|
|
Post by casey on Dec 20, 2007 15:12:39 GMT -6
The sites are known except for the 4th site. Maybe the SB is under a NDA for not disclosing the 4th site. And wouldn't that be hilarious if that's the site the SB went with - the anonymous 4th site? The one that no one apparently knows anything about? Again, I don't think that's fair to the voting public. I think the information should be made public. Why is the SB hiding behind the terms of supposed confidential land sites? We all know it's BB, Macom, AME what's the big deal that we don't know the fourth? Or it so awful they don't want us to know  . That's my legitimate fear! |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Dec 20, 2007 15:15:02 GMT -6
Furthermore, what about the pictures of Bruce Glawe with the committee when the referendum was passed in the newspaper? Your tellling me there is no connection there? Sorry, there is. Even Mr. Macom donated to the referendums. Heck, while I'm at it, even Oxford Bank - which is where Mr. Glawe is employed donated. And your telling me there is no connection?
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 20, 2007 15:16:07 GMT -6
The sites are known except for the 4th site. Maybe the SB is under a NDA for not disclosing the 4th site. And wouldn't that be hilarious if that's the site the SB went with - the anonymous 4th site? The one that no one apparently knows anything about? Again, I don't think that's fair to the voting public. I think the information should be made public. Why is the SB hiding behind the terms of supposed confidential land sites? We all know it's BB, Macom, AME what's the big deal that we don't know the fourth? Or it so awful they don't want us to know . That's my legitimate fear! You know those little things like being sued for breaking a possible NDA. Legal stuff. You haven't answered my question. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Dec 20, 2007 15:17:00 GMT -6
Yes, it is but it is borderline unethical. That's what gets someone in trouble IMO. Constittutional right is now unethical? I guess I missed that part of the US constitution - bob, what part was that? |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Dec 20, 2007 15:20:09 GMT -6
The deals run deep and that's all there is to it. I'm sure if we wanted to go line item by line item we could find a few connections with regards to many of the preferred vendors used in our district- music vendor, photography company, etc. There's some serious handshake deals going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 20, 2007 15:22:01 GMT -6
Furthermore, what about the pictures of Bruce Glawe with the committee when the referendum was passed in the newspaper? Your tellling me there is no connection there? Sorry, there is. Even Mr. Macom donated to the referendums. Heck, while I'm at it, even Oxford Bank - which is where Mr. Glawe is employed donated. And your telling me there is no connection? Macom didn't donate last time. Don't we have this discussion every 3 months? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 20, 2007 15:22:27 GMT -6
Constittutional right is now unethical? I guess I missed that part of the US constitution - bob, what part was that? Freedom of Speech |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 20, 2007 15:23:30 GMT -6
The deals run deep and that's all there is to it. I'm sure if we wanted to go line item by line item we could find a few connections with regards to many of the preferred vendors used in our district- music vendor, photography company, etc. There's some serious handshake deals going on. Prove it and I will stand with you. But making accusations of message board with no proof isn't going to cut it. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Dec 20, 2007 15:23:51 GMT -6
Give it up, Bob! Everything's a game of semantics with you! I'm not sure what you're trying to prove |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 20, 2007 15:27:37 GMT -6
Give it up, Bob! Everything's a game of semantics with you! I'm not sure what you're trying to prove It is more like you won't answer a direct question. You keep implying that the SB/Admin is not negotiating with Macom but without actually saying it. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Dec 20, 2007 15:34:56 GMT -6
Bob, I'm just curious - you said Macom would be your preference unless we could get BB.
Is BB still the SB's number one goal? Is this the site they're "still waiting on" (we've been waiting forever it seems).
What's the real deal here - are they still holding out hope of negotiating with BB? Could this be why they won't negotiate with a serious seller? Is the north site a rumor meant to stir emotion?
Are still holding on to BB and discounting something else that would work?
If this is the case, I have had enough. Move on and buy an available piece of land.
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Dec 20, 2007 15:51:23 GMT -6
I guess I missed that part of the US constitution - bob, what part was that? Freedom of Speech Ah yes, the rallying cry of the ACLU. Yes, this protects the right of Whitt Law to make campaign contributions. It does nothing to say that the district, in turn should use them as their legal counsel (a highly profitable endeavor, I would venture), Additionally it does not give job protection to those who screw up. |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Dec 20, 2007 16:03:36 GMT -6
They have been using them for years. Maybe as long as M2 has been a board member? ?Hmmm......... |
|
bbc
Soph
Metea Opening Day 2009
Posts: 76
|
Post by bbc on Dec 20, 2007 16:05:09 GMT -6
notwithstanding bob's constitutional law lessons, there could be a relationship between the law firm and our beloved sb that is unethical at best. however their job performance is clearly in question. when someone has to rely on "their legal right to do something" (implied through your constitutional argument) one has to question WHY they did it.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 20, 2007 16:17:37 GMT -6
Well ,Daisy's story has a few problems like the AT quote about HC not doing due diligence. Why is this problematic? It is totally believeable to me that someone is setting up HC to be the scapegoat for this mess and it has been discussed in ES. That actually is a good spin. It's not our fault. Howie screwed this thing up and now it's Steve to the rescue with his fine diligence! |
|
. That's my legitimate fear!
