|
|
Post by sashimi on Jun 5, 2009 16:07:07 GMT -6
Message from the (LAME DUCK) Superintendent Blah, blah, blah..took 8 months, but parents took care of this for us, blah, blah, blah. New MVHS high school (check) Insult and divide (check) Resolve Gregory situation (check) Dry clean "save the children tie" (check) Terminate contract early (check) Return 25K relocation payment for terminating early (?) Crack myself up with return of relo payment joke (check) Off to Indiana Sincerely (HA HA), Stephen Daeschner (SEE YA LATER, SUCKA'S) (LAME DUCK) Superintendent  |
|
|
|
Post by chemwiz on Jun 8, 2009 15:02:38 GMT -6
Nice interpretation, sashimi! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by gekfromthefarnorth on Jun 8, 2009 19:34:22 GMT -6
YES, more poster should express their displeasure with this kind of satire.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 8, 2009 20:58:00 GMT -6
YES, more poster should express their displeasure with this kind of satire. Everyone's right to have an opinion, either way....I just wish so much of the satire was not based on things that have happened...unfortunately for all us us, it was which provides the basis. |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jun 9, 2009 5:37:13 GMT -6
YES, more poster should express their displeasure with this kind of satire. lighten up! It was funny! |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Jun 9, 2009 7:34:50 GMT -6
The absurdity to me is that after almost 8 months, the District and Dr. D did absolutely nothing to address this "sensitive" situation.
I sincerely think it is great that the families were able to come to a workable solution here. However, I find Dr. D's letter to be anything but sincere (and quite frankly, you would think that he would have had someone send this (maybe KB) who is relevant to the community, is honoring their commitment to the District and is actually going to be with the district 23 days from now. I honestly find that, given his status and the way that he decided to treat this situation from day one, this communication coming from him was just not appropriate or sensitive.
The Board and District decided to play bystanders as this whole thing played out. I think it is horrible that the resolution comes only after the victim had to endure a untenable environment of seeing his assailant for the entire second half of the school year.
I also think that Dr. D lost the right to use the word honor (ie. I decided to honor their request) when he refused to honor the request of the victimized family of having Dr. D's presence in a simple meeting (I think his response was something along the lines of what would be the point).
Satire is defined as irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity. Whereas I clearly lacked any wit, I could not resist the temptation to try given the level of stupidity in how the Administration and the Board (when they finally learned of this situation months after the fact) have treated this situation from beginning to end.
On the serious side (satire or sarcasm aside), I have a great deal of sympathy for the accused children (and their families). What happened was unspeakable, but I find it hard to write off these children. I hope that they all get the support, counsleing and love that they need to make it through all of this.
Thus, I have decided to modify the original post to avoid (or in this case, correct my) being insensitive to the children (and the families) involved in the underlying event. Hope it still gets my point across.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 9, 2009 8:28:57 GMT -6
I defend your right to say anything you wish sashimi, aka first amendment rights afterall. I may not agree with it, but say what you wish.
I also defend Mark Metzger's right to call a parent a MFer or a coward or all the other things he has called parents in the District that I am unaware of.
I also defend our Superintendent's right to call people entitled, just not at a Board meeting where he exceeds the scope of his authority.
I also defend the current IPPC president's right to call people she doesn't even know racists.
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Jun 9, 2009 8:36:51 GMT -6
I also defend the right to admit to making mistakes and being forgiven!
I also defend the right to give folks a second , third and even fourth chance!
I also defend the right to look at the positive, and focus on the positive as apposed to the negative.
And yes I appreciate when one edits a story that for many in our district is still very difficult to deal with, thank you sashimi.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 9, 2009 8:39:51 GMT -6
I support everyone's right to post and also choose to read whatever the heck they want to.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 9, 2009 8:47:06 GMT -6
I also defend the right to admit to making mistakes and being forgiven! I also defend the right to give folks a second , third and even fourth chance! I also defend the right to look at the positive, and focus on the positive as apposed to the negative. And yes I appreciate when one edits a story that for many in our district is still very difficult to deal with, thank you sashimi. We all make mistakes - however sometimes they are not mistakes but well thought out plans - I have a harder time forgiving those. I can only speak for myself- it took me a long time to get where I am -- look back in the archives here a few years ago -- that 4th chance passed a long time ago -- my feelings did not happen overnight I would love to post more positive stuff - wish I could-- however I also support a persons right to air their grievances. I still like to read things people post as positive to double check my stance with myself -- contrary to some thoughts - I am far from closed minded. for instance I agreed with ADK - but did not agree with the way it was shoved on people, and a few SB members agreed with that also. JC did not agree with that either - is she negative ? I am sorry however, I am never going to agree that we needed a 3rd HS since the fact became known that there will only be 8800 students ( Max- then less) as opposed to 10,400 students -- we did not need to spend $150M to fix what needed to be fixed.. Facts were withheld and that was NOT a mistake - that was as close to lying as one can get.I also do not agree with the site in everything from safety to population center to transportation costs... I'm sorry I can't be more positive about that, IMHO the decision was wrong and moved along under false pretenses some of the decision makers were well aware of. That is why you have the FOIA activity you have today. When people are far less than forthright with you - time and again, you lost trust. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 9, 2009 8:56:59 GMT -6
I also defend the right to admit to making mistakes and being forgiven! I also defend the right to give folks a second , third and even fourth chance! I also defend the right to look at the positive, and focus on the positive as apposed to the negative. And yes I appreciate when one edits a story that for many in our district is still very difficult to deal with, thank you sashimi. SSSM, It seems to me that people here are talking about issues and any references to the Board (or any one else for that matter) are in that context, so I don't understand "forgiving" anyone or giving anyone a "second, third, or forth chance." In addition, I think it is fair to say when there isn't an issue raised about this or that, that people are satisified with it or their disagreements with it insignificant and thus they don't comment on it. As for being positive, I agree, and attempting to make constructive comments about issues is positive to me. On the contrary, to gloss over the issues within our District, without comment, serves no one imo. |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Jun 9, 2009 9:04:51 GMT -6
Now I know I really crossed the line (I have been lumped in with infamous examples above).
I too absolutely defend all of our rights under the first amendment. However, that being said, our rights under the first amendment do not come without consequences. If you write something that offends someone, you should expect to be called out on it...and sometimes, rightfully so, made to feel foolish...totally fair game (one of the consequences).
And I apologize for those that my earlier post offended. Not concerned about debasing Dr. D on how he handled this situation, but I do regret belittling the underlying situation itself.
Similarly, MM had every right to refer to a parent as a mother%^&*, but in doing so, there are consequences for this choice (in this case, he lost his presidency). Dr. D and MM had a right to refer to constituents as hostiles and elitists, but there are repercussions to these statements (and we have seen these repercussions play out throughout the district over the last year plus).
I actually look at the statements from the IPPC president a little different. She said something that was over-reaching but out of emotion (during an very emotional period in the district). Shortly thereafter, she apologized (which I thought came across as sincere).
Can you imagine if Dr. D had come out after his elitist comments and said something like he did not intend to insult anyone in the community and that his point was simply that we all need to work together to make sure that the interests of all children throughout the district are represented equally, regardless of where they live in the district.
In my opinion, he did not do this in that it is not in his character. He is abrasive and lacked (I am now going to refer to him in the past tense) the compassion that is required of a successful superintendent. His leaving is a good thing for this district. Hopefully we will see a change in the openess of communication and compassion towards the community.
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Jun 9, 2009 9:15:08 GMT -6
Macrokett,
Your comments about defending rights (especially the last three) are concerning. Obviously everyone has an agenda, some will admit to one while some will not. My question to you is rather simple: What is your agenda?
Before you go after me or steckdad or whoever please consider reading 200-300 posts of that person, you may be surprised.
After reading a few hundred posts of mine maybe you want to comment on what my agenda is.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 9, 2009 9:21:24 GMT -6
Macrokett, Your comments about defending rights (especially the last three) are concerning. Obviously everyone has an agenda, some will admit to one while some will not. My question to you is rather simple: What is your agenda? Before you go after me or steckdad or whoever please consider reading 200-300 posts of that person, you may be surprised. After reading a few hundred posts of mine maybe you want to comment on what my agenda is. I don't care what your agend is SSSM, that is the point. I want to talk about issues. If you think I have an agenda, call me and we can discuss it off the boards. Again, here is my number. 630-416-6441. One last thing, while you may have more posts on this board, I have spoken in public on numerous occasions starting in February of last year. In addition, as part of the school board process I have answered a number of questionaires and supplied personal information about my family. I have also answered the question about what motives me on a number of occasions. All done under my own name. You know who I am and where to find me if you care to talk. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Jun 9, 2009 10:15:06 GMT -6
Macrokett,
Fair enough, from my limited time on this Earth I have noticed that issues, agendas, and perception are all intertwined.
I call it the "Condition of being Human".
|
|
