 17, 2009 13:15:11 GMT -6
Maybe I have too high of a standard. I purposefully backed away from NSFOC, did not become a member, did not give financially and basically flew solo with respect to the safety issues of the property (that still exist today) because I did not agree with all claims in the lawsuit. I knew the SB had the legal right to do what they did regardless of how ethically wrong I thought it was with the way they did it. For that very singular reason I stayed out of the group. I still shared all the data I collected to those who asked for it and posted a plethora here if you recall... but it was the singular disagreement that I stayed out of it both in name and in money. Yes, you do have a higher standard than most (which I totally respect and admire!!). If you were running you would have my vote in a hearbeat. I guess most folks decide what is the lesser of two evils. If you beleive in the 3rd HS, you hope there is no alternate agenda you might be inadvertently fostering. DItto with NSFOC. We only have 13 candidates to choose from (from my perspective 9 removing Sue, Janey not sure where she has been, Cathy, CV). I wont agree with everything from any of the 9 remaining candidates. I Just got to try and find the ones that are most capable and share as many of my beliefs as possible. Hopefully everyone else is doing the same, but I get the feeling it will be the casual "vote like your freind that did the research" folks that decide this election. It's your call but curious as to why eliminating CV ? Like MR she has called for M2 resignation. |
|
SouthernWolf
Junior
Dean Wermer; when is the parade?
Posts: 139
|
Post by SouthernWolf on Mar 17, 2009 13:25:58 GMT -6
Does your standard include eliminating all the women candidates? Not sure who this is direccted at (Arch or me)? The 4 candidates I removed from my list I did so for reasons other than gender. CP: appointee of current board. no way for me SR: campaign email from campaign mgr inferred north/south and inferred nefarious goals of other candidates. Janey: she hasnt been to anything. If she cant make it to the events, will she miracously attend board meetings? geez CV: sitting board member and while I respect her alot; I would personally like to see all new blood on the new board. Finally, I did not "remove" Dawn from my list. I am intrigued by her and need to find out more. Treehugger, I take issue with your statement; but figured I would line out my reasons anyways as I now do realize that the 4 I removed happen to be females  I did not catch this |
|
Fasttimes, why didnt you probe the inner workings of the NSFOC. why didnt you find out who wrote what and why? Craziness. I would have spent all my time following up on all that crap versus trying to help achieve my only goal. Hold the SB accountable for their actions and make them live up to their promises that got them the ref money OR put it back to a vote with no location or Eola or whatever they wished. 
I did not catch this