|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 14, 2007 16:05:52 GMT -6
I seriously doubt that he volunteered out of the goodness of his heart with a dying need to help out the SD. ! you mean like Spangler or Lehman ? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 14, 2007 16:17:43 GMT -6
So it looks like SSM accusation is false because SSM couldn't tell NS from N?
Ediited to add. It wasn't SSM with the name problem. Southsidemom just decided to post idle southsidemom gossip from a 2nd graders field trip without first doing any research herself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 14, 2007 16:23:28 GMT -6
Perhaps the walls are coated with Teflon today.
|
|
|
|
Post by soon2bwvhs on Oct 14, 2007 16:24:00 GMT -6
I seriously doubt that he volunteered out of the goodness of his heart with a dying need to help out the SD. ! you mean like Spangler or Lehman ? Question: Is it possible that this gentleman MIGHT have volunteered because he would have children coming through the system and he was concerned about their futures? How would he have (1) been able to know (or predict) the outcome of the committee (that the committee would recommend a referendum for 3rd HS) and (2) been able to foresee that any company the he may (or may not) be affiliated with would be selected to provide bids for the contract? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but shouldn't we sometimes give folks the benefit of the doubt until they have given us reason to suspect them. Innocent until proven guilty? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 14, 2007 16:29:03 GMT -6
Soon2, it seems that the guy some people accused of having a conflict got the last name wrong. It also seems that all this guy is guilty of is having a last name that is close to someone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 14, 2007 17:31:16 GMT -6
Soon2, it seems that the guy some people accused of having a conflict got the last name wrong. It also seems that all this guy is guilty of is having a last name that is close to someone else. Nice try, Bob. But it was widely understood at the time that this guy had a connection to a firm that would be involved in building the school. My understanding at the time was that it was the architectural firm. I confirmed this at the time with the PTA people. There was no secret about it. I know other people who turned in their names for consideration who were not selected. This is very old news - we have all known about it since it happened. And many were outraged. The name is the same one. I find it interesting that some of you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but you have demonized Spangler. It's not hard to see through the agendas. I'm sure other people can see it too. |
|
|
|
Post by soon2bwvhs on Oct 14, 2007 17:39:10 GMT -6
Soon2, it seems that the guy some people accused of having a conflict got the last name wrong. It also seems that all this guy is guilty of is having a last name that is close to someone else. Nice try, Bob. But it was widely understood at the time that this guy had a connection to a firm that would be involved in building the school. My understanding at the time was that it was the architectural firm. I confirmed this at the time with the PTA people. There was no secret about it. I know other people who turned in their names for consideration who were not selected. This is very old news - we have all known about it since it happened. And many were outraged. The name is the same one. I find it interesting that some of you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but you have deionized Spangler. It's not hard to see through the agendas. I'm sure other people can see it too. I have never demonized Spangler; nor do I have some agenda! How was it "widely understood at the time that this guy had a connection to a firm that would be involved in building the school." ( And widely understood by whom?) Especially since before the committee had made any decision; I'm confused. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 14, 2007 17:52:43 GMT -6
Soon2, it seems that the guy some people accused of having a conflict got the last name wrong. It also seems that all this guy is guilty of is having a last name that is close to someone else. Nice try, Bob. But it was widely understood at the time that this guy had a connection to a firm that would be involved in building the school. My understanding at the time was that it was the architectural firm. I confirmed this at the time with the PTA people. There was no secret about it. I know other people who turned in their names for consideration who were not selected. This is very old news - we have all known about it since it happened. And many were outraged. The name is the same one. I find it interesting that some of you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but you have demonized Spangler. It's not hard to see through the agendas. I'm sure other people can see it too. You have one guy name without a S with one group but then there is a non s guy with another group. You piled on some poor guy assuming it is the guy from 2nd field trip gossip. Spangler can do what he wants with his $18k and I have no problem with that. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Oct 14, 2007 17:57:59 GMT -6
Nice try, Bob. But it was widely understood at the time that this guy had a connection to a firm that would be involved in building the school. My understanding at the time was that it was the architectural firm. I confirmed this at the time with the PTA people. There was no secret about it. I know other people who turned in their names for consideration who were not selected. This is very old news - we have all known about it since it happened. And many were outraged. The name is the same one. I find it interesting that some of you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but you have demonized Spangler. It's not hard to see through the agendas. I'm sure other people can see it too. You have one guy name without a S with one group but then there is a non s guy with another group. You piled on some poor guy assuming it is the guy from 2nd field trip gossip. Spangler can do what he wants with his $18k and I have no problem with that. Honestly, Neither do I. I wish I had that kind of money to lobby for my beliefs, I don't, he does. So what. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 14, 2007 18:01:25 GMT -6
You have one guy name without a S with one group but then there is a non s guy with another group. You piled on some poor guy assuming it is the guy from 2nd field trip gossip. Spangler can do what he wants with his $18k and I have no problem with that. Honestly, Neither do I. I wish I had that kind of money to lobby for my beliefs, I don't, he does. So what. Another agreement. Next thing we know, we will be having margaritas at Lalo's. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 14, 2007 18:21:47 GMT -6
Nice try, Bob. But it was widely understood at the time that this guy had a connection to a firm that would be involved in building the school. My understanding at the time was that it was the architectural firm. I confirmed this at the time with the PTA people. There was no secret about it. I know other people who turned in their names for consideration who were not selected. This is very old news - we have all known about it since it happened. And many were outraged. The name is the same one. I find it interesting that some of you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but you have deionized Spangler. It's not hard to see through the agendas. I'm sure other people can see it too. I have never demonized Spangler; nor do I have some agenda! How was it "widely understood at the time that this guy had a connection to a firm that would be involved in building the school." ( And widely understood by whom?) Especially since before the committee had made any decision; I'm confused. It was widely known and widely understood at the ES that he represented who he was and that he worked for a firm that could be involved with the construction of a new school. MANY were unhappy about this. old new - very old news. What surprises me is that it apparently wasn't widely known throughout the district. What doesn't surprise me is that some on this board would rather cloud the issue than have the truth be known. Now, as to whether you disparaged Mr. Spangler - what I meant was that he was demonized on this board. And I think that's wrong, but the guy above is "protected". why the double standard? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 14, 2007 18:24:06 GMT -6
'protected'  |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 14, 2007 18:42:47 GMT -6
Assuming that this is true:
If everyone knew of this at the grade school, then your complaint has no merit. They elected him. It was their choice, not yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Oct 14, 2007 19:39:30 GMT -6
Assuming that this is true: If everyone knew of this at the grade school, then your complaint has no merit. They elected him. It was their choice, not yours. Rought night with the facts Bob... He was selected by the PTA executive committee - or some such committee. He was not voted on by the membership. I imagine the selection would have been very different if the entire membership could have voted. Same old thing - a few people control the situation that ultimately affects so many. Seems to be a recurring theme tonight. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 14, 2007 19:43:40 GMT -6
Same old thing - a few people control the situation that ultimately affects so many. Seems to be a recurring theme tonight. Kinda like Congress. So everyone knew but no one complained to the PTA executive committee? The one problem I do have is that how the PTA gets the power to put people on committees. |
|
