"The people of this County do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." ***The views expressed on this blog are the opinions of the individual that wrote them.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Santos Case
Last night I emailed the Board of Education and asked them for a statement on this subject. I am removing the Santos poll untill the other side has been heard from. Then we will be able to judge this better. If anyone has any information that is useful please either post it or email it to me, if you don't want your name out there. As you all know I attend most of the board meeting and I can say I don't recall hearing anything about this, so the board might not know what is going on as well. In that case I think an investigation should be done. See teachers I am not against and I will work for you as well. I just want an HONEST AND FAIR school district. If any injustice has been done to this teacher, you know I will expose it.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
The Real School Police Viewed Around The World
As many of you know I do track who is on this blog and I would love to tell you just a few of the viewers I have received.
Here are a few of the countries that have log on:
Aruba, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Guam, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore.
Here are some of the top domains:
valdosta.edu (Valdosta State University)
dodea.edu ( Dept. of Defense in Germany)
coj.net (City of Jax)
aft.org ( My favorite The American Federation of Teachers)
house.gov (The U.S. House of Reps. Jack Kingston)
Not bad for only one year and not much advertising. There are many more that I just don't have time to list.
Here are a few of the countries that have log on:
Aruba, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Guam, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore.
Here are some of the top domains:
valdosta.edu (Valdosta State University)
dodea.edu ( Dept. of Defense in Germany)
coj.net (City of Jax)
aft.org ( My favorite The American Federation of Teachers)
house.gov (The U.S. House of Reps. Jack Kingston)
Not bad for only one year and not much advertising. There are many more that I just don't have time to list.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
T&G Readers Sound Off On Vote
The Tribune and Georgian has a poll on there website related to the SPLOST vote.
Here is the question:
How do you feel about the passage of the SPLOST last week?
Here is the question:
How do you feel about the passage of the SPLOST last week?
- It's ridiculous that that much money can be spent with so few people voting on it. Every registered voter who did not go to the polls should be ashamed.
- It's a joke that the county placed this on the ballot at a time when few people would vote for it. Politically shrewd, but a joke nonetheless.
- SPLOST is great. It makes the government tell us exactly how they plan to spend our money and then asks us for permission to do it.
- SPLOST is necessary; it's the only way some of these public works type projects are going to get done.
And the results:
It's ridiculous that that much money can be spent with so few people voting on it. Every registered voter who did not go to the polls should be ashamed. (7 Votes, 10%)
It's a joke that the county placed this on the ballot at a time when few people would vote for it. Politically shrewd, but a joke nonetheless. (35 Votes, 50%)
SPLOST is great. It makes the government tell us exactly how they plan to spend our money and then asks us for permission to do it. (7 Votes, 10%)
SPLOST is necessary; it's the only way some of these public works type projects are going to get done. (21 Votes, 30%)
50% think it was a joke.
Voting is still open on this at www.tribune-georgian.com
School Board Should Address Public On Firing
I believe the school board should address this issue on Ms Santos' departure. We are hearing bad things and we don't like to hear these things. I would like your side of the story so we can get a clear picture of what is going on in our schools.
Friends And Family Again
From the T&G
Story behind teacher's departure is appalling
Dear Editor,
I have been thinking about Luca Marangelli's letter from March 21 ("Teacher was treated poorly before she left."). Although I was already familiar with the situation; it is now all too real and I am angry. For the last three years, I have had the good fortune to come to know Sue Santos and her family. I know her as a friend, neighbor and a director and teacher.Last summer, Ms. Santos directed Honk, through the Camden Area Players. My daughter and husband both had parts in the play. It was incredible experience, and I am just so grateful that we had the opportunity to be a part of it. Ms. Santos is a gifted director, with the ability to bring the best out in everyone around her.
I imagined her to be as gifted and dedicated a music teacher and have had the opportunity to confirm my beliefs by talking to some of her students. They seem to be the only ones at Camden County High School that know what their school is about to lose. They have made it obvious that they do not want her replacement as their director and they do not want to see Sue Santos leave CCHS. Why doesn't that seem to matter? I don't know. The fact that [Fine Arts Director] Dean Slusser had to sit in on rehearsals, to apparently baby sit [new director Jason] Kraack, speaks volumes. I think that they know that they are doing the wrong thing, by giving a young man with absolutely no experience or degree, a director's job. What really bothers me is that it is patently obvious that Sue should have been promoted to director. This is the epitome of the good ol' southern boys network, giving jobs to people who haven't earned them, just to keep it in the family.There are lots of things that people in this community can be proud of, but not this. It is despicable; because had this happened just about anywhere else in the nation, Ms. Santos would have been rewarded for her three years of unsurpassed dedication and loyalty to her students and CCHS. She would have rightfully been given the position of director, because she earned it.Instead, Sue has had no choice but to resign, and will be forced to seek employment away from Camden County. Many of us have been lucky enough to have had that one teacher that you will never forget, that inspired you to greatness, and that you still want to go back and talk to after graduation. Sue Santos is that kind of teacher. Just ask her students. So I am angry and sad, because not only am I am losing a good friend and neighbor, but my children, and the children of Camden County, will never have the opportunity to have Sue Santos, as a teacher. That is a tremendous loss to our community and some of you will never know how great of a loss it really is.
Beth Jadick
Kingsland
Lets take a look at the RED:
Story behind teacher's departure is appalling
Dear Editor,
I have been thinking about Luca Marangelli's letter from March 21 ("Teacher was treated poorly before she left."). Although I was already familiar with the situation; it is now all too real and I am angry. For the last three years, I have had the good fortune to come to know Sue Santos and her family. I know her as a friend, neighbor and a director and teacher.Last summer, Ms. Santos directed Honk, through the Camden Area Players. My daughter and husband both had parts in the play. It was incredible experience, and I am just so grateful that we had the opportunity to be a part of it. Ms. Santos is a gifted director, with the ability to bring the best out in everyone around her.
I imagined her to be as gifted and dedicated a music teacher and have had the opportunity to confirm my beliefs by talking to some of her students. They seem to be the only ones at Camden County High School that know what their school is about to lose. They have made it obvious that they do not want her replacement as their director and they do not want to see Sue Santos leave CCHS. Why doesn't that seem to matter? I don't know. The fact that [Fine Arts Director] Dean Slusser had to sit in on rehearsals, to apparently baby sit [new director Jason] Kraack, speaks volumes. I think that they know that they are doing the wrong thing, by giving a young man with absolutely no experience or degree, a director's job. What really bothers me is that it is patently obvious that Sue should have been promoted to director. This is the epitome of the good ol' southern boys network, giving jobs to people who haven't earned them, just to keep it in the family.There are lots of things that people in this community can be proud of, but not this. It is despicable; because had this happened just about anywhere else in the nation, Ms. Santos would have been rewarded for her three years of unsurpassed dedication and loyalty to her students and CCHS. She would have rightfully been given the position of director, because she earned it.Instead, Sue has had no choice but to resign, and will be forced to seek employment away from Camden County. Many of us have been lucky enough to have had that one teacher that you will never forget, that inspired you to greatness, and that you still want to go back and talk to after graduation. Sue Santos is that kind of teacher. Just ask her students. So I am angry and sad, because not only am I am losing a good friend and neighbor, but my children, and the children of Camden County, will never have the opportunity to have Sue Santos, as a teacher. That is a tremendous loss to our community and some of you will never know how great of a loss it really is.
Beth Jadick
Kingsland
Lets take a look at the RED:
- I imagined her to be as gifted and dedicated a music teacher and have had the opportunity to confirm my beliefs by talking to some of her students. They seem to be the only ones at Camden County High School that know what their school is about to lose. The way I see it: It does not matter what parents and students want. It's what the principal and school board want. We are just there to give money.
- The fact that [Fine Arts Director] Dean Slusser had to sit in on rehearsals, to apparently baby sit [new director Jason] Kraack, speaks volumes. I think that they know that they are doing the wrong thing, by giving a young man with absolutely no experience or degree, a director's job. The way I see it: Hey that is an awful big babysitting paycheck.
- This is the epitome of the good ol' southern boys network, giving jobs to people who haven't earned them, just to keep it in the family. The way I see it: Have not heard this phrase used before.
- She would have rightfully been given the position of director, because she earned it.Instead, Sue has had no choice but to resign, and will be forced to seek employment away from Camden County. The way I see it: I was once told by Tricia Smith that if I didn't like this school system I should just move. I told her I live in America and if I didn't like something I had the right to change it and that is what I am doing. I have a lot of people who hate me for this because for years they got away with this kind of stuff. You Ms. Jadick are absolutely right it's all about family and friends. Some of these family and friends are qualified and deserve the jobs they have, but some just got their jobs because they used to coach and you people know you are not qualified to do that job.
Thank you Ms. Jadick for speaking out.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Many Teachers See Failure In Students' Future
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
Ask a teacher whether her students are on track to earn a college degree, and she'll probably say "Sure."
Grant her anonymity, and you may get a different point of view.
In a wide-ranging survey being released Tuesday, nearly one in four teachers in urban schools paint a sobering picture of students there. They say most children "would not be successful at a community college or university."
Even more say students "are not motivated to learn."
In all, 23.6% of public school teachers at all levels say success in college would elude most students in their school. An additional 18% say they aren't sure.
The results were surprising even to the study's author, Brian Perkins, a professor of education law and policy at Southern Connecticut State University in New Haven, Conn.
"I anticipated that there would be some teachers who feel that way," he says. "What I did not anticipate was the number who responded that they didn't think students would be successful."
White teachers seem to have the bleakest view: 24.5% predict failure in college, higher than among black (22.1%) or Hispanic (17.6%) teachers.
Administrators paint a rosier picture: Only 7% predict the same for their students. But 15.6% say their students "are not motivated to learn."
Part of the problem could be a perceived lack of support from parents: 57% of teachers say parents "are supportive" of the school and its activities; 28% say parents aren't supportive.
John Mitchell, director of educational issues for the American Federation of Teachers, says the findings could be largely the result of events that happened in the day or so before the survey.
"You go through a lot in a day, and you have days when you feel optimistic and days when you don't," he says.
But he says the results shouldn't be considered "a statement of (teachers') aspirations for the kids — it may very well be a statement that these kids aren't getting enough to make it through college."
Other findings:
•One in eight teachers say their school is not a safe place.
•65.8% of black administrators say children are bullied regularly at their school; only 49.3% of white administrators and 29.7% of Hispanic administrators say the same.
The survey on school climate is among the largest teacher surveys ever. Sponsored by the National School Boards Association, it queried 4,700 educators from 127 schools in 12 urban districts. It has a margin of error of plus/minus 3 percentage points.
To see the full survey, visit www.nsba.org/cube/whereweteach.
Reviewing the RED:
I guess the biggest part of this is the difference between administrators and teachers on their views. Who are you going to trust more on your child's education; the teacher, who is with your child everyday or the administrator who, if your child is good, will never see them.
My opinion: If you can afford college, any idiot can make it through. I went for two semesters and got frustrated because all they taught was grade school material. If you can get that college degree that is all that matters, the college does not care weather or not you learned anything new. As long as they got your money they will give you a degree. Money is what they want, their goal is not to educate you it is to make money. College has turned into the biggest joke on the planet, but it is necessary for a good paying job now days. I can tell you that in my company, we have some managers with degrees who know nothing at all. Their degree might not even have anything to do with the business we are in, but they get hired anyway because they have a degree. Does not mean they are smarter, just that they have a piece of paper stating they are. If you think I am wrong explain why congress would guarantee a student's loan, but not the education. I will, it's called LOBBYISTS and UNIONS. They don't want them to guarantee an education, just the money.
Ask a teacher whether her students are on track to earn a college degree, and she'll probably say "Sure."
Grant her anonymity, and you may get a different point of view.
In a wide-ranging survey being released Tuesday, nearly one in four teachers in urban schools paint a sobering picture of students there. They say most children "would not be successful at a community college or university."
Even more say students "are not motivated to learn."
In all, 23.6% of public school teachers at all levels say success in college would elude most students in their school. An additional 18% say they aren't sure.
The results were surprising even to the study's author, Brian Perkins, a professor of education law and policy at Southern Connecticut State University in New Haven, Conn.
"I anticipated that there would be some teachers who feel that way," he says. "What I did not anticipate was the number who responded that they didn't think students would be successful."
White teachers seem to have the bleakest view: 24.5% predict failure in college, higher than among black (22.1%) or Hispanic (17.6%) teachers.
Administrators paint a rosier picture: Only 7% predict the same for their students. But 15.6% say their students "are not motivated to learn."
Part of the problem could be a perceived lack of support from parents: 57% of teachers say parents "are supportive" of the school and its activities; 28% say parents aren't supportive.
John Mitchell, director of educational issues for the American Federation of Teachers, says the findings could be largely the result of events that happened in the day or so before the survey.
"You go through a lot in a day, and you have days when you feel optimistic and days when you don't," he says.
But he says the results shouldn't be considered "a statement of (teachers') aspirations for the kids — it may very well be a statement that these kids aren't getting enough to make it through college."
Other findings:
•One in eight teachers say their school is not a safe place.
•65.8% of black administrators say children are bullied regularly at their school; only 49.3% of white administrators and 29.7% of Hispanic administrators say the same.
The survey on school climate is among the largest teacher surveys ever. Sponsored by the National School Boards Association, it queried 4,700 educators from 127 schools in 12 urban districts. It has a margin of error of plus/minus 3 percentage points.
To see the full survey, visit www.nsba.org/cube/whereweteach.
Reviewing the RED:
I guess the biggest part of this is the difference between administrators and teachers on their views. Who are you going to trust more on your child's education; the teacher, who is with your child everyday or the administrator who, if your child is good, will never see them.
My opinion: If you can afford college, any idiot can make it through. I went for two semesters and got frustrated because all they taught was grade school material. If you can get that college degree that is all that matters, the college does not care weather or not you learned anything new. As long as they got your money they will give you a degree. Money is what they want, their goal is not to educate you it is to make money. College has turned into the biggest joke on the planet, but it is necessary for a good paying job now days. I can tell you that in my company, we have some managers with degrees who know nothing at all. Their degree might not even have anything to do with the business we are in, but they get hired anyway because they have a degree. Does not mean they are smarter, just that they have a piece of paper stating they are. If you think I am wrong explain why congress would guarantee a student's loan, but not the education. I will, it's called LOBBYISTS and UNIONS. They don't want them to guarantee an education, just the money.
Thank You Ms. Sears
Ms. Sears is the only commissioner to make an effort on this topic. She is the only one to respond to my email and for that she gets a big THANK YOU. As many of you know Ms Sears and I started off on the wrong foot, but maybe this is a step in the right direction. Her email was short and to the point, but most of all I believe that she was being honest, and that is all I can ask of everyone of them.
Where are the other 4?
Where are the other 4?
Monday, March 26, 2007
No Comment
Once again the commissioners refuse to answer my questions. So all I can do is assume they were just trying to act surprised. I know for a fact that they looked at this blog plenty of times before the election and they all know that there was going to be a low turnout. I must be like Nostradamus in my predictions. Let me give you another prediction. "In the year of '08 3 giants will fall in the county they call Camden".
There you go another prediction.
Maybe Fox will come out with a new show "Are you smarter than your County Commissioner"
Still, Hush Hush at the Sheriff's Office.
There you go another prediction.
Maybe Fox will come out with a new show "Are you smarter than your County Commissioner"
Still, Hush Hush at the Sheriff's Office.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
And They Were Surprised
My letter to the commissioners demanding answers:
Dear County Commissioners,
Was all five of you surprised at the low voter turnout or was Ms. Zell the only one? I find it hard to believe any of you would be surprised at the low voter turnout. I said last week that was the reason for a special election. How can someone who according to Ms Sears "Are No Beneficial Member of Society" know that there would be low turnout and you people not know this? I just find that amazing. I would like an explanation of why you were surprised.
And as always no comment means you did something wrong.
I look forward to hearing from all of you.
The Real School Police
Rick Rogers
Dear County Commissioners,
Was all five of you surprised at the low voter turnout or was Ms. Zell the only one? I find it hard to believe any of you would be surprised at the low voter turnout. I said last week that was the reason for a special election. How can someone who according to Ms Sears "Are No Beneficial Member of Society" know that there would be low turnout and you people not know this? I just find that amazing. I would like an explanation of why you were surprised.
And as always no comment means you did something wrong.
I look forward to hearing from all of you.
The Real School Police
Rick Rogers
Friday, March 23, 2007
County Commissioners Got Exactly What They Wanted
LOW VOTER TURNOUT
5% of registered voters turned out for this special election. That is the reason they don't want us to vote on these things in the general election.
The question now is how much of this money is going to be used to build a new jail. They have 3 million right now, that is TO INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO renovating the present jail. Keep an eye out for these people they are not working for you and me, they are working for themselves and they could care less about you. The next 4 years should be interesting.
Have you notice how quiet things are at the Sheriff's Office? Hush Hush.
If they were really concerned about the people the would have waited for a general election when they know more people turn out.
5% of registered voters turned out for this special election. That is the reason they don't want us to vote on these things in the general election.
The question now is how much of this money is going to be used to build a new jail. They have 3 million right now, that is TO INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO renovating the present jail. Keep an eye out for these people they are not working for you and me, they are working for themselves and they could care less about you. The next 4 years should be interesting.
Have you notice how quiet things are at the Sheriff's Office? Hush Hush.
If they were really concerned about the people the would have waited for a general election when they know more people turn out.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Why A Special Election?
A special election was called because very few people come out for these special elections making it easier to get a YES vote. This is another trick politicians use to get what they want. Think about it we just had an election 5 months ago.
Some questions the commissioners should answer:
1) How long has this bill been completed? Was it done before the last election?
2) When was it started, before or after January 1?
3) Will a new jail be built with this money? Like I said it hard to tell by the wording in the bill.
To the Commissioner that reviewed this site yesterday for 45 minutes you may comment and give some input, as long as you don't try and smear me because you can't defend what you do. I think the people would love to hear your views on this.
The fact that I say a new jail will be built with this money is just my opinion, I have no facts to back that up. It is just me thinking like crooked politicians think. And I really hope they don't build a new jail with it.
GO VOTE MARCH 20 AND VOTE NO
MAKE THEM GIVE US A BILL THAT IS BINDING AND DOES NOT INCLUDE THE WORDS
TO INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO.
PLEASE READ THE BILL.
Some questions the commissioners should answer:
1) How long has this bill been completed? Was it done before the last election?
2) When was it started, before or after January 1?
3) Will a new jail be built with this money? Like I said it hard to tell by the wording in the bill.
To the Commissioner that reviewed this site yesterday for 45 minutes you may comment and give some input, as long as you don't try and smear me because you can't defend what you do. I think the people would love to hear your views on this.
The fact that I say a new jail will be built with this money is just my opinion, I have no facts to back that up. It is just me thinking like crooked politicians think. And I really hope they don't build a new jail with it.
GO VOTE MARCH 20 AND VOTE NO
MAKE THEM GIVE US A BILL THAT IS BINDING AND DOES NOT INCLUDE THE WORDS
TO INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO.
PLEASE READ THE BILL.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
We Will Have A New Jail, Why?
Because the Sheriff is the leader of this county not the commissioners. He has set it up so that all the commissioners will be for everything he wants. Charlie Smith even introduce a bill that allows Sheriff deputies to serve on the board. How long before he has his whole department on the board. Here is the link to the bill:
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/hb699.htm
We are the only county to have a law like this. Why? I don't know and the commissioners won't talk to me. None of them have called me like I requested back in December. Someone else should ask these questions.
Vote NO on SPLOST.
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/hb699.htm
We are the only county to have a law like this. Why? I don't know and the commissioners won't talk to me. None of them have called me like I requested back in December. Someone else should ask these questions.
Vote NO on SPLOST.
SPLOST VI--------VOTE NO
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ:
To All Residents of Camden County:
According to Sandy Feller's Blog, (check in the links section to go there) the new jail could be back on the table. If you were planning on voting yes on the SPLOST on March 20, I urge you to vote no. This bill is not what is going to happen. They have loaded it with the phrases "to include, but not limited to". This is how we will have a new jail and you won't get that sidewalk in front of your house. Make these people tell us exactly were the money is going. This is not the contingency fund that is used in case of an emergency. They must tell us exactly what they want to spend it on.
I will give you 5 reason to vote no:
1) Steve Berry 2) David Rainer 3) Charlene Sears 4) Preston Rhodes 5) Katherine Zell
These people don't care about me and you. They have proven that in the past. They can not be trusted. If you vote YES I will guarantee, they will use some of this money to fund the building of a new jail.
I am not against SPLOST, It is a great way to get those little projects done. But you can not give the county a blank check and expect them to spend it correctly. Make them give us a bill with out the "to include, but not limited to".
To All Residents of Camden County:
According to Sandy Feller's Blog, (check in the links section to go there) the new jail could be back on the table. If you were planning on voting yes on the SPLOST on March 20, I urge you to vote no. This bill is not what is going to happen. They have loaded it with the phrases "to include, but not limited to". This is how we will have a new jail and you won't get that sidewalk in front of your house. Make these people tell us exactly were the money is going. This is not the contingency fund that is used in case of an emergency. They must tell us exactly what they want to spend it on.
I will give you 5 reason to vote no:
1) Steve Berry 2) David Rainer 3) Charlene Sears 4) Preston Rhodes 5) Katherine Zell
These people don't care about me and you. They have proven that in the past. They can not be trusted. If you vote YES I will guarantee, they will use some of this money to fund the building of a new jail.
I am not against SPLOST, It is a great way to get those little projects done. But you can not give the county a blank check and expect them to spend it correctly. Make them give us a bill with out the "to include, but not limited to".
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Thank you TEACHERS, NURSES, and JANITORS
Let me tell about the meeting last night. I always thought I was alone on these issues with the school board. Last night I walked into the board meeting with my youngest daughter, ( I enjoy taking my kids to these meeting as I think it is important for them to learn how local government works since it is not really taught in schools) and to my amazement the place was packed. I thought this is great, until I took a closer look and realized that it was mainly school employees (i.e. teachers, nurses, janitors, and administrators). I was more than a little nervous as I did not know how my statements would be taken. I talked for maybe 3 minutes and when I was done people actually clapped and a few even shook my hand. I was shocked as I thought I was the most hated person in the school system. Thank you to those of you who showed your support. You are for an open school as well. Teachers, opening up these meetings will also protect you. I am not against you good teachers, And I know that a lot of you deserve to be paid better. YES I did say that because it is true for some of you. Our school system is headed in a different direction now and it can only get better. The more accountability we can put into the system the better we all will be. Please voice your opinion, come to these meeting, and lets work together to have the best system not just in Georgia, but in the country. Let's have the school system that the rest of the country only dreams about. We can be the school by which other school will be judged.
OPEN AND HONEST, YOU CAN'T ASK FOR MUCH MORE.
OPEN AND HONEST, YOU CAN'T ASK FOR MUCH MORE.
Success
Folks, I do believe that executive session is a thing of the past at the Camden County Board of Education. Thank you Mr. Rowland. I know that there will come times when you must go into executive session and I don't have a problem with that especially for land deals.(we all know how the developers are in Camden) But when executive session is used the people should have a detailed report of what is going to be discussed. I do agree things involving a child should be done in private if that is what the parent wants, but if not it should be in public. Any thing pertaining to an employee should be done in public. Not only for the parents, but teachers also. If you are teacher who is done wrong by the board we would never know. But we would if it was done in public. But regardless, we are moving in the right direction and that is great news. We still have to work on this what you can say during meetings thing but I believe once you look into it you will see I am right and you will take down that ridiculous statement. Once again thanks to everyone on the board even you Mr. Coffel. This should be an enjoyable school year.
Monday, March 12, 2007
School Board Meeting
March 13, 2007 at 7:00PM at the BOE.
Topic: Camden County Board of Education and Communism.
Board be prepared to answer: What law gives you the right to tell me what I can or can not say?
Topic: Camden County Board of Education and Communism.
Board be prepared to answer: What law gives you the right to tell me what I can or can not say?
Friday, March 09, 2007
Boards Do Get Sued For Illegal Meetings
Public Criticism of Personnel?
Bill Stemmons
as published in the Journal of the American Institute of Parliamentarians, April 1998
©1998 American Institute of Parliamentarians - Republished by permission.
Many school boards and other public bodies are uncertain how to receive comments from the general public concerning their personnel. Under open meetings laws in many states, public bodies generally may not consider anything not on an advance agenda. Many also believe all personnel matters must be discussed in closed sessions. What if a member of the public makes comments before a board critical of personnel? Can a brief response be given? Should they silence the speaker or insist it be discussed in a future closed session?
A member of the public has a right of free speech in an open forum, which a public body creates by inviting public comments. But don't public employees have a right to privacy in personnel affairs? A look around the U.S. shows the issue of public criticism of personnel in open meetings has become a widespread controversy.
George Dunham, Trustee for the Chicago suburb of Schaumberg, says their Board is like most public bodies: "Public comment time is not required, but the people expect it." Their Board also hosts monthly informal coffees entirely devoted to public input. "The whole point," Dunham says, "is to make it easier for people, not harder."
Victoria Baca attempted to criticize a superintendent and principal at a May 1996 Moreno Valley, California School Board meeting. The Hispanic activist, former school board candidate, and parent was warned that she could not mention employees by name except in a closed session. When she continued, she was physically removed from the meeting by a deputy sheriff.
In California, public comment time is required by law. A federal court held that in such a public forum, Baca's constitutionally-protected right of free speech prevailed against a prior restraint on content, and over any privacy or liberty interest of a public employee. The Court ruled that comments may be limited to subject matter under the jurisdiction of the Board, but the Board may not then limit the content of views expressed.
The Court held that as an employer, the District had an interest in protecting employee privacy. But the District had a compelling state interest in its role as a governmental entity required to allow public comment in its meetings. Employees' rights were outweighed by the First Amendment guarantee of uncensored free speech.
In February 1997, San Diego Vista School District residents Margaret O'Neill and Nancy Leventhal were cut off while attempting to question the performance of the District's Superintendent. Board President David Hubbard stopped both women and threatened to close the meeting if public criticism persisted.
When the ACLU filed suit on behalf of O'Neill and Leventhal, the Vista Board paid a settlement and attorney's fees. Plaintiffs' attorney Guylyn Cummins commented, "I found it extremely egregious that the Board would not allow criticism of public employees -- especially high ranking employees like the Superintendent of a public school system -- at public school board meetings by parents and other concerned citizens."
"At one point, the criticism ban was invoked as to elected Board members as well," Cummins explained. "The Board essentially said that concerned citizens could make laudatory or neutral comments, but could not criticize. The Court found it to be a content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory ban on speech which could not survive constitutional scrutiny."
Cummins added, "There is no principle more basic to our constitutional democracy than the right of citizens to confront their elected officials in a public forum and comment on their performance."
Shortly after free speech was ordered by the Court, the Vista Superintendent resigned amidst substantial controversy.
Activist Joan Coe of Simsbury, Connecticut, has been described by the Hartford Courant as a "gadfly."1 But her attorney praises her as a "public-spirited citizen," and one board member calls her "an asset and a tireless investigator who helps keep the concept of an open forum alive."
The former city employee and substitute teacher has already filed two suits against the Simbury School Board -- for open records and free speech in board meetings. Coe says she was once arrested for "reading a public record before a public meeting of a public body." That incident involved reading drunken driving charges filed against a student.
On September 10, 1996, the Simsbury Board abruptly adjourned during Coe's criticism of the Superintendent. (The Board has since shelved a proposal to cut off public comments altogether.) When Coe sued, the Board offered to settle. Coe refused unless the Board agreed to maintain public comments on their agenda.
Far from setting any precedent, the federal judge praised Coe's efforts, and in ruling against Coe's petition simply said she should have tried harder to work things out with the Board before going to court.
"The Board wants a good image before the cameras to help property values in the District," Coe said. "They deter public participation which could actually benefit schools by making them more accountable."
In Fayette County, Georgia, The Citizen newspaper says Georgia's "Sunshine Laws" are in practice "more like suggestions."2 In December 1997, the Fayette County School Board allegedly violated the Open Meeting Law for the third time in one year by meeting in the home of the Board President without public notice.3 In Georgia, advance public notice of a meeting is required, but an agenda is not required until afterward.
Tyrone parent Joy Belyeu and other members of two concerned parents groups have recently clashed with the Fayette Board. After criticizing the Superintendent, Belyeu was required to finish her remarks in a closed session.
Georgia Press Association attorney Jim Ellington says it is a violation of Georgia's Open Meeting Act to silence a statement made in a public hearing, then separate the complaining party in a closed session.4
Schools attorney Sarah Murphy disagrees: "Board deliberations about disciplinary actions or employee evaluations should be considered in private to protect the rights of the employee."5 But does criticism by a member of the public constitute "board deliberation?"
Murphy says most school attorneys disagree with a July 1995 unofficial opinion from Georgia's Attorney General. That ruling stated, "A school board may not close to the public any meeting devoted to the airing of grievances about school personnel by interested members of the public." The ruling went on to say "evidence or argument presented to the board must be held in an open meeting," while "deliberation or discussion by the board" may be in closed session.6
In Pennsylvania, two cases merit attention: When Bob Kircher demanded the resignation of a bankrupt board member, the Brentwood School Board had him removed by police. Meanwhile in Edgewood, the Woodland Hill Citizens for Quality Education complained about a board policy restricting public comment. Both Edgewood and Brentwood repealed their policies restricting public criticism of personnel after the ACLU threatened action. Pittsburg ACLU attorney Vic Walczak remarked, "Both defendants rolled over quite quickly after receiving our letters."
Without question this is a difficult issue. Personnel expect privacy and due process. Media representatives believe they should be able to hear citizen comments to public officials. Board members are reluctant to make any comments concerning items not on their agendas, even in response to criticism.
In many states open meetings laws require advance agenda. Under such requirements, officials responding to public comments may fear straying into illegal consideration of topics not on such agenda. Perhaps such laws could be amended to allow brief responses from officials. Under California's Brown Act, members of body or staff may briefly respond to statements, ask questions for clarification, make brief announcements, or make brief reports on their own activities. They may also refer items to staff or other resources for more information, request staff to report to the body at a subsequent meeting, or direct staff to place matters on future agenda.7
Reviewing the RED:
It speaks for itself. The board is holding illegal meeting and it needs to stop.
Bill Stemmons
as published in the Journal of the American Institute of Parliamentarians, April 1998
©1998 American Institute of Parliamentarians - Republished by permission.
Many school boards and other public bodies are uncertain how to receive comments from the general public concerning their personnel. Under open meetings laws in many states, public bodies generally may not consider anything not on an advance agenda. Many also believe all personnel matters must be discussed in closed sessions. What if a member of the public makes comments before a board critical of personnel? Can a brief response be given? Should they silence the speaker or insist it be discussed in a future closed session?
A member of the public has a right of free speech in an open forum, which a public body creates by inviting public comments. But don't public employees have a right to privacy in personnel affairs? A look around the U.S. shows the issue of public criticism of personnel in open meetings has become a widespread controversy.
George Dunham, Trustee for the Chicago suburb of Schaumberg, says their Board is like most public bodies: "Public comment time is not required, but the people expect it." Their Board also hosts monthly informal coffees entirely devoted to public input. "The whole point," Dunham says, "is to make it easier for people, not harder."
Victoria Baca attempted to criticize a superintendent and principal at a May 1996 Moreno Valley, California School Board meeting. The Hispanic activist, former school board candidate, and parent was warned that she could not mention employees by name except in a closed session. When she continued, she was physically removed from the meeting by a deputy sheriff.
In California, public comment time is required by law. A federal court held that in such a public forum, Baca's constitutionally-protected right of free speech prevailed against a prior restraint on content, and over any privacy or liberty interest of a public employee. The Court ruled that comments may be limited to subject matter under the jurisdiction of the Board, but the Board may not then limit the content of views expressed.
The Court held that as an employer, the District had an interest in protecting employee privacy. But the District had a compelling state interest in its role as a governmental entity required to allow public comment in its meetings. Employees' rights were outweighed by the First Amendment guarantee of uncensored free speech.
In February 1997, San Diego Vista School District residents Margaret O'Neill and Nancy Leventhal were cut off while attempting to question the performance of the District's Superintendent. Board President David Hubbard stopped both women and threatened to close the meeting if public criticism persisted.
When the ACLU filed suit on behalf of O'Neill and Leventhal, the Vista Board paid a settlement and attorney's fees. Plaintiffs' attorney Guylyn Cummins commented, "I found it extremely egregious that the Board would not allow criticism of public employees -- especially high ranking employees like the Superintendent of a public school system -- at public school board meetings by parents and other concerned citizens."
"At one point, the criticism ban was invoked as to elected Board members as well," Cummins explained. "The Board essentially said that concerned citizens could make laudatory or neutral comments, but could not criticize. The Court found it to be a content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory ban on speech which could not survive constitutional scrutiny."
Cummins added, "There is no principle more basic to our constitutional democracy than the right of citizens to confront their elected officials in a public forum and comment on their performance."
Shortly after free speech was ordered by the Court, the Vista Superintendent resigned amidst substantial controversy.
Activist Joan Coe of Simsbury, Connecticut, has been described by the Hartford Courant as a "gadfly."1 But her attorney praises her as a "public-spirited citizen," and one board member calls her "an asset and a tireless investigator who helps keep the concept of an open forum alive."
The former city employee and substitute teacher has already filed two suits against the Simbury School Board -- for open records and free speech in board meetings. Coe says she was once arrested for "reading a public record before a public meeting of a public body." That incident involved reading drunken driving charges filed against a student.
On September 10, 1996, the Simsbury Board abruptly adjourned during Coe's criticism of the Superintendent. (The Board has since shelved a proposal to cut off public comments altogether.) When Coe sued, the Board offered to settle. Coe refused unless the Board agreed to maintain public comments on their agenda.
Far from setting any precedent, the federal judge praised Coe's efforts, and in ruling against Coe's petition simply said she should have tried harder to work things out with the Board before going to court.
"The Board wants a good image before the cameras to help property values in the District," Coe said. "They deter public participation which could actually benefit schools by making them more accountable."
In Fayette County, Georgia, The Citizen newspaper says Georgia's "Sunshine Laws" are in practice "more like suggestions."2 In December 1997, the Fayette County School Board allegedly violated the Open Meeting Law for the third time in one year by meeting in the home of the Board President without public notice.3 In Georgia, advance public notice of a meeting is required, but an agenda is not required until afterward.
Tyrone parent Joy Belyeu and other members of two concerned parents groups have recently clashed with the Fayette Board. After criticizing the Superintendent, Belyeu was required to finish her remarks in a closed session.
Georgia Press Association attorney Jim Ellington says it is a violation of Georgia's Open Meeting Act to silence a statement made in a public hearing, then separate the complaining party in a closed session.4
Schools attorney Sarah Murphy disagrees: "Board deliberations about disciplinary actions or employee evaluations should be considered in private to protect the rights of the employee."5 But does criticism by a member of the public constitute "board deliberation?"
Murphy says most school attorneys disagree with a July 1995 unofficial opinion from Georgia's Attorney General. That ruling stated, "A school board may not close to the public any meeting devoted to the airing of grievances about school personnel by interested members of the public." The ruling went on to say "evidence or argument presented to the board must be held in an open meeting," while "deliberation or discussion by the board" may be in closed session.6
In Pennsylvania, two cases merit attention: When Bob Kircher demanded the resignation of a bankrupt board member, the Brentwood School Board had him removed by police. Meanwhile in Edgewood, the Woodland Hill Citizens for Quality Education complained about a board policy restricting public comment. Both Edgewood and Brentwood repealed their policies restricting public criticism of personnel after the ACLU threatened action. Pittsburg ACLU attorney Vic Walczak remarked, "Both defendants rolled over quite quickly after receiving our letters."
Without question this is a difficult issue. Personnel expect privacy and due process. Media representatives believe they should be able to hear citizen comments to public officials. Board members are reluctant to make any comments concerning items not on their agendas, even in response to criticism.
In many states open meetings laws require advance agenda. Under such requirements, officials responding to public comments may fear straying into illegal consideration of topics not on such agenda. Perhaps such laws could be amended to allow brief responses from officials. Under California's Brown Act, members of body or staff may briefly respond to statements, ask questions for clarification, make brief announcements, or make brief reports on their own activities. They may also refer items to staff or other resources for more information, request staff to report to the body at a subsequent meeting, or direct staff to place matters on future agenda.7
Reviewing the RED:
It speaks for itself. The board is holding illegal meeting and it needs to stop.
Public Criticism of Personnel?
Bill Stemmons
as published in the Journal of the American Institute of Parliamentarians, April 1998
©1998 American Institute of Parliamentarians - Republished by permission.
Many school boards and other public bodies are uncertain how to receive comments from the general public concerning their personnel. Under open meetings laws in many states, public bodies generally may not consider anything not on an advance agenda. Many also believe all personnel matters must be discussed in closed sessions. What if a member of the public makes comments before a board critical of personnel? Can a brief response be given? Should they silence the speaker or insist it be discussed in a future closed session?
A member of the public has a right of free speech in an open forum, which a public body creates by inviting public comments. But don't public employees have a right to privacy in personnel affairs? A look around the U.S. shows the issue of public criticism of personnel in open meetings has become a widespread controversy.
George Dunham, Trustee for the Chicago suburb of Schaumberg, says their Board is like most public bodies: "Public comment time is not required, but the people expect it." Their Board also hosts monthly informal coffees entirely devoted to public input. "The whole point," Dunham says, "is to make it easier for people, not harder."
Victoria Baca attempted to criticize a superintendent and principal at a May 1996 Moreno Valley, California School Board meeting. The Hispanic activist, former school board candidate, and parent was warned that she could not mention employees by name except in a closed session. When she continued, she was physically removed from the meeting by a deputy sheriff.
In California, public comment time is required by law. A federal court held that in such a public forum, Baca's constitutionally-protected right of free speech prevailed against a prior restraint on content, and over any privacy or liberty interest of a public employee. The Court ruled that comments may be limited to subject matter under the jurisdiction of the Board, but the Board may not then limit the content of views expressed.
The Court held that as an employer, the District had an interest in protecting employee privacy. But the District had a compelling state interest in its role as a governmental entity required to allow public comment in its meetings. Employees' rights were outweighed by the First Amendment guarantee of uncensored free speech.
In February 1997, San Diego Vista School District residents Margaret O'Neill and Nancy Leventhal were cut off while attempting to question the performance of the District's Superintendent. Board President David Hubbard stopped both women and threatened to close the meeting if public criticism persisted.
When the ACLU filed suit on behalf of O'Neill and Leventhal, the Vista Board paid a settlement and attorney's fees. Plaintiffs' attorney Guylyn Cummins commented, "I found it extremely egregious that the Board would not allow criticism of public employees -- especially high ranking employees like the Superintendent of a public school system -- at public school board meetings by parents and other concerned citizens."
"At one point, the criticism ban was invoked as to elected Board members as well," Cummins explained. "The Board essentially said that concerned citizens could make laudatory or neutral comments, but could not criticize. The Court found it to be a content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory ban on speech which could not survive constitutional scrutiny."
Cummins added, "There is no principle more basic to our constitutional democracy than the right of citizens to confront their elected officials in a public forum and comment on their performance."
Shortly after free speech was ordered by the Court, the Vista Superintendent resigned amidst substantial controversy.
Activist Joan Coe of Simsbury, Connecticut, has been described by the Hartford Courant as a "gadfly."1 But her attorney praises her as a "public-spirited citizen," and one board member calls her "an asset and a tireless investigator who helps keep the concept of an open forum alive."
The former city employee and substitute teacher has already filed two suits against the Simbury School Board -- for open records and free speech in board meetings. Coe says she was once arrested for "reading a public record before a public meeting of a public body." That incident involved reading drunken driving charges filed against a student.
On September 10, 1996, the Simsbury Board abruptly adjourned during Coe's criticism of the Superintendent. (The Board has since shelved a proposal to cut off public comments altogether.) When Coe sued, the Board offered to settle. Coe refused unless the Board agreed to maintain public comments on their agenda.
Far from setting any precedent, the federal judge praised Coe's efforts, and in ruling against Coe's petition simply said she should have tried harder to work things out with the Board before going to court.
"The Board wants a good image before the cameras to help property values in the District," Coe said. "They deter public participation which could actually benefit schools by making them more accountable."
In Fayette County, Georgia, The Citizen newspaper says Georgia's "Sunshine Laws" are in practice "more like suggestions."2 In December 1997, the Fayette County School Board allegedly violated the Open Meeting Law for the third time in one year by meeting in the home of the Board President without public notice.3 In Georgia, advance public notice of a meeting is required, but an agenda is not required until afterward.
Tyrone parent Joy Belyeu and other members of two concerned parents groups have recently clashed with the Fayette Board. After criticizing the Superintendent, Belyeu was required to finish her remarks in a closed session.
Georgia Press Association attorney Jim Ellington says it is a violation of Georgia's Open Meeting Act to silence a statement made in a public hearing, then separate the complaining party in a closed session.4
Schools attorney Sarah Murphy disagrees: "Board deliberations about disciplinary actions or employee evaluations should be considered in private to protect the rights of the employee."5 But does criticism by a member of the public constitute "board deliberation?"
Murphy says most school attorneys disagree with a July 1995 unofficial opinion from Georgia's Attorney General. That ruling stated, "A school board may not close to the public any meeting devoted to the airing of grievances about school personnel by interested members of the public." The ruling went on to say "evidence or argument presented to the board must be held in an open meeting," while "deliberation or discussion by the board" may be in closed session.6
In Pennsylvania, two cases merit attention: When Bob Kircher demanded the resignation of a bankrupt board member, the Brentwood School Board had him removed by police. Meanwhile in Edgewood, the Woodland Hill Citizens for Quality Education complained about a board policy restricting public comment. Both Edgewood and Brentwood repealed their policies restricting public criticism of personnel after the ACLU threatened action. Pittsburg ACLU attorney Vic Walczak remarked, "Both defendants rolled over quite quickly after receiving our letters."
Without question this is a difficult issue. Personnel expect privacy and due process. Media representatives believe they should be able to hear citizen comments to public officials. Board members are reluctant to make any comments concerning items not on their agendas, even in response to criticism.
In many states open meetings laws require advance agenda. Under such requirements, officials responding to public comments may fear straying into illegal consideration of topics not on such agenda. Perhaps such laws could be amended to allow brief responses from officials. Under California's Brown Act, members of body or staff may briefly respond to statements, ask questions for clarification, make brief announcements, or make brief reports on their own activities. They may also refer items to staff or other resources for more information, request staff to report to the body at a subsequent meeting, or direct staff to place matters on future agenda.7
Reviewing the RED:
It speaks for itself. The board is holding illegal meeting and it needs to stop.
Bill Stemmons
as published in the Journal of the American Institute of Parliamentarians, April 1998
©1998 American Institute of Parliamentarians - Republished by permission.
Many school boards and other public bodies are uncertain how to receive comments from the general public concerning their personnel. Under open meetings laws in many states, public bodies generally may not consider anything not on an advance agenda. Many also believe all personnel matters must be discussed in closed sessions. What if a member of the public makes comments before a board critical of personnel? Can a brief response be given? Should they silence the speaker or insist it be discussed in a future closed session?
A member of the public has a right of free speech in an open forum, which a public body creates by inviting public comments. But don't public employees have a right to privacy in personnel affairs? A look around the U.S. shows the issue of public criticism of personnel in open meetings has become a widespread controversy.
George Dunham, Trustee for the Chicago suburb of Schaumberg, says their Board is like most public bodies: "Public comment time is not required, but the people expect it." Their Board also hosts monthly informal coffees entirely devoted to public input. "The whole point," Dunham says, "is to make it easier for people, not harder."
Victoria Baca attempted to criticize a superintendent and principal at a May 1996 Moreno Valley, California School Board meeting. The Hispanic activist, former school board candidate, and parent was warned that she could not mention employees by name except in a closed session. When she continued, she was physically removed from the meeting by a deputy sheriff.
In California, public comment time is required by law. A federal court held that in such a public forum, Baca's constitutionally-protected right of free speech prevailed against a prior restraint on content, and over any privacy or liberty interest of a public employee. The Court ruled that comments may be limited to subject matter under the jurisdiction of the Board, but the Board may not then limit the content of views expressed.
The Court held that as an employer, the District had an interest in protecting employee privacy. But the District had a compelling state interest in its role as a governmental entity required to allow public comment in its meetings. Employees' rights were outweighed by the First Amendment guarantee of uncensored free speech.
In February 1997, San Diego Vista School District residents Margaret O'Neill and Nancy Leventhal were cut off while attempting to question the performance of the District's Superintendent. Board President David Hubbard stopped both women and threatened to close the meeting if public criticism persisted.
When the ACLU filed suit on behalf of O'Neill and Leventhal, the Vista Board paid a settlement and attorney's fees. Plaintiffs' attorney Guylyn Cummins commented, "I found it extremely egregious that the Board would not allow criticism of public employees -- especially high ranking employees like the Superintendent of a public school system -- at public school board meetings by parents and other concerned citizens."
"At one point, the criticism ban was invoked as to elected Board members as well," Cummins explained. "The Board essentially said that concerned citizens could make laudatory or neutral comments, but could not criticize. The Court found it to be a content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory ban on speech which could not survive constitutional scrutiny."
Cummins added, "There is no principle more basic to our constitutional democracy than the right of citizens to confront their elected officials in a public forum and comment on their performance."
Shortly after free speech was ordered by the Court, the Vista Superintendent resigned amidst substantial controversy.
Activist Joan Coe of Simsbury, Connecticut, has been described by the Hartford Courant as a "gadfly."1 But her attorney praises her as a "public-spirited citizen," and one board member calls her "an asset and a tireless investigator who helps keep the concept of an open forum alive."
The former city employee and substitute teacher has already filed two suits against the Simbury School Board -- for open records and free speech in board meetings. Coe says she was once arrested for "reading a public record before a public meeting of a public body." That incident involved reading drunken driving charges filed against a student.
On September 10, 1996, the Simsbury Board abruptly adjourned during Coe's criticism of the Superintendent. (The Board has since shelved a proposal to cut off public comments altogether.) When Coe sued, the Board offered to settle. Coe refused unless the Board agreed to maintain public comments on their agenda.
Far from setting any precedent, the federal judge praised Coe's efforts, and in ruling against Coe's petition simply said she should have tried harder to work things out with the Board before going to court.
"The Board wants a good image before the cameras to help property values in the District," Coe said. "They deter public participation which could actually benefit schools by making them more accountable."
In Fayette County, Georgia, The Citizen newspaper says Georgia's "Sunshine Laws" are in practice "more like suggestions."2 In December 1997, the Fayette County School Board allegedly violated the Open Meeting Law for the third time in one year by meeting in the home of the Board President without public notice.3 In Georgia, advance public notice of a meeting is required, but an agenda is not required until afterward.
Tyrone parent Joy Belyeu and other members of two concerned parents groups have recently clashed with the Fayette Board. After criticizing the Superintendent, Belyeu was required to finish her remarks in a closed session.
Georgia Press Association attorney Jim Ellington says it is a violation of Georgia's Open Meeting Act to silence a statement made in a public hearing, then separate the complaining party in a closed session.4
Schools attorney Sarah Murphy disagrees: "Board deliberations about disciplinary actions or employee evaluations should be considered in private to protect the rights of the employee."5 But does criticism by a member of the public constitute "board deliberation?"
Murphy says most school attorneys disagree with a July 1995 unofficial opinion from Georgia's Attorney General. That ruling stated, "A school board may not close to the public any meeting devoted to the airing of grievances about school personnel by interested members of the public." The ruling went on to say "evidence or argument presented to the board must be held in an open meeting," while "deliberation or discussion by the board" may be in closed session.6
In Pennsylvania, two cases merit attention: When Bob Kircher demanded the resignation of a bankrupt board member, the Brentwood School Board had him removed by police. Meanwhile in Edgewood, the Woodland Hill Citizens for Quality Education complained about a board policy restricting public comment. Both Edgewood and Brentwood repealed their policies restricting public criticism of personnel after the ACLU threatened action. Pittsburg ACLU attorney Vic Walczak remarked, "Both defendants rolled over quite quickly after receiving our letters."
Without question this is a difficult issue. Personnel expect privacy and due process. Media representatives believe they should be able to hear citizen comments to public officials. Board members are reluctant to make any comments concerning items not on their agendas, even in response to criticism.
In many states open meetings laws require advance agenda. Under such requirements, officials responding to public comments may fear straying into illegal consideration of topics not on such agenda. Perhaps such laws could be amended to allow brief responses from officials. Under California's Brown Act, members of body or staff may briefly respond to statements, ask questions for clarification, make brief announcements, or make brief reports on their own activities. They may also refer items to staff or other resources for more information, request staff to report to the body at a subsequent meeting, or direct staff to place matters on future agenda.7
Reviewing the RED:
It speaks for itself. The board is holding illegal meeting and it needs to stop.
Poor Communications
Don't miss my comments at the end of this letter.
From the T&G:
Parent missed out on comment time for calendar
Dear Editor,
It was with some amazement that I read the story concerning the 2007-2008 school calendar for Camden County. Where was the public input on this issue? The BOE website states "During the February 2007 Board of Education meeting, the Board approved both the 2007-2008 School Calendar and the 2008-2009 School Calendar. These calendars are the result of input provided by both school system employees and the general public." I am a parent of two students attending Camden County schools and I was certainly never given an opportunity to comment. Had I been aware that the calendar was to be a topic of discussion at the Board meeting I most assuredly would have attended.Last year the Board sent proposed calendars home for parent comment. What happened this year? While it appears that the Board ignored last year's comments, this year they apparently didn't feel the need to even notify parents of the meeting.
Starting school on August 1 is ludicrous. The only attempted justification I have heard for the early start date is the assumption that students perform better academically if the first semester is complete prior to the winter break. Research simply does not support this assumption and in fact the evidence supports later start dates to improve academic performance.Of the top 10 ACT and SAT scoring schools for 2003, only one began school prior to September 1.The American Legislative Exchange Council's "Report Card on American Education State-by-State Analysis: 1981-2003" details that of the top-10 rated states, no school districts began school prior to the fourth week in August.Further, in 2003 the South Carolina Legislature commissioned Stephen C. Morse, Ph.D., economist from the University of South Carolina, Columbia to conduct a study of the economic impact of earlier school start dates. Dr. Morse cites overwhelming evidence that beginning school prior to Labor Day costs the state approximately $180 million in lost tourism along with additional utility costs of cooling schools during the hottest part of the summer.
At a time when our district is expressing concern for possible cuts in funding, should we not be looking to reasonable cost-cutting strategies? The Tulsa World News, on Nov. 17, 2002, reported that Tulsa Public Schools saved nearly $500,000 in utility costs by delaying the start of school until after Labor Day. In a Daily Oklahoman article from January 16, 2003, the paper quotes "District officials say the delay (August 18 to September 2) will save the schools at least $150,000 in utility costs."I encourage our school board to revisit this issue. With overwhelming evidence that no academic benefits from early school starts have been shown to exist, I'd like them to justify their decision to once again move up the school start date and take summer away from our families.
Mary Johnson
St. Marys
Reviewing the RED:
First of all the board has never communicated anything properly. They should post an agenda in the paper every month. They are not required to by law so they won't do it. The only time they communicate with the public is when there is a big football game and they might close schools. I wonder why we have not closed schools for the girls basketball games. I am sure these girls are just as excited in the playoffs as the football team was in their playoff bid, yet no mention of closing the schools for their playoff games. Just trying to keep it fair.
Second, the board does not look at how to save money, never have. They voted to raise taxes twice last year. One was for the impact money, which is still unclear whether or not we will receive it. If you look just at the payroll for our schools you would see there are many cuts they could make, but they won't take money away from the family, friends or football coaches.
From the T&G:
Parent missed out on comment time for calendar
Dear Editor,
It was with some amazement that I read the story concerning the 2007-2008 school calendar for Camden County. Where was the public input on this issue? The BOE website states "During the February 2007 Board of Education meeting, the Board approved both the 2007-2008 School Calendar and the 2008-2009 School Calendar. These calendars are the result of input provided by both school system employees and the general public." I am a parent of two students attending Camden County schools and I was certainly never given an opportunity to comment. Had I been aware that the calendar was to be a topic of discussion at the Board meeting I most assuredly would have attended.Last year the Board sent proposed calendars home for parent comment. What happened this year? While it appears that the Board ignored last year's comments, this year they apparently didn't feel the need to even notify parents of the meeting.
Starting school on August 1 is ludicrous. The only attempted justification I have heard for the early start date is the assumption that students perform better academically if the first semester is complete prior to the winter break. Research simply does not support this assumption and in fact the evidence supports later start dates to improve academic performance.Of the top 10 ACT and SAT scoring schools for 2003, only one began school prior to September 1.The American Legislative Exchange Council's "Report Card on American Education State-by-State Analysis: 1981-2003" details that of the top-10 rated states, no school districts began school prior to the fourth week in August.Further, in 2003 the South Carolina Legislature commissioned Stephen C. Morse, Ph.D., economist from the University of South Carolina, Columbia to conduct a study of the economic impact of earlier school start dates. Dr. Morse cites overwhelming evidence that beginning school prior to Labor Day costs the state approximately $180 million in lost tourism along with additional utility costs of cooling schools during the hottest part of the summer.
At a time when our district is expressing concern for possible cuts in funding, should we not be looking to reasonable cost-cutting strategies? The Tulsa World News, on Nov. 17, 2002, reported that Tulsa Public Schools saved nearly $500,000 in utility costs by delaying the start of school until after Labor Day. In a Daily Oklahoman article from January 16, 2003, the paper quotes "District officials say the delay (August 18 to September 2) will save the schools at least $150,000 in utility costs."I encourage our school board to revisit this issue. With overwhelming evidence that no academic benefits from early school starts have been shown to exist, I'd like them to justify their decision to once again move up the school start date and take summer away from our families.
Mary Johnson
St. Marys
Reviewing the RED:
First of all the board has never communicated anything properly. They should post an agenda in the paper every month. They are not required to by law so they won't do it. The only time they communicate with the public is when there is a big football game and they might close schools. I wonder why we have not closed schools for the girls basketball games. I am sure these girls are just as excited in the playoffs as the football team was in their playoff bid, yet no mention of closing the schools for their playoff games. Just trying to keep it fair.
Second, the board does not look at how to save money, never have. They voted to raise taxes twice last year. One was for the impact money, which is still unclear whether or not we will receive it. If you look just at the payroll for our schools you would see there are many cuts they could make, but they won't take money away from the family, friends or football coaches.
Why Schools Don't Like Open Meetings
One Word: ACCOUNTABILITY
Reviewing the RED:
Open meeting gives the parents an extra layer of accountability. Something the schools do not want.
Why? Because this school system like many around the state and country are filled with friends, family and football coaches. Do you really think they want the public to know when they screw up. No they don't. But people are only human and mistakes will happen and most of the time a simple "I am sorry" will solve the problem. BUT some people in this school system think they are above saying I am sorry. In the case of my daughter and that resource officer threatening to slap handcuffs on her, the officer denies that it happen but listen to this. My daughter comes home from school ( you all know the details) tells me this officer threaten to slap hand cuffs on her and take her someplace in Waycross for some word that starts with an "S". So my daughter had no clue what was in Waycross, ( nor did I as I ask Ms. Lucy Hunter what was in Waycross) and she had no idea what SLANDER was either. The officer said that she say that my daughter could go to jail for slander, but that she never said that about the cuffs and that is when I got angry, because that is totally stupid not to mention a lie. So why if you can go to jail for slander why did the officer try and sue me for slander. Why didn't she just come by the house and slap cuffs on me. And lets not forget the KPD is trying to cover this whole thing up. They refuse to release my complaint against her. CAN YOU SAY FRIEND AND FAMILY. And to think if the school would have just said I am Sorry this blog would not exist. See their is a silver lining to the story. Now at least one person will hold the schools accountable.
Reviewing the RED:
Open meeting gives the parents an extra layer of accountability. Something the schools do not want.
Why? Because this school system like many around the state and country are filled with friends, family and football coaches. Do you really think they want the public to know when they screw up. No they don't. But people are only human and mistakes will happen and most of the time a simple "I am sorry" will solve the problem. BUT some people in this school system think they are above saying I am sorry. In the case of my daughter and that resource officer threatening to slap handcuffs on her, the officer denies that it happen but listen to this. My daughter comes home from school ( you all know the details) tells me this officer threaten to slap hand cuffs on her and take her someplace in Waycross for some word that starts with an "S". So my daughter had no clue what was in Waycross, ( nor did I as I ask Ms. Lucy Hunter what was in Waycross) and she had no idea what SLANDER was either. The officer said that she say that my daughter could go to jail for slander, but that she never said that about the cuffs and that is when I got angry, because that is totally stupid not to mention a lie. So why if you can go to jail for slander why did the officer try and sue me for slander. Why didn't she just come by the house and slap cuffs on me. And lets not forget the KPD is trying to cover this whole thing up. They refuse to release my complaint against her. CAN YOU SAY FRIEND AND FAMILY. And to think if the school would have just said I am Sorry this blog would not exist. See their is a silver lining to the story. Now at least one person will hold the schools accountable.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Some Schools in Georgia Never Close Their Doors
Taking school business behind closed doors
By Michael Hughes Gainesville Times
GAINESVILLE -- In Northeast Georgia, some school districts go into closed session about as often as department stores have December sales.
According to a survey by The Times of Gainesville, 45 of 76 school board meetings' agendas during the past six months listed executive sessions, which are closed to the public.
In the last six months, Habersham and Dawson counties have closed part of every meeting, and Gwinnett County has closed part of every work session. Forsyth County has closed 12 of 15 meetings, including several work sessions.
Yet in 13 of the meetings surveyed, the boards scheduled an executive session, but did not actually go into one.
Some districts, such as Gainesville, list an executive session on their agendas, but rarely go behind closed doors, according to Superintendent Alan Zubay.
The system has a set format for agendas, he explained, and item 14 simply lists the time they would close a meeting if necessary.
''We probably haven't had had an executive session in well over a year,'' Zubay said. Dawson County Superintendent Herbert Burnsed said his board goes for months without closing meetings. But recently, the board has been evaluating property for future schools.
Forsyth County Superintendent Allene Magill said her growing district usually has some type of personnel, discipline or land-buying issue.
Forsyth was recently named the fastest-growing county in the United States. The 16,000-student, 2,000-employee system has opened eight schools since 1997, and plans to add another 405 classrooms in the next few years. Magill said systems without Forsyth's growth don't have to close as many meetings to discuss buying property or hiring teachers and administrators. And smaller districts have less opportunity for reviewing student punishments.
School boards can make personnel decisions in front of the public, but it's not always pretty, according to Barry Cronic, chairman of the Jackson County school board. ''Sometimes we have to make decisions out in the open that hurt people's feelings,'' he said. ''But it's better to do that than to do it behind closed doors.''
Open government helps the school system's credibility and its trust with parents, said Anderson Byers, Jackson County school superintendent.
Georgia law allows government boards to close meetings to discuss litigation, land purchases or personnel issues such as hirings and firings. School boards can also hold closed meetings to review cases in which students appeal a punishment.
Reviewing the RED:
I can't believe that some school districts don't use executive session. They let the parents voice their opinion. How can Jackson County do it and we can't.
Mr. Rowland you promised open meetings and I will hold you to that promise.
By Michael Hughes Gainesville Times
GAINESVILLE -- In Northeast Georgia, some school districts go into closed session about as often as department stores have December sales.
According to a survey by The Times of Gainesville, 45 of 76 school board meetings' agendas during the past six months listed executive sessions, which are closed to the public.
In the last six months, Habersham and Dawson counties have closed part of every meeting, and Gwinnett County has closed part of every work session. Forsyth County has closed 12 of 15 meetings, including several work sessions.
Yet in 13 of the meetings surveyed, the boards scheduled an executive session, but did not actually go into one.
Some districts, such as Gainesville, list an executive session on their agendas, but rarely go behind closed doors, according to Superintendent Alan Zubay.
The system has a set format for agendas, he explained, and item 14 simply lists the time they would close a meeting if necessary.
''We probably haven't had had an executive session in well over a year,'' Zubay said. Dawson County Superintendent Herbert Burnsed said his board goes for months without closing meetings. But recently, the board has been evaluating property for future schools.
Forsyth County Superintendent Allene Magill said her growing district usually has some type of personnel, discipline or land-buying issue.
Forsyth was recently named the fastest-growing county in the United States. The 16,000-student, 2,000-employee system has opened eight schools since 1997, and plans to add another 405 classrooms in the next few years. Magill said systems without Forsyth's growth don't have to close as many meetings to discuss buying property or hiring teachers and administrators. And smaller districts have less opportunity for reviewing student punishments.
School boards can make personnel decisions in front of the public, but it's not always pretty, according to Barry Cronic, chairman of the Jackson County school board. ''Sometimes we have to make decisions out in the open that hurt people's feelings,'' he said. ''But it's better to do that than to do it behind closed doors.''
Open government helps the school system's credibility and its trust with parents, said Anderson Byers, Jackson County school superintendent.
Georgia law allows government boards to close meetings to discuss litigation, land purchases or personnel issues such as hirings and firings. School boards can also hold closed meetings to review cases in which students appeal a punishment.
Reviewing the RED:
I can't believe that some school districts don't use executive session. They let the parents voice their opinion. How can Jackson County do it and we can't.
Mr. Rowland you promised open meetings and I will hold you to that promise.
All of Indy School District Involed in Cover Up?
Update from last post
13 InvestigatesSchool district: Sixth graders had sex in class
March 8, 2007 10:31 AM EST
Sandra Chapman/13 Investigates
Indianapolis - For months it's been a well-kept secret. But now Warren Township Schools confirm a disturbing case of sex in the classroom. The illicit activity has parents concerned and a district at a loss for words.
Shop class gives students a chance to learn outside of the book. But at Warren Township's Raymond Park Middle School, two students engaged in illicit acts in view of goggled eyes.
13 Investigates was tipped off by a disturbed resident who writes:
"...during school hours in a classroom with an experienced teacher present, two sixth graders completed the act of intercourse...at least ten students were witnesses. No disciplinary actions were taken against the teacher... All teachers were told to keep quiet."
Middle school students having sex in a busy classroom while a teacher is present? Warren Township Associate Superintendent Jeff Swensson confirmed it's true. It's been kept under wraps since November.
The principal at Raymond Park Middle School would not speak to us about the incident or parents concerns. The superintendent in charge of middle schools in the district also backed out of an on-camera interview and instead provided a three-sentence statement:
"Two students were involved in inappropriate conduct in a lab class last semester. We have investigated the matter and taken appropriate action. The school corporation considers the matter closed and will have no further comment."
Associate Superintendent Jeff Swensson told Eyewitness News off camera the teacher didn't know what was going on because another student acted as a "look-out." But once the teacher discovered the behavior, immediate action was taken. Swensson says the students involved were recommended for expulsion. But he did not say whether the board followed that recommendation.
Warren Township School Police were not aware of the incident and say no report was made even though the children were recommended for expulsion.
We sought comment from all seven Warren Township School Board Members about how this case was handled. No one was available to speak with us.
Reviewing the RED
Cover up Cover up and Cover up.
I can bet the person that tip off the news was a teacher. A good teacher. One that believe a public school is just that public. Is the Warren Township School Police covering as well? This is why I say our Camden County Board of Education should allow people to speak freely. Please look at the comments and I will explain why the board is in violation of the law.
13 InvestigatesSchool district: Sixth graders had sex in class
March 8, 2007 10:31 AM EST
Sandra Chapman/13 Investigates
Indianapolis - For months it's been a well-kept secret. But now Warren Township Schools confirm a disturbing case of sex in the classroom. The illicit activity has parents concerned and a district at a loss for words.
Shop class gives students a chance to learn outside of the book. But at Warren Township's Raymond Park Middle School, two students engaged in illicit acts in view of goggled eyes.
13 Investigates was tipped off by a disturbed resident who writes:
"...during school hours in a classroom with an experienced teacher present, two sixth graders completed the act of intercourse...at least ten students were witnesses. No disciplinary actions were taken against the teacher... All teachers were told to keep quiet."
Middle school students having sex in a busy classroom while a teacher is present? Warren Township Associate Superintendent Jeff Swensson confirmed it's true. It's been kept under wraps since November.
The principal at Raymond Park Middle School would not speak to us about the incident or parents concerns. The superintendent in charge of middle schools in the district also backed out of an on-camera interview and instead provided a three-sentence statement:
"Two students were involved in inappropriate conduct in a lab class last semester. We have investigated the matter and taken appropriate action. The school corporation considers the matter closed and will have no further comment."
Associate Superintendent Jeff Swensson told Eyewitness News off camera the teacher didn't know what was going on because another student acted as a "look-out." But once the teacher discovered the behavior, immediate action was taken. Swensson says the students involved were recommended for expulsion. But he did not say whether the board followed that recommendation.
Warren Township School Police were not aware of the incident and say no report was made even though the children were recommended for expulsion.
We sought comment from all seven Warren Township School Board Members about how this case was handled. No one was available to speak with us.
Reviewing the RED
Cover up Cover up and Cover up.
I can bet the person that tip off the news was a teacher. A good teacher. One that believe a public school is just that public. Is the Warren Township School Police covering as well? This is why I say our Camden County Board of Education should allow people to speak freely. Please look at the comments and I will explain why the board is in violation of the law.
No Comment Means We Have Something To Hide
From http://www.wthr.com/
School officials refuse to comment on sex incident
March 7, 2007 06:45 PM EST
Sandra Chapman/13 Investigates
Indianapolis - The Warren Township school district is gaining national attention after a 13 Investigates report confirmed young students engaging in sexual activity during class time.
School officials are refusing to comment publicly, prompting concern and outrage among township parents.
Two days after 13 Investigates uncovered hidden facts about two Raymond Park Middle School students engaging in sexual activity during shop class, Warren Township School administrators still aren't talking. The report is raising questions nationwide. Nearly a half million viewers heard about the incident from the Drudge Report online.
Parents in the district are outraged.
"It just upsets me because it sounds like they're trying to make excuses. It doesn't matter to me how long it was, you know, 30 seconds, 30 minutes; it's too long. I want to know where the teacher was and how this was able to happen," said Laura Pliquett, who has a nine-year-old possibly headed to Raymond Park.
Troy Weber has a fifth grader and he's also concerned. "How could it have been kept quiet for that long and still to us kind of being swept under the rug?" he questioned.
Associate School Superintendent Dr. Jeff Swennson confirmed the incident happened almost four months ago in an Industrial Arts lab with the teacher present. He told 13 Investigates another child acted as a "look-out," disputing an insider's claim that as many as ten children may have witnessed the act. More than two parents who called the district say they were told the incident only lasted 30 seconds.
"The 30 seconds, that's not even a consideration - it's the fact that something occurred," said Kevin McDowell, the attorney for the Indiana Department of Education. He says districts often consult him on serious legal matters, but says this is the first he's heard of the Raymond Park incident.
Schools are NOT required to report such incidents to the state. McDowell won't criticize Warren Township, but doesn't agree with the district's approach.
"I can't imagine any administrator worth her salt or his salt that wouldn't address a situation like this because it is a serious matter. I really can't answer for them. I'm sure they have their reasons why. You know, is that the way I would address it? Well, my first blush reaction is, you know, I would have handled it differently," he said.
Jackie Stevens says the issue was particularly bothersome because she has a sixth grade student that attends another Warren Township School. She wonders if there are any other secrets.
"I just want to be very confident that they're not witnessing and they're being protected - they're not witnessing things that are harmful to them emotionally, physically - whatever."
McDowell agrees parents have legitimate issues about classroom supervision - but has a different take concerning students who may have witnessed the activity:
"This doesn't pose any danger to the other students even if they did see it," he said.
When asked for claification, McDowell repeated his stance.
"All right, so they may have witnessed this. While this is an activity you certainly don't see in a school and it's something that would be certainly unusual, I don't feel - I don't know where it posed any immediate danger to those children who saw it," McDowell said.
Many of the parents we spoke with are considering whether to send their children to Raymond Park next year or to even remain in the district.
Warren Township School Board member Marlene Tisdale is the only school board member who returned our calls. She repeated the district's statement that two students were involved in inappropriate conduct and that the school corporation investigated and considers the matter closed.
Parents can voice their concerns at the upcoming school board meeting on March 21st. Coming up Thursday at 6:00 pm, we'll tell you why the State Department of Education's hands are also tied in this matter.
Reviewing the RED,
No comment by school officials will always raise concerns. This happened 4 months ago and the school district did nothing. The teacher was in the classroom and saw nothing. Why was this not reported to the state? Because they were protecting someone, Who? We probably will never know now. A fifth grader, Troy Weber, wonders how they could keep this a secret for so long. Troy it is called executive session.
This is why we need open meetings, I can guarantee this would have come up in an open meeting. I am calling the the Warren Township BOE and asking them how many times they have been in executive session in the last 4 months. I will let you know.
What do you think?
UPDATE
I called the Warren Township BOE and talked to the superintendent's secretary. She said that they only go in to executive session when needed and not every month. They do have a great website and they post everything. So I looked at all of their executive sessions and of course they went into executive session 11 out 12 times. But they have held many special meetings in the last 4 months. I believe this school system has the same problem as ours, Administrators covering for the bad teachers. Well, why wouldn't they? They are FRIENDS. Once again the school board could have shown that they want to work with the parents and make them aware of what is going on in these schools. But, This school district does not have a sign that says if you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing at all. Here is what theirs says:
The Warren Township Board of Education is always open to and welcomes comments, questions and/or suggestions from any citizen of the School Corporation. Anyone may address the Board by submitting a yellow or green comment card to the Board Secretary prior to the beginning of the meeting. Yellow comment cards are for those items not on the agenda. Green comment cards are related to items on the agenda. Comments will be limited to five minutes. The Board may delay action or response pending review and recommendation by the Superintendent of Schools.
Notice you are not required to call ahead of time. If we don't have true open meetings this will happen, if it already hasn't, in our school. If these parents didn't know, how would we?
School officials refuse to comment on sex incident
March 7, 2007 06:45 PM EST
Sandra Chapman/13 Investigates
Indianapolis - The Warren Township school district is gaining national attention after a 13 Investigates report confirmed young students engaging in sexual activity during class time.
School officials are refusing to comment publicly, prompting concern and outrage among township parents.
Two days after 13 Investigates uncovered hidden facts about two Raymond Park Middle School students engaging in sexual activity during shop class, Warren Township School administrators still aren't talking. The report is raising questions nationwide. Nearly a half million viewers heard about the incident from the Drudge Report online.
Parents in the district are outraged.
"It just upsets me because it sounds like they're trying to make excuses. It doesn't matter to me how long it was, you know, 30 seconds, 30 minutes; it's too long. I want to know where the teacher was and how this was able to happen," said Laura Pliquett, who has a nine-year-old possibly headed to Raymond Park.
Troy Weber has a fifth grader and he's also concerned. "How could it have been kept quiet for that long and still to us kind of being swept under the rug?" he questioned.
Associate School Superintendent Dr. Jeff Swennson confirmed the incident happened almost four months ago in an Industrial Arts lab with the teacher present. He told 13 Investigates another child acted as a "look-out," disputing an insider's claim that as many as ten children may have witnessed the act. More than two parents who called the district say they were told the incident only lasted 30 seconds.
"The 30 seconds, that's not even a consideration - it's the fact that something occurred," said Kevin McDowell, the attorney for the Indiana Department of Education. He says districts often consult him on serious legal matters, but says this is the first he's heard of the Raymond Park incident.
Schools are NOT required to report such incidents to the state. McDowell won't criticize Warren Township, but doesn't agree with the district's approach.
"I can't imagine any administrator worth her salt or his salt that wouldn't address a situation like this because it is a serious matter. I really can't answer for them. I'm sure they have their reasons why. You know, is that the way I would address it? Well, my first blush reaction is, you know, I would have handled it differently," he said.
Jackie Stevens says the issue was particularly bothersome because she has a sixth grade student that attends another Warren Township School. She wonders if there are any other secrets.
"I just want to be very confident that they're not witnessing and they're being protected - they're not witnessing things that are harmful to them emotionally, physically - whatever."
McDowell agrees parents have legitimate issues about classroom supervision - but has a different take concerning students who may have witnessed the activity:
"This doesn't pose any danger to the other students even if they did see it," he said.
When asked for claification, McDowell repeated his stance.
"All right, so they may have witnessed this. While this is an activity you certainly don't see in a school and it's something that would be certainly unusual, I don't feel - I don't know where it posed any immediate danger to those children who saw it," McDowell said.
Many of the parents we spoke with are considering whether to send their children to Raymond Park next year or to even remain in the district.
Warren Township School Board member Marlene Tisdale is the only school board member who returned our calls. She repeated the district's statement that two students were involved in inappropriate conduct and that the school corporation investigated and considers the matter closed.
Parents can voice their concerns at the upcoming school board meeting on March 21st. Coming up Thursday at 6:00 pm, we'll tell you why the State Department of Education's hands are also tied in this matter.
Reviewing the RED,
No comment by school officials will always raise concerns. This happened 4 months ago and the school district did nothing. The teacher was in the classroom and saw nothing. Why was this not reported to the state? Because they were protecting someone, Who? We probably will never know now. A fifth grader, Troy Weber, wonders how they could keep this a secret for so long. Troy it is called executive session.
This is why we need open meetings, I can guarantee this would have come up in an open meeting. I am calling the the Warren Township BOE and asking them how many times they have been in executive session in the last 4 months. I will let you know.
What do you think?
UPDATE
I called the Warren Township BOE and talked to the superintendent's secretary. She said that they only go in to executive session when needed and not every month. They do have a great website and they post everything. So I looked at all of their executive sessions and of course they went into executive session 11 out 12 times. But they have held many special meetings in the last 4 months. I believe this school system has the same problem as ours, Administrators covering for the bad teachers. Well, why wouldn't they? They are FRIENDS. Once again the school board could have shown that they want to work with the parents and make them aware of what is going on in these schools. But, This school district does not have a sign that says if you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing at all. Here is what theirs says:
The Warren Township Board of Education is always open to and welcomes comments, questions and/or suggestions from any citizen of the School Corporation. Anyone may address the Board by submitting a yellow or green comment card to the Board Secretary prior to the beginning of the meeting. Yellow comment cards are for those items not on the agenda. Green comment cards are related to items on the agenda. Comments will be limited to five minutes. The Board may delay action or response pending review and recommendation by the Superintendent of Schools.
Notice you are not required to call ahead of time. If we don't have true open meetings this will happen, if it already hasn't, in our school. If these parents didn't know, how would we?
The board still has not responded to my request for the law that gives them the right to tell me what I can and can not say. You (the board members) do look at this site, I know.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Teacher Unions Worse Than Islamic Terrorists?
From the Neal Boortz show:
Those of you who are constant listeners know my feelings about government schools and teachers unions. I firmly believe that in the long-term this country has more to fear from teacher's unions than we do from Islamic terrorists. I fully believe that Islamic terrorists will once again strike this country, and they may well manage to kill ten thousand or more, but at this point I don't think they can kill the dream of our forefathers. We recognize (I hope) the terrorists for the enemies that they are. We don't recognize government education and teacher's unions for the enemies that they are. Because we are so unaware and asleep at the switch, the education establishment can bring us down, where the terrorists probably cannot.
There is a level of ignorance in this country that the word "stunning" does not even begin to describe. Not only are we producing high school "graduates" who cannot read and comprehend the most basic of writings, they have no understanding of American government or our true history. These kids couldn't even begin to tell you the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy. They have no concept of the differences between the rule of law and the rule of men. They cannot tell you that our founders feared a democracy, nor why a democracy should be feared. They're ignorant as to our culture, our history and our form of government ... not to mention basic math and science.
And then there's economics. Our typical high school grad has no clue as to how a free enterprise economy works. He couldn't write a cohesive paragraph on the law of supply and demand or the difference between a profit and a profit margin. This, of course, makes the high school grads just lumps of clay ready to be molded into whatever their union officials or teachers want them to be.
I was listening to my pal Sean Hannity do an "I hate Hannity" segment on his show last Thursday. Several callers began slamming Hannity on, believe it or not, the Wal-Mart issue. They just couldn't believe that Sean wasn't joining them in their hatred of Wal-Mart. It was clear, of course, that these were uneducated, union-oriented people. They would come up with lines like "Well, if the unions aren't for the workers, who will be?" Duh ... how about exercising that responsibility for yourself! At any rate, one caller really caught my attention. He started out with this "Republicans are for big business and rich people" nonsense. Then somehow he got into the subject of income taxes. Everybody knows, he said, that rich people don't pay income taxes. Sean reminded him that the top 10% of income earners in this country pay about 70% of all personal income taxes collected by the federal government. The caller said "That's only on paper. They have all these write-offs so they really don't pay anything."
That conversation was four days ago now, and I can't get it out of my mind. How, in this country, can anyone possibly be that completely and absolutely ignorant? How can they actually believe such nonsense? One answer --- government schools. There is no excuse for this level of stupidity, and it must be turned around or this country just flat-out isn't going to make it. The most immediate answer? Get rid of teacher's unions. Across the nation job one for teacher's unions is to fight school choice. Parents must be denied the opportunity to chose where their children will go to school at all costs. In Florida the teacher's unions recently managed to kill a voucher program in the courts. Only children who went to government schools that failed to get a passing grade for two years in a row were eligible .. but the teacher's unions declared war ... and won. One teacher-plaintiff even said that competition is not good for schools, and it's not good for humans. This is the lesson she's teaching someone's son or daughter right now.
Wake up folks. This country was handed to us on a sliver platter. Now it's up to us to save it, and we're not doing all that good of a job.
Those of you who are constant listeners know my feelings about government schools and teachers unions. I firmly believe that in the long-term this country has more to fear from teacher's unions than we do from Islamic terrorists. I fully believe that Islamic terrorists will once again strike this country, and they may well manage to kill ten thousand or more, but at this point I don't think they can kill the dream of our forefathers. We recognize (I hope) the terrorists for the enemies that they are. We don't recognize government education and teacher's unions for the enemies that they are. Because we are so unaware and asleep at the switch, the education establishment can bring us down, where the terrorists probably cannot.
There is a level of ignorance in this country that the word "stunning" does not even begin to describe. Not only are we producing high school "graduates" who cannot read and comprehend the most basic of writings, they have no understanding of American government or our true history. These kids couldn't even begin to tell you the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy. They have no concept of the differences between the rule of law and the rule of men. They cannot tell you that our founders feared a democracy, nor why a democracy should be feared. They're ignorant as to our culture, our history and our form of government ... not to mention basic math and science.
And then there's economics. Our typical high school grad has no clue as to how a free enterprise economy works. He couldn't write a cohesive paragraph on the law of supply and demand or the difference between a profit and a profit margin. This, of course, makes the high school grads just lumps of clay ready to be molded into whatever their union officials or teachers want them to be.
I was listening to my pal Sean Hannity do an "I hate Hannity" segment on his show last Thursday. Several callers began slamming Hannity on, believe it or not, the Wal-Mart issue. They just couldn't believe that Sean wasn't joining them in their hatred of Wal-Mart. It was clear, of course, that these were uneducated, union-oriented people. They would come up with lines like "Well, if the unions aren't for the workers, who will be?" Duh ... how about exercising that responsibility for yourself! At any rate, one caller really caught my attention. He started out with this "Republicans are for big business and rich people" nonsense. Then somehow he got into the subject of income taxes. Everybody knows, he said, that rich people don't pay income taxes. Sean reminded him that the top 10% of income earners in this country pay about 70% of all personal income taxes collected by the federal government. The caller said "That's only on paper. They have all these write-offs so they really don't pay anything."
That conversation was four days ago now, and I can't get it out of my mind. How, in this country, can anyone possibly be that completely and absolutely ignorant? How can they actually believe such nonsense? One answer --- government schools. There is no excuse for this level of stupidity, and it must be turned around or this country just flat-out isn't going to make it. The most immediate answer? Get rid of teacher's unions. Across the nation job one for teacher's unions is to fight school choice. Parents must be denied the opportunity to chose where their children will go to school at all costs. In Florida the teacher's unions recently managed to kill a voucher program in the courts. Only children who went to government schools that failed to get a passing grade for two years in a row were eligible .. but the teacher's unions declared war ... and won. One teacher-plaintiff even said that competition is not good for schools, and it's not good for humans. This is the lesson she's teaching someone's son or daughter right now.
Wake up folks. This country was handed to us on a sliver platter. Now it's up to us to save it, and we're not doing all that good of a job.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Principals and administrators: Who is watching them?
A school teacher wonders also.
From Findlaw.com
I am a school teacher in Louisiana. I was recently hit and injured by a student. The principal took no action against the student for two days. I know my "Educators Right to Teach" is in effect. I asked that the student not be put back into my classroom until he had been disciplined. According to state and school policy, he was supposed to be expelled until a hearing. I felt violated and I was forced to file charges against the student on my own time. I filed a grievance against the principal of the school. The student took this personally and began to harass my children and me outside of school. I became emotionally confused and depressed because I was afraid to even go to the store. In addition, although I am a tenured teacher, I was not given a job until August 5th, 5 days before school was to start. The school board tried to force my children to go to school with this student and his other gang members even though I was willing to drive 15 miles a day to take them to school in another town, same parish. I eventually had to give my children to my mother who lives in another town so that my children would be safe. I get to see them on Wednesdays and weekends. This only added to my emotional distress because I am a single mom. They are devasdated about not living with me. Additionally, when I was assigned a job, it was outside my certification area and I was given a P.E. teaching job with no classroom or gym to take the kids to play and learn. Well, to make a long story short(er). I think they are mad at me for filing a grievance. They are even willing to put my children in danger to have their way. I was injured and have required much emotional rehab and I suffered damage to my right hand where I was struck. I was told that they (school board or principal) could not be held liable because of the La. Worker's Comp. law. These people are lying for each other to cover up for this principal. I was refered to as "damage control." I know the truth will come out at the hearing before the school board members. Is there any way that I can make them pay for the damage they have done with thier lies and cover-ups, just a little crack in the law? Are there any presidents that you know of on which I can base a suit? I will need all the money I can get since I feel I have been black-balled in this communtiy and school board. I feel I will eventually have to relocate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what they want. They want you to move. I had a local school board member tell me if I didn't like it move. Notice she did not run for reelection.
From Findlaw.com
I am a school teacher in Louisiana. I was recently hit and injured by a student. The principal took no action against the student for two days. I know my "Educators Right to Teach" is in effect. I asked that the student not be put back into my classroom until he had been disciplined. According to state and school policy, he was supposed to be expelled until a hearing. I felt violated and I was forced to file charges against the student on my own time. I filed a grievance against the principal of the school. The student took this personally and began to harass my children and me outside of school. I became emotionally confused and depressed because I was afraid to even go to the store. In addition, although I am a tenured teacher, I was not given a job until August 5th, 5 days before school was to start. The school board tried to force my children to go to school with this student and his other gang members even though I was willing to drive 15 miles a day to take them to school in another town, same parish. I eventually had to give my children to my mother who lives in another town so that my children would be safe. I get to see them on Wednesdays and weekends. This only added to my emotional distress because I am a single mom. They are devasdated about not living with me. Additionally, when I was assigned a job, it was outside my certification area and I was given a P.E. teaching job with no classroom or gym to take the kids to play and learn. Well, to make a long story short(er). I think they are mad at me for filing a grievance. They are even willing to put my children in danger to have their way. I was injured and have required much emotional rehab and I suffered damage to my right hand where I was struck. I was told that they (school board or principal) could not be held liable because of the La. Worker's Comp. law. These people are lying for each other to cover up for this principal. I was refered to as "damage control." I know the truth will come out at the hearing before the school board members. Is there any way that I can make them pay for the damage they have done with thier lies and cover-ups, just a little crack in the law? Are there any presidents that you know of on which I can base a suit? I will need all the money I can get since I feel I have been black-balled in this communtiy and school board. I feel I will eventually have to relocate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what they want. They want you to move. I had a local school board member tell me if I didn't like it move. Notice she did not run for reelection.
Rights of Student vs Teacher
A parent outside of our system sees the same problem.
From FindLaw.com
I have totally lost hope in the school system after this situation. If someone could steer me in the right direction it would be greatly appreciated. My daughter attended an academy where the student where use to working in groups. In the sixth grade they got rid of the program and she is back in a regular school atmosphere.
Received a phone call on Monday from a teacher saying cheating was happening. And then proceeded to tell me it was the other student's fault and never explained anything on what occurred in class.
The teacher yelled slammed the book on the desk in front of my daughter. Even though she never said who it was the children in class knew and where making ugly statements to my daughter and not the child who was at fault. It's really interesting my daughter never spoke to the other child during the test but is wrongfully accused of it?
I sent an email to the teacher asking what occurred in the class and told her my daughter has never been a problem child at school. She work's very hard to achieve her grades and never has to be told to do homework sits down and does it herself. And if they look at her school records they would know this. I asked for her grade to be reinstated due to her finishing the test before this child asked her questions.
The most interest part of the story is the child who was at fault; parent is a teacher at this school!
The teacher said she would reinstate the grade and write it up as behavior problem, which she has never once had. Then gives my daughter detention and the other child didn't get anything because her mother is a teacher there? And let's the other child retest.
This afternoon I made a phone call to the teacher and gave her another opportunity to tell me what she did in the classroom. To make her peers judge her outside of class, and point blank Asked her if she yelled at them and slammed the book on the desk? And put the fear in both of them so they where shaking. Guess what she said no!!!! I thought no way she just lied to me! Here is a teacher that is talking about ethical school rules and no cheating and she lies to me? She avoided the questions in the email and then lies on the phone about what occurred in the class! What kind of teacher would do such a thing is beyond me!
I truly believe something needs to be done about this and want to know my daughter's rights in school!
From FindLaw.com
I have totally lost hope in the school system after this situation. If someone could steer me in the right direction it would be greatly appreciated. My daughter attended an academy where the student where use to working in groups. In the sixth grade they got rid of the program and she is back in a regular school atmosphere.
Received a phone call on Monday from a teacher saying cheating was happening. And then proceeded to tell me it was the other student's fault and never explained anything on what occurred in class.
The teacher yelled slammed the book on the desk in front of my daughter. Even though she never said who it was the children in class knew and where making ugly statements to my daughter and not the child who was at fault. It's really interesting my daughter never spoke to the other child during the test but is wrongfully accused of it?
I sent an email to the teacher asking what occurred in the class and told her my daughter has never been a problem child at school. She work's very hard to achieve her grades and never has to be told to do homework sits down and does it herself. And if they look at her school records they would know this. I asked for her grade to be reinstated due to her finishing the test before this child asked her questions.
The most interest part of the story is the child who was at fault; parent is a teacher at this school!
The teacher said she would reinstate the grade and write it up as behavior problem, which she has never once had. Then gives my daughter detention and the other child didn't get anything because her mother is a teacher there? And let's the other child retest.
This afternoon I made a phone call to the teacher and gave her another opportunity to tell me what she did in the classroom. To make her peers judge her outside of class, and point blank Asked her if she yelled at them and slammed the book on the desk? And put the fear in both of them so they where shaking. Guess what she said no!!!! I thought no way she just lied to me! Here is a teacher that is talking about ethical school rules and no cheating and she lies to me? She avoided the questions in the email and then lies on the phone about what occurred in the class! What kind of teacher would do such a thing is beyond me!
I truly believe something needs to be done about this and want to know my daughter's rights in school!
Friday, March 02, 2007
Now It's Time For Change
I have a feeling after the 2008 elections the Camden County Board of Commissioners will not look the same. D. Rainer, S. Berry, and P Rhodes probably will not be there. Camden County is starting to wake up and realize what these and 1 other one ( Charlene Sears) are doing to our county. They are self serving and have no place on this board.
From the T&G
Resident looks for change in county commission
Dear Editor,
I have gone to the attorney general and the Justice Department on behalf of the people of Camden County.Both offices have basically confirmed that if the people of Camden County want democracy they have to vote the county commissioners out of office who are not willing to give it to them. This is the only way to eliminate a sole individual from making the decision to solicit a preclearance and that same sole individual counts all of the votes.
The elected officials of Camden County have become so bold with their tactics that they are now holding "special elections" to increase the sales tax collected in Camden County without holding any public hearings.They were so outdone when the taxpayers were smart enough to freeze their property (assessment) taxes. So they came up with a Plan B. Although they currently have a SPLOST in place, they are holding a special election March 20 for another SPLOST. Vote no! They are counting on a low turnout. Take the time to vote no on March 20.The only way to prevent tactics such as this, is have the county commissioners to add to the budget the funding for a board of elections. Any county commissioner that has to be convinced to allow democracy in Camden County should be voted out of office.The chairman of the Camden County Republican Party announced that they support the implementation of a board of elections in Camden County.
This is not a black problem, a white problem, a Democrat problem or a Republican problem. This is everybody who lives in Camden County problems. If the county commissioners have to be convinced that this is a problem, we need to vote them out of office. They can no longer operate the way they did 50 years ago.
Kenneth Taylor
St. Marys
From the T&G
Resident looks for change in county commission
Dear Editor,
I have gone to the attorney general and the Justice Department on behalf of the people of Camden County.Both offices have basically confirmed that if the people of Camden County want democracy they have to vote the county commissioners out of office who are not willing to give it to them. This is the only way to eliminate a sole individual from making the decision to solicit a preclearance and that same sole individual counts all of the votes.
The elected officials of Camden County have become so bold with their tactics that they are now holding "special elections" to increase the sales tax collected in Camden County without holding any public hearings.They were so outdone when the taxpayers were smart enough to freeze their property (assessment) taxes. So they came up with a Plan B. Although they currently have a SPLOST in place, they are holding a special election March 20 for another SPLOST. Vote no! They are counting on a low turnout. Take the time to vote no on March 20.The only way to prevent tactics such as this, is have the county commissioners to add to the budget the funding for a board of elections. Any county commissioner that has to be convinced to allow democracy in Camden County should be voted out of office.The chairman of the Camden County Republican Party announced that they support the implementation of a board of elections in Camden County.
This is not a black problem, a white problem, a Democrat problem or a Republican problem. This is everybody who lives in Camden County problems. If the county commissioners have to be convinced that this is a problem, we need to vote them out of office. They can no longer operate the way they did 50 years ago.
Kenneth Taylor
St. Marys
And We Should Trust Them Why?
More reasons for open meetings. Things like this can happen in Camden County.
From Morning Call staff reports Allentown PA.
Nitschmann principal was naked, watching gay porn when arrested, sources say
From Morning Call staff reports
When police went into Nitschmann Middle School Tuesday to arrest Principal John Acerra for allegedly selling crystal methamphetamine, sources said they found him naked while sitting at his desk watching gay pornography.A 28-year educator with the Bethlehem Area School District and principal since 2000, Acerra is in Lehigh County Prison under $200,000 bail.
Acerra, of 832 Chestnut St., Allentown, is charged with possession with intent to deliver, manufacture or create methamphetamine, delivery of a controlled or counterfeit substance and possession of drug paraphernalia.Police said Acerra was found with a burned glass pipe and $200 in cash on his desk minutes after a confidential informant wearing a wire attempted to buy meth from Acerra on Tuesday night.
From Morning Call staff reports Allentown PA.
Nitschmann principal was naked, watching gay porn when arrested, sources say
From Morning Call staff reports
When police went into Nitschmann Middle School Tuesday to arrest Principal John Acerra for allegedly selling crystal methamphetamine, sources said they found him naked while sitting at his desk watching gay pornography.A 28-year educator with the Bethlehem Area School District and principal since 2000, Acerra is in Lehigh County Prison under $200,000 bail.
Acerra, of 832 Chestnut St., Allentown, is charged with possession with intent to deliver, manufacture or create methamphetamine, delivery of a controlled or counterfeit substance and possession of drug paraphernalia.Police said Acerra was found with a burned glass pipe and $200 in cash on his desk minutes after a confidential informant wearing a wire attempted to buy meth from Acerra on Tuesday night.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Friends and Family
Have you ever heard anyone say don't do business with family and friends, Well that is true. The problem with the school system is that the administration and school board is filled with family and friends. This is why this board has a layer of protection to protect these people. Take for instance Mr. Clark out at the high school, he is under investigation by the DA's office for assault on a student. Granted the DA is dragging his feet on this and I am going to find out why, but yet he is still working out at the high school. He was allowed to retire with full benefits, and now is a sub. Why? Because he was a football coach, and this is a small community. That is why they will tell you what you can and can not say at meetings. So that you don't say anything bad about their friends. That is why they are now saying you must sign up to speak at the board meetings. So they can pull you a side and handle your problem away from the spotlight, so that no one else will know what's going on. That way they can keep those disciplinary reports blank. The good teachers in our system should also be for open meetings, because the school board hiding these problems makes you all look bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Parents Have Declared War
