|
|
Post by macy on Apr 8, 2009 20:02:16 GMT -6
I could understand if people suspected of EH, after all he lives in TG and has young children. Jerry Huang could have represented a disgruntled portion of May Watts, I guess. But what reason would Doug DiFusco or Don Moscato have to reopen boundaries? They live in Stillwater and could well have opened their own neighborhoods into being reassigned elsewhere. What reason could those two have had for wanting to change boundaries? Exactly but honesty wouldn't fit the agenda. I know of several people from the unaffected southern areas who "wouldn't want the targets painted on" their backs so they don't get too involved. I also know of others who successfully joined forces to get what they wanted in 2006 so they want everything to stay the same. Just to refresh everyone's memory, Spring Brook, Clow, and Welch, joined forces during the 2006 "boundary wars" and did some backdoor dealings. Their under the table tactics worked very well. They literally were able to get the original 4 boundary options thrown out overnight. In 2008 Dr. D. told the Fry PTA that it was down to Fry and Welch in who would have to move from NV, pitting school against school. Then Welch resident and district employee Karla Zozulia puts out that fabricated email about the bridge... Can anyone tell me why someone from the Welch would want to revisit the boundaries? If people took the time they spent reading the FUD about the slate of 4 and did actual research, they would have known that. The Fry community doesn't do backdoor dealings or use under-handed tactics like fabricated memos. We have done everything in the light of day. I am enormously proud of my area. researching I agree. However, just because of where we live, we've been played like fools, called names, and have a target on our back for no good reason just because of where we live. I didn't send out, nor read one nasty email coming from anyone campaigning for the "fab four" (nice little slam, eh?) during this election. Maybe negative, nasty campaigns are the most successful. Unfortunate but true. Good luck to Sue, Cathy, Dawn and Christine. I sincerly wish you the best. I really wanted to see change on the board. Maybe it can still happen, maybe not. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Apr 8, 2009 20:10:37 GMT -6
Exactly but honesty wouldn't fit the agenda. I know of several people from the unaffected southern areas who "wouldn't want the targets painted on" their backs so they don't get too involved. I also know of others who successfully joined forces to get what they wanted in 2006 so they want everything to stay the same. Just to refresh everyone's memory, Spring Brook, Clow, and Welch, joined forces during the 2006 "boundary wars" and did some backdoor dealings. Their under the table tactics worked very well. They literally were able to get the original 4 boundary options thrown out overnight. In 2008 Dr. D. told the Fry PTA that it was down to Fry and Welch in who would have to move from NV, pitting school against school. Then Welch resident and district employee Karla Zozulia puts out that fabricated email about the bridge... Can anyone tell me why someone from the Welch would want to revisit the boundaries? If people took the time they spent reading the FUD about the slate of 4 and did actual research, they would have known that. The Fry community doesn't do backdoor dealings or use under-handed tactics like fabricated memos. We have done everything in the light of day. I am enormously proud of my area. researching I agree. However, just because of where we live, we've been played like fools, called names, and have a target on our back for no good reason just because of where we live. I didn't send out, nor read one nasty email coming from anyone campaigning for the "fab four" (nice little slam, eh?) during this election. Maybe negative, nasty campaigns are the most successful. Unfortunate but true. Good luck to Sue, Cathy, Dawn and Christine. I sincerly wish you the best. I really wanted to see change on the board. Maybe it can still happen, maybe not. Agreed on all fronts. |
|
|
|
Post by warriordiva on Apr 8, 2009 20:13:14 GMT -6
"See, it's just those two trouble-making subdivisions" I heard that one today... Someone I was with today said she was cornered by Piehl when picking up her child at Steck and was forced to listen to her mumbling so gave her a vote since she seemed like a nice lady. I told her that Piehl was the same "nice lady" that gave MM a free pass for calling a parent a liar and an MF. She had no idea. What shocked her most is that apparently the Vickers (George and Nancy) endorsed Piehl and she could not imagine them supporting a candidate that excused such awful actions. I said, "Believe it!" If you are from Steck - you should ask Nancy directly (she is very forthright and will tell you if she supported Piehl or not) if she "endorsed" Piehl. The only candidate the Vickers "endorsed" (such a ridiculous word to use in this situation) is Christine Vickers (no relation to them). They proudly placed her sign in their yard and attended her victory party. Nancy nor George never ever "endorsed" or claimed to support Cathy Piehl. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Apr 8, 2009 20:30:39 GMT -6
Someone I was with today said she was cornered by Piehl when picking up her child at Steck and was forced to listen to her mumbling so gave her a vote since she seemed like a nice lady. I told her that Piehl was the same "nice lady" that gave MM a free pass for calling a parent a liar and an MF. She had no idea. What shocked her most is that apparently the Vickers (George and Nancy) endorsed Piehl and she could not imagine them supporting a candidate that excused such awful actions. I said, "Believe it!" If you are from Steck - you should ask Nancy directly (she is very forthright and will tell you if she supported Piehl or not) if she "endorsed" Piehl. The only candidate the Vickers "endorsed" (such a ridiculous word to use in this situation) is Christine Vickers (no relation to them). They proudly placed her sign in their yard and attended her victory party. Nancy nor George never ever "endorsed" or claimed to support Cathy Piehl. I don't attend Steck. Have some friends that are parents of Steck children and informed me today. And she had no reason to lie. OK, let me rephrase it. She told this woman to vote for Piehl.....better? Oh and BTW if I see Nancy I will be asking her. Not that it matters at this point, but I found it odd since both Vickers are anti-MM. Like I said, nothing surprises me anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by insider on Apr 8, 2009 20:45:16 GMT -6
"I could understand if people suspected of EH, after all he lives in TG and has young children. Jerry Huang could have represented a disgruntled portion of May Watts, I guess. But what reason would Doug DiFusco or Don Moscato have to reopen boundaries? They live in Stillwater and could well have opened their own neighborhoods into being reassigned elsewhere. What reason could those two have had for wanting to change boundaries? "
During the 2006 ref effort, certain SB members, HC and other admin were attending private homeowners association meetings. The south message given to HOAs was that we need a third hs and if we can't get a ref to pass, someone has to move. Every audience particularly in the south was told that if that happened, their subdivision could or would get moved to WVHS. Stillwater was one of those areas. The message spread fast. The residents were very unhappy about the idea.
Knowing this history to be true could lead one to believe that DiFusco and Moscato were partly in it to protect their territory and attendance boundaries. A possibility at that.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 8, 2009 21:31:03 GMT -6
"I could understand if people suspected of EH, after all he lives in TG and has young children. Jerry Huang could have represented a disgruntled portion of May Watts, I guess. But what reason would Doug DiFusco or Don Moscato have to reopen boundaries? They live in Stillwater and could well have opened their own neighborhoods into being reassigned elsewhere. What reason could those two have had for wanting to change boundaries? " During the 2006 ref effort, certain SB members, HC and other admin were attending private homeowners association meetings. The south message given to HOAs was that we need a third hs and if we can't get a ref to pass, someone has to move. Every audience particularly in the south was told that if that happened, their subdivision could or would get moved to WVHS. Stillwater was one of those areas. The message spread fast. The residents were very unhappy about the idea. Knowing this history to be true could lead one to believe that DiFusco and Moscato were partly in it to protect their territory and attendance boundaries. A possibility at that. LMAO!  At least Stillwater got a private meeting? and, if I'm reading this right they were told somebody HAS to move to WVHS? Why is it that the district promotes WVHS as a negative place to be? TG never had that "PRIVATE MEETING". We were made the villain, the source of evil, etc. That was the plan, vilify one neighborhood while holding meetings and terrifying others with the threat of "WVHS". How sick, dastardly but devious enough to work! It was sheer genius despite being downright ruthless. but I infer from your post, other areas had to be persuaded to vote for the third high school or they would be punished if it failed cuz they would be sent to Waubonsie? Yuck! That makes me sick to my stomach. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Apr 8, 2009 21:43:28 GMT -6
I could understand if people suspected of EH, after all he lives in TG and has young children. Jerry Huang could have represented a disgruntled portion of May Watts, I guess. But what reason would Doug DiFusco or Don Moscato have to reopen boundaries? They live in Stillwater and could well have opened their own neighborhoods into being reassigned elsewhere. What reason could those two have had for wanting to change boundaries?I am not saying this was going to happen, but if the slate of four was elected, they could help their "buddies" slated for MV and WV back into their school of choice with a change of boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 8, 2009 21:49:14 GMT -6
I could understand if people suspected of EH, after all he lives in TG and has young children. Jerry Huang could have represented a disgruntled portion of May Watts, I guess. But what reason would Doug DiFusco or Don Moscato have to reopen boundaries? They live in Stillwater and could well have opened their own neighborhoods into being reassigned elsewhere. What reason could those two have had for wanting to change boundaries?I am not saying this was going to happen, but if the slate of four was elected, they could help their "buddies" slated for MV and WV back into their school of choice with a change of boundaries. Same thing goes for those on the board now. The board can redo them anytime they want. Boundaries were not on the ballot, just the candidate's name. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 8, 2009 21:59:39 GMT -6
I could understand if people suspected of EH, after all he lives in TG and has young children. Jerry Huang could have represented a disgruntled portion of May Watts, I guess. But what reason would Doug DiFusco or Don Moscato have to reopen boundaries? They live in Stillwater and could well have opened their own neighborhoods into being reassigned elsewhere. What reason could those two have had for wanting to change boundaries?I am not saying this was going to happen, but if the slate of four was elected, they could help their "buddies" slated for MV and WV back into their school of choice with a change of boundaries. Steckdad, They boundary debate is over. It ended a while ago. Let's move on. I never believed for one minute that the boundary debate was a part of the last school board election but according to your thoughts, I was wrong. Move on Steckdad. I have. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Apr 8, 2009 22:01:04 GMT -6
I am not saying this was going to happen, but if the slate of four was elected, they could help their "buddies" slated for MV and WV back into their school of choice with a change of boundaries. Same thing goes for those on the board now. The board can redo them anytime they want. Boundaries were not on the ballot, just the candidate's name. OK arch...just answering a question...play possum if you like. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Apr 8, 2009 22:03:55 GMT -6
I am not saying this was going to happen, but if the slate of four was elected, they could help their "buddies" slated for MV and WV back into their school of choice with a change of boundaries. Steckdad, They boundary debate is over. It ended a while ago. Let's move on. I never believed for one minute that the boundary debate was a part of the last school board election but according to your thoughts, I was wrong. Move on Steckdad. I have. what part of "I am not saying this was going to happen" don't you understand? just answering a question put out to the group. the boundaries are meaningless to me. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Apr 8, 2009 22:04:39 GMT -6
"I could understand if people suspected of EH, after all he lives in TG and has young children. Jerry Huang could have represented a disgruntled portion of May Watts, I guess. But what reason would Doug DiFusco or Don Moscato have to reopen boundaries? They live in Stillwater and could well have opened their own neighborhoods into being reassigned elsewhere. What reason could those two have had for wanting to change boundaries? " During the 2006 ref effort, certain SB members, HC and other admin were attending private homeowners association meetings. The south message given to HOAs was that we need a third hs and if we can't get a ref to pass, someone has to move. Every audience particularly in the south was told that if that happened, their subdivision could or would get moved to WVHS. Stillwater was one of those areas. The message spread fast. The residents were very unhappy about the idea. Knowing this history to be true could lead one to believe that DiFusco and Moscato were partly in it to protect their territory and attendance boundaries. A possibility at that. LMAO! At least Stillwater got a private meeting? and, if I'm reading this right they were told somebody HAS to move to WVHS? Why is it that the district promotes WVHS as a negative place to be? TG never had that "PRIVATE MEETING". We were made the villain, the source of evil, etc. That was the plan, vilify one neighborhood while holding meetings and terrifying others with the threat of "WVHS". How sick, dastardly but devious enough to work! It was sheer genius despite being downright ruthless. but I infer from your post, other areas had to be persuaded to vote for the third high school or they would be punished if it failed cuz they would be sent to Waubonsie? Yuck! That makes me sick to my stomach. time to take your own advice and "move on" |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 8, 2009 22:05:54 GMT -6
I could understand if people suspected of EH, after all he lives in TG and has young children. Jerry Huang could have represented a disgruntled portion of May Watts, I guess. But what reason would Doug DiFusco or Don Moscato have to reopen boundaries? They live in Stillwater and could well have opened their own neighborhoods into being reassigned elsewhere. What reason could those two have had for wanting to change boundaries?I am not saying this was going to happen, but if the slate of four was elected, they could help their "buddies" slated for MV and WV back into their school of choice with a change of boundaries. wow what an evil thing - imagine a way to not have a school travel to the farthest possible location from it's area and maybe have the district save money on transportation in the process. How horrid a thought would that be even if the FUD was true- which it wasn't. Put those people away - we couldn't have that - they're like terrorists or something. String em up  |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 8, 2009 22:25:48 GMT -6
LMAO! At least Stillwater got a private meeting? and, if I'm reading this right they were told somebody HAS to move to WVHS? Why is it that the district promotes WVHS as a negative place to be? TG never had that "PRIVATE MEETING". We were made the villain, the source of evil, etc. That was the plan, vilify one neighborhood while holding meetings and terrifying others with the threat of "WVHS". How sick, dastardly but devious enough to work! It was sheer genius despite being downright ruthless. but I infer from your post, other areas had to be persuaded to vote for the third high school or they would be punished if it failed cuz they would be sent to Waubonsie? Yuck! That makes me sick to my stomach. time to take your own advice and "move on" thanks Steckdad for your kind words. You are a real nice guy ! I hope we meet someday, honestly!  Seems like you like an argument. I'm not going to engage with you. What would be the point? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 8, 2009 22:53:35 GMT -6
Same thing goes for those on the board now. The board can redo them anytime they want. Boundaries were not on the ballot, just the candidate's name. OK arch...just answering a question...play possum if you like. Just pointing out that the door swings both ways. You can't say one group would have had the capability (and call it a bad thing) when the power is always there for whomever is sitting in the chairs... |
|
