Jump to content
In closing, I apologize deeply to the Gleason family. My postings have been in the hopes of facilitating further discussion, asking those "hard questions" (evidently only ok if you're on the BOE, to you-know-where with the rest of the community), and persuading people to revisit their own conceptions of government and education. They were never intended to place any person in a position where they could be retaliated against, shamed, or made uncomfortable in the community. You all have my deepest regrets that this happened. I leave it to another, dream, JQ, bornandraised, Hammurabi, Magpie, Matt, and anyone else logical that I missed to ask those important questions and to continue to encourage people to examine why what's happening in this community is happening. I can only hope that anyone who disagrees with DeVincentis' vendetta is not placed in the position of deciding between their own right to express themselves and the well-being of someone else.
"Disenfranchisement and shutting up the competition, another lasting tradition of excellence, brought to you by DeVincentis' sheep."
I am not also another_local. Sorry to dissappoint you, elk, but there are actually some other people that have the same ideas and viewpoints I do.
I just want to tell you all that I spent a great deal of my shift last night thinking. I was thinking about right and wrong, the reasons that people do the things that they do, and what's really important. I regret that my postings have been pinned on an innocent kid, and have put her in the position of being a victim possible backlash. I cannot allow myself to continue to place anyone in this position at the hands of an unethical and amoral minority who see nothing wrong with retaliation against someone's family for their political involvement and views. I'm beginning to see a theme here. Before I stop posting (and no, I won't be posting under another name), I have a few parting thoughts.
1. If what I was posting and asking really was illogical, biased and so far off the mark, why the great effort put forward to discredit and expose me? Who was I threatening that someone would stoop to such a low level in order to shut me up?
2. Would it really make a difference if I were related to Gleason, Stephenson, Gill, Miller-Freutel, Swiggart, or any other committee member leading the recall effort? Does it make those very same questions that someone percieved as so threatening that they had to point the finger at a high school kid less relevant? After all, isn't that what DeVincentis' supporters continually argue, that he's being persecuted for "questioning" the way things work? Or is it only relevant if you are asking the condoned people the approved questions to further the proper agenda?
3. Should we assume that any of these people feel the same, look at the world the same, or take the same side on every issue because they share genes or a last name, or should we allow that every individual has the right to reason, research, analyze, and ultimately, decide for themselves (or not)? Isn't that what our country is founded on, the ability of the individual to express (or not) their views in whatever way they see fit?
But I have to say, Sue, thanks for joining the discussion today. And even more, thanks for trying to pin someone's opinions that you don't agree with on a high school kid. Classy.
Sorry. She's wrong.
Thanks for clarifying, dw. That makes a lot more sense now.
Beagle-how has this group not been ethical and honest so far? Specifically, and if the email issue is the only one you've got, please don't even mention it (that dead horse has been beaten to death thrice). I honestly can't say that I remembered that quote from last night's meeting. Were you there? If you were, you would understand that there are two phases to a recall election. The first phase relates to the petition. The petition is a civil exercise that helps to determine whether the recall question should be included on November's general election ballot. The second phase is the campaigning for or against the recall, and also the time for any candidates to assert their desire to be included on the ballot. This meeting addressed only the first part of a recall election: the petition. It is exciting that we are fortunate enough to live in a country where our constituents can demand a recall, and can carry out a civil exercise to that effect. It's exciting that you will have the option on the November ballot to mark that you think DeVincentis should not be recalled. It's democracy, and yes, it is exciting.
As for trying to ruin DeVincentis' life, I would suggest maybe he should accept some responsibility for his actions with respect to his current political position rather than blaming everyone else. His behavior has been of concern to many community members for quite some time now, even prior to his election to the BOE. Maybe had he behaved gracefully and professionally with respect to his pay-for-performance bonus, maybe if he had not attended a BOE meeting and stood and yelled and disrespected the very board he so desperately wanted to be a part of, had he not violated trust and manipulated parents, students, and teachers so that he could have a school of "excellence" (which, coincidently, looks like "exclusivity"), maybe had he not written the emails but instead left Simms well enough alone, had he not fantasized about bodily harm to another person, had he not admitted to lying, and had he resigned with grace and dignity after all of this came out, he would be in a different situation right now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those all actions he is accountable for? So if the state of his life is not where he wants it to be, maybe he should examine some of his own actions rather than blaming his fall from grace on everyone else.
Here's my question for you, steamboatsconscience. What purpose does sacrificing an employee serve to revisit the policy on open records? If what the board is trying to do is change the policy to prevent future situations like this (questionable enough of an action in and of itself), what purpose does this investigation serve? Do they need a lawyer to find the policy they revised in 2005, read it, and fill in loopholes? Or do you think maybe there's something else going on here?
Maybe it's not the school's job to babysit the drunk prom kids (they have parents, after all). Maybe those students should even (gasp) be held responsible for their actions, although judging from recent events, our district is not setting a very good example of this.
dw, maybe we should have let them have Bloody Marys Sunday morning at the after prom party. That way they would have gotten to sober up without all that annoying hangover stuff. And the stoned and high ones should probably have been there too, just to make sure that everyone on the roads were safe. There's a local program for this, wait, it's coming to me, it's called detox. You can get your very own room at the jail to sober up in. Underage kids do not need to be sobering up at school. Discouraging underage drinking at a school event is NOT equivalent to encouraging these kids to drink and drive.
I never said anyone had anything to hide, but if you really have a social conscience, as your name implies, you take initiative to change things. One way to do this is passive resistance. If these members of the community do not agree with the email investigation and have made statements regarding the extent of their knowledge in public, their refusal to cooperate is nothing more than passive resistence. The reason stated for the investigation is to protect private information from becoming public. If the board is trying to look at how to improve future policy, they need to be looking at the current policies and how they want to change them, not looking for the one person they can sacrifice to DeVincentis' ego. I'm not quite clear here, either, do you think that all of these past members' emails were sent with the same expectations of privacy as DeVincentis' (that is to say, none)? An investigation that demands the investigation of private email accounts, private computers, and, presumably, private records of any other media is in direct violation of the very civil rights that the board is willing to protect when it comes to underage drinking at school events. Explain that agenda to me. Besides which, I'm pretty sure those emails would be pretty boring in comparison. You'd be disappointed.
Hammurabi-another interesting question may be why they scheduled a meeting the same night as the recall informational meeting after the SOSRE2 group had already announced theirs?
Last login: Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |