|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 8, 2008 11:28:00 GMT -6
Are you all-knowing? Of course not. But you claim to know the intentions of all the people who feel differently than you. And I find that insulting. I do not belong to NSFOC, but I found the complaint well-written and well thought out. And I find their arguments much more substantial than your's - which are just really pot-shots. Sorry.  Snerdly, no pot shots. Everything I stated is true and verifiable by every boundary meeting ever held. The majority of the people filing this lawsuit are doing so because they are not getting the HS they want. Period. I will agree with you, the lawsuit was well written! A+! Who are these people that you know filing the suit to be able to make your majority claim? |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Mar 8, 2008 11:41:58 GMT -6
In fairness to our friends from the May Watts area, this is not true for them. They are truly concerned with the potential long term affects of sending their kids to the AME site and the methodology used in determining whether or not the site is safe or not. As far as the motivations behind the lawsuit...I think there are many. I don't think it is fair to say that the only motivation has to do with not attending WVHS. That motivation may be true for some, but I certainly don't think it is true for all people backing the lawsuit. I think most people who are backing the suit are backing it due to the principle of it. "The school board repeatedly said it would do one thing and did another". I understand why people are upset about the breach of that principle. The next question in my mind becomes, 'What can be done about it? and Will that action result in a better outcome?" It is the answers to those two questions that prevented me from supporting the lawsuit. I think it will shoot us all in the foot. But I respect and understand why they felt they had to file it. I agree with you on all counts, except I do NOT understand why they felt they had to file a lawsuit. It is a knee-jerk reaction of a spoiled child who did not get their way. If anyone believes the SB did not really want BB then you could justify this. There is only one motive here. I go to the school I want and if not, derail the whole project. It is not for you or I to figure out why this group felt the need to file it. It is their right and they did it. Move on to what you can control....and in this district it is just about NOTHING. Conversation is getting old. There have been many discussions/lines of thought on this board that made no sense to me but that is each individuals right. Sorry.  |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 8, 2008 11:45:00 GMT -6
Snerdly, no pot shots. Everything I stated is true and verifiable by every boundary meeting ever held. The majority of the people filing this lawsuit are doing so because they are not getting the HS they want. Period. I will agree with you, the lawsuit was well written! A+! Who are these people that you know filing the suit to be able to make your majority claim? People in my neighborhood and the adjoining neighborhood whom I will not name (don't know why I'm protecting them, though). |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 8, 2008 11:50:51 GMT -6
OK here's how I look at it.
Look at Patterson being moved.
Paul Lehman was in the group that helped get that done.
Someone that was also in the group says that in retrospect, maybe PL didn't do that for altruistic reasons. Does that make everyone associated with getting Patterson moved a BAD person? I don't think so.
Another example. The referendum failed. The consultant said "People are selfish, they want to know site and boundaries to vote YES. To get these selfish YES votes you have to commit to boundaries and site." They did it. Do I think the school board is comprised of evil people because they used selfish votes to get something accomplished that they thought was in the best interest of the kids? No.
Sometimes the ends don't always justify the means. Sometimes they do. Everyone has to judge these things for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 8, 2008 12:01:20 GMT -6
OK here's how I look at it. Look at Patterson being moved. Paul Lehman was in the group that helped get that done. Someone that was also in the group says that in retrospect, maybe PL didn't do that for altruistic reasons. Does that make everyone associated with getting Patterson moved a BAD person? I don't think so. Another example. The referendum failed. The consultant said "People are selfish, they want to know site and boundaries to vote YES. To get these selfish YES votes you have to commit to boundaries and site." They did it. Do I think the school board is comprised of evil people because they used selfish votes to get something accomplished that they thought was in the best interest of the kids? No. Sometimes the ends don't always justify the means. Sometimes they do. Everyone has to judge these things for themselves. I agree with this also. If by chance the lawsuit can manage to get us to a safe site or give us time to make sure MWGEN is a safe site, without costing a fortune or snowballing out of control--that is a good thing. At this point the blame game needs to stop. We're all going to suffer on this one together if this thing goes on for any length of time. I don't care who is responsible at this point, we need to encourage both sides, the SB and NSFOC, to do the right thing for the district and end this as quickly as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 8, 2008 12:19:43 GMT -6
I agree that a safe site is in everyone's best interest. The important words here are "snowballing out of control". It is out of control. I don't see the end. Maybe someone has the extra $$ for BB in their back pocket? All we can hope is that this gets thrown out, quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 8, 2008 12:25:26 GMT -6
I agree that a safe site is in everyone's best interest. The important words here are "snowballing out of control". It is out of control. I don't see the end. Maybe someone has the extra $$ for BB in their back pocket? All we can hope is that this gets thrown out, quickly. Consider this (and yes, it's a snowball's chance in, yup.. you guessed it). The extra money comes on the next ref but we move forward immediately. We already don't have the funds to operate it.. that's already 'counted' on in a referendum. Why can't the same be applied to 1) put it in a safe site and 2) get it started immediately. Everyone who's mad now gets what they want. Overcrowding relief and a safe site. Boundaries are left UNDECIDED until spring 2009 when cooler heads prevail. I know that seems too simple, but sometimes the best solutions are. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Mar 8, 2008 12:28:25 GMT -6
I agree that a safe site is in everyone's best interest. The important words here are "snowballing out of control". It is out of control. I don't see the end. Maybe someone has the extra $$ for BB in their back pocket? All we can hope is that this gets thrown out, quickly. I don't think it's out of control - yet. We just saw the high speed game of Chicken end in a crash; SB called NSFOC's bluff, and NSFCO didn't blink. Now the question becomes, what does the SD do in response? I think the tone of Monday's meeting will be critical. Did this smack on the nose get their attention, or did it just tick them off? Are we all willing to see "Chicken" go to round 2? |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Mar 8, 2008 12:30:54 GMT -6
I agree that a safe site is in everyone's best interest. The important words here are "snowballing out of control". It is out of control. I don't see the end. Maybe someone has the extra $$ for BB in their back pocket? All we can hope is that this gets thrown out, quickly. Consider this (and yes, it's a snowball's chance in, yup.. you guessed it). The extra money comes on the next ref but we move forward immediately. We already don't have the funds to operate it.. that's already 'counted' on in a referendum. Why can't the same be applied to 1) put it in a safe site and 2) get it started immediately. Everyone who's mad now gets what they want. Overcrowding relief and a safe site. Boundaries are left UNDECIDED until spring 2009 when cooler heads prevail. I know that seems too simple, but sometimes the best solutions are. That's just crazy talk  Yes, Ockham's Razor. |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 8, 2008 12:31:03 GMT -6
Arch, I thought we didn't need the operating ref because of a state windfall? How can we afford the site/construction now without a new ref?
|
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 8, 2008 12:32:01 GMT -6
ok, i'll bite, what's Ockham's razor?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 8, 2008 12:32:09 GMT -6
Oh, about the resolution to not go back to the taxpayers:
"I'd like to make a motion to rescind the resolution from (date) titled "no money askus for moreus".
"Second"
All in favor?
Call the Roll
Motions carries.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 8, 2008 12:32:57 GMT -6
ok, i'll bite, what's Ockham's razor? The most simple explaination is normally the correct one. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 8, 2008 12:34:14 GMT -6
Arch, I thought we didn't need the operating ref because of a state windfall? How can we afford the site/construction now without a new ref? Does it have to be paid in full all up front or is there partial payment now and in full when the job is done and it's delivered and opened? That's what we vote on later.. the final amount difference.... and we ALL bust our butts to get out the vote to get it passed. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Mar 8, 2008 12:38:20 GMT -6
Arch, I thought we didn't need the operating ref because of a state windfall? How can we afford the site/construction now without a new ref? Does it have to be paid in full all up front or is there partial payment now and in full when the job is done and it's delivered and opened? That's what we vote on later.. the final amount difference.... and we ALL bust our butts to get out the vote to get it passed. I'm with ya. |
|
