So what do people think about high school boundaries by mother's birthdate? As someone wrote on OshKonversation... it isn't likely to happen given the sacred nature of athletics in this district and what such a scenario would mean for our athletic teams.
I would like to see what this would cost in bussing and administrative time and if it was less than what we pay now, I think it is the right thing to do for Oshkosh. It would almost guarantee balanced high schools and it just wouldn't matter where one lived anymore and you wouldn't have to adjust boundaries and have angry parents fill up board rooms. Everyone would know the day their child was born (well even before that) which school they would go to. Could make things interesting in the dating world. Oh, your birthday is an odd date, can't marry you, I want my children to go to ....
I think it is an idea worth considering but I'm 99% sure that won't happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
anon 4:19
Shelly has indicated she has nothing against her kids going to Merrill/North. She is a principal at a charter school at Merrill for goodness sake. The problem with taking the west side of Oakwood is that the BOE has said they don't want people living next to a school going to another one.
Using a mother's birthdate sounds like a practical way to go. Everyone would be affected evenly across the board and no boundaries would have to be redrawn. It would end the incessant and tiring complaining we keep hearing from parents who think they're somehow being disenfranchised.
But I have zero confidence the board can come up with something on their own when they're do diametrically opposed. All they're going to do s waste more time. They either should make a decision now using a method like birthdates or resign themselves to do nothing.
anon 6:53
Funny, it says right here
http://www.oshkosh.k12.wi.us/schools/alps.cfm
that she is the principal of ALPs. I wonder who I'll believe? The OASD reporting who runs its schools or you? I'm going with OASD on this one, sorry.
Anonymous 7:23 you are correct Shelly Muza is the principal at Alps. I have the highest respect for Mrs. Muza and I have deleted the comments posted that are full of rumor and suspicion as they do NOTHING to further discussion.
I'm just tired of the viciousness of some in this community!
Anonymous 5:37 --- I agree with some of what you said... there will never be 7 votes of the board to do anything regarding boundaries, but there already is a majority of the board who has chosen an option --- Option E and I think it is time to move on with the choice of the majority. Does anyone really believe if the 4 members flipped and picked Option Jefferson that those 3 board members would then vote for the package as a whole? Mr. Schneider has all but said he isn't voting for a referendum and Mr. Becker has said on numerous occasions "when the referendum fails" so what makes anyone think they will support any plan the rest of the board does?
The board operates by a majority vote. They have 4 votes for an attendance area change, adopt it and move on. 9 months is plenty long to "discuss it and try and reach compromise" .
If people really are going to vote against a referendum because they didn't get their way all I can say is it doesn't sound like someone who actually cares about the education of our children.
Whether we like it or not, the board has to figure out how to come forward and provide as united a front as possible in order to pass a referendum.
If the referendum doesn't pass our schools are going to be in horrible shape.
My question is which mama?
Your real mama? Your birth mama? Your step mama? The mama you live with? What if you live with your auntie? Or grandmama? Or a foster home?...
.....I hope you know I'm joking. But I see the potential for even this proposal to be manipulated.
The bottom line is EDUCATION is the priority. Sports are secondary and should not be part of the decision making process in developing districts, period.
Anon 6:41 it would be the mother listed on your birth certificate (you need that to register for school and in WI at least the Mother's birthdate is on the birth certificate.)
Anon 6:41pm also said:
"The bottom line is EDUCATION is the priority. Sports are secondary and should not be part of the decision making process in developing districts, period."
Well good luck with that... athletics plays a HUGE part in all decisions (in fact a former Oshkosh West coach stated "all my best players come from the Town of Algoma" when telling people to go to the board and protest the suggested move of some in the Town to North)
Just watch the budget discussions that will be coming --- wanna bet athletics gets little to nothing in the way of cuts? I'm just waiting for the new Hockey team to say it isn't fair that the district isn't supporting them financially. If Hockey can make it with donations and fees, why can't our other sports? Some day it will be necessary to think along those lines -- but I'm not holding my breath that it will actually happen.
Maybe that will be a new thread for the weekend. Stay tuned.
If our sports programs were supported by fees wouldn't the economically disadvantaged students suffer. Why should the poorest in our community always have to make concessions?
Theresa,
You said that you were tired of the viciousness of some in this community. I have to say that I have read some incredibly vicious comments on this blog that were directed toward Mrs. Monte. I won't defend Monte, but how can you defend yourself? Are vicious comments OK if they are directed toward Monte? I don't think so.
I'm almost certain that this will be deleted and I'm not sure why I am wasting my time, but how is stating that Shelly Muza has an agenda vicious? Every parent in this district has an agenda and it is to give their children the best they can give. No one wants to be targetted to move to Merrill North. I think that that should be obvious to everyone. Anon 4:19 is implying that Muza would not have a problem with her children being seperated from their peers and I have to say that that is very, very unlikely. Is that vicious?
Anon: 8:08am
Do you know Shelly, have you asked her about this? I think your comments are baseless and because I do know Shelly and I know of no "agenda" she has except to make this a quality school district, maybe that particular comment wasn't vicious but it was nasty as it implies she is only looking out for her family.
You are wrong in your assumption that "Anon 4:19 is implying that Muza would not have a problem with her children being seperated from their peers and I have to say that that is very, very unlikely."
There are plenty of parents who make that choice all the time, even to send them to Merrill Middle and North High. Look at the intra-district open enrollment... parents who choose to send their children to schools that are NOT their neighborhood schools/ attendance area schools.
I think it is inappropriate to make comments about someone's agenda based on NOTHING but what you "think". I have seen NO evidence of Mrs. Muza's "agenda" and your "very, very unlikely" is NOT evidence. Not to mention that by "hiding behind anonimity" even if you provided evidence, not knowing who you are makes it impossible to determine its credibility. That is why I deleted the posts accusing Mrs. Muza of an "agenda".
Teresa, your decision to delete the Muza comments was appropriate and certainly within your right. One blog administrator has actually bragged about the fact that whether or not a comment gets posted is his right. He then went on to say he doesn't need a reason at all to not allow something. I see no one jumping up and down about that. You've at least stated why you deleted it.
When it comes to viciousness, I think we've seen precisely where some of the viciousness has started. When that couple is attacked in response, we hear comments like the one you responded to. Go figure -- and keep up the good work.
Theresa said,"There are plenty of parents who make that choice all the time, even to send them to Merrill Middle and North High."
I challenge you to find one family from the west side that would be in favor of changing the boundaries so that their neighborhood would switch from Traeger-West to Merrill-North.
You're right, it was wrong to make assumptions about Mrs Muza having an agenda and wanting to keep her children on an Oakwood-Traeger-West feeding path. I'm sorry.
I actually personally know two families who would have NO problem with that change,(for obvious reasons I'm not going to name them --- if the reasons aren't obvious let me give you one --- one person has told me that their neighbors are no longer "friendly" due to their views on boundary changes). If I had an updated enrollment projection book I could tell you the number of families that make that choice each year. Believe it or not, some families do choose to send their children to schools other than Traeger or West.
I appreciate your apology as it relates to comments about Mrs. Muza I have just not seen any evidence that she has an agenda as some suggest. Don't forget, this attendance area option came from the Attendance Area work group (or whatever they are called), it was "run by" both the CRT and the ASC and it did not appear that either of those groups were "split" or opposed to the recommendation. This is not "one person's" work, it is the work of a committee.
Teresa, Michelle Monte's up to her old tricks again and talking out of both sides of her mouth. This woman just can't keep a civil tongue to save her soul. Glad to see you're not a two-faced hypocrite like her.
Wow, you know two families! You have to admit that that is not an impressive number.
For the record, my 4:33 "apology" was a failed attempt at sarcasm and I am not Michelle Monte.
I agree that Monte can be "viscious" at times, but how about this comment from anon 5:08? I think it proves who the two-faced hypocrite is. You'll delete 5:08 if you're not.
For the record, 6:24, the previous poster asked if she knew at least one family. She said she knew of two and now that's not good enough either. The board needs to make decision and to hell with all the parents who have nothing better to do than piss and moan abut "my child this" and "my child that." Or better yet, let Dr. Heilmann just change boundaries on his own as is his right under the law to do. This district has put up with enough whining and negative, nasty comments about not listening, not giving people enough notice, etc. Seems to me some of you just arent happy unless you've got something to bitch about.
How nice to know your apology was not sincere. That's typical of your kind. And on the subject of Monte, I see nothing wrong with the earlier comment. She is talking out of her both sides of her mouth again. All you have to do is look at her blog to see that. She's a hypocrite and there can be no denying that.
Anon 5:08 Well I looked at the Monte blog and it is clear she doesn't understand what it means to "publically notice a meeting under the law"
She seems to think it means taking out an ad in the newspaper... NO, it means distributing the notice to the Northwestern, and any other media outlet that requests notice, I know WOSH radio is one and posting it at central office... The district has NO control over whether or not the newspaper/radion station actually publishes the notice or when. So, if the meeting was properly noticed --- and according to the deputy clerk it was --- the notice was sent as required within the required timeline (which is 24 hours before the meeting).
From State Statutes Annotated:
"A newspaper is not obligated to print a notice received under sub. (1) (b), nor is governmental body obligated to pay for publication. Martin v. Wray, 473 F. Supp. 1131 (1979)."
I'm sure I will be accused of "attacking" when I'm merely pointing out that what is written on her blog, is not correct. The meeting WAS noticed more than 24 hours before it occurred... the paper just didn't publish it in a timely enough manner for Ms. Monte.
Anonymous 4:33 --- Your attempt at sarcasm was weak at best.
Personally, My child brought home the notice of the meeting the day of the meeting. That is not giving parents enough notice. Did the district follow the law, yes. We need to do better!
Teresa, why don't you post the rest of the statute? It also states that the school district must give notice to the public in 3 places the general public is likely to SEE it! Newspapers do not count as one of the three unless they paid for an ad to be placed. If the statute is too hard to read, try the compliance book put out by the State Attorney General.
I just love how you like to use half information and sheer stupidity to prove yourself correct on everything. As for hypocrits, this site's owner and posters are experts on being, I see no why they wouldn't be experts on identifying.
My money is that this comment will be deleted while anything negative about Mrs. Monte will be clung to for dear life. I sincerely hope you run again, Thiel, I would love to see your sanctimonious ass dead last once again!
The district DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW!!
The district DID follow the law and if you're so freaking sure of yourself with your claims that it didn't, use your computer and smart-ass mouth to do someting other than blog. Draft a complaint for the DA and file it. I would love to see your sanctimonious ass shot down, as I know it would. Go ahead, prove yourself right. I dare you.
How sad that Anonymous 8:35 and 8:36 don't know how to read properly. They even referred us to the State Attorney General (Dept. of Justice), but that attempt at painting the district in a bad light has failed also.
Consider this from the DOJ dated 8/26/06: "The open meetings law provides that every governmental body must give advance notice of its meetings to: (1) the public, (2) any members of the news media who have submitted a written request for notice and (3) the official newspaper, designated pursuant to state statute, or if none exists, to a news medium likely to give notice in the area. Sec. 19.84(1), Wis. Stats. The chief presiding officer of the body may give notice of a meeting to the public by posting the notice in one or more places likely to be seen by the general public. Op.Att'y Gen. 93, 95(1977) (copy enclosed). Alternatively, the chief presiding officer may give notice to the publicby paid publication in a news medium likely to give notice in the jurisdiction area the bodyserves. 63Op.Att'y Gen. 509, 510-11 (1974) (copy enclosed). If the presiding officer gives notice in this manner, he or she must ensure that the notice is actually published. As a general rule, a body must give at least 24 hours advance public notice ofits meetings, whether that noticeis posted or given through paid publication. Sec. 19.84(3), Wis. Stats. Unless a parent body directs a subunit to publish its meeting notices, nothing in the open meetings law prevents a subunit from giving notice of its meetings through posting, even if the parent body uses paid publication as its method for giving public notice of the parent body's meetings.
If you want to see if for yourself, here is the link:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:wgniTZ0sdEIJ:www.doj.state.wi.us/AWP/2007OMCG-PRO/2006_08_29%2520heupel.pdf+WI+State+Statutes+on+meeting+notices&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
When will you people stop reading what you want to see and not what the law actually says? Bottom line: THE OASD DID FOLLOW THE LAW.
FIne, you want the whole statute... here is the link as well as the text, including case law...
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0019.pdf
19.83 Meetings of governmental bodies. (1) Every
meeting of a governmental body shall be preceded by public
notice as provided in s. 19.84, and shall be held in open session.
At any meeting of a governmental body, all discussion shall be
held and all action of any kind, formal or informal, shall be initiated,
deliberated upon and acted upon only in open session except
as provided in s. 19.85.
(2) During a period of public comment under s. 19.84 (2), a
governmental body may discuss any matter raised by the public.
History: 1975 c. 426; 1997 a. 123.
When a quorum of a governmental body attends the meeting of another governmental
body when any one of the members is not also a member of the second body,
the gathering is a “meeting,” unless the gathering is social or by chance. State ex rel.
Badke v. Greendale Village Board, 173 Wis. 2d 553, 494 N.W.2d 408 (1993).
19.84 Public notice. (1) Public notice of all meetings of a
governmental body shall be given in the following manner:
(a) As required by any other statutes; and
(b) By communication from the chief presiding officer of a
governmental body or such person’s designee to the public, to
those news media who have filed a written request for such notice,
and to the official newspaper designated under ss. 985.04, 985.05
and 985.06 or, if none exists, to a news medium likely to give
notice in the area.
(2) Every public notice of a meeting of a governmental body
shall set forth the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting,
including that intended for consideration at any contemplated
closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise
members of the public and the news media thereof. The public
notice of a meeting of a governmental body may provide for a
period of public comment, during which the body may receive
information from members of the public.
(3) Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body
shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such
meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or
impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no
case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of
the meeting.
(4) Separate public notice shall be given for each meeting of
a governmental body at a time and date reasonably proximate to
the time and date of the meeting.
(5) Departments and their subunits in any University of Wisconsin
System institution or campus and a nonprofit corporation
operating the Olympic Ice Training Center under s. 42.11 (3) are
exempt from the requirements of subs. (1) to (4) but shall provide
meeting notice which is reasonably likely to apprise interested
persons, and news media who have filed written requests for such
notice.
(6) Notwithstanding the requirements of s. 19.83 and the
requirements of this section, a governmental body which is a formally
constituted subunit of a parent governmental body may conduct
a meeting without public notice as required by this section
during a lawful meeting of the parent governmental body, during
a recess in such meeting or immediately after such meeting for the
purpose of discussing or acting upon a matter which was the subject
of that meeting of the parent governmental body. The presiding
officer of the parent governmental body shall publicly
announce the time, place and subject matter of the meeting of the
subunit in advance at the meeting of the parent body.
History: 1975 c. 426; 1987 a. 305; 1993 a. 215; 1997 a. 123.
There is no requirement in this section that the notice provided be exactly correct
in every detail. State ex rel. Olson v. City of Baraboo Joint Review Board, 2002 WI
App 64, 252 Wis. 2d 628, 643 N.W.2d 796, 01−0201.
Sub. (2) does not expressly require that the notice indicate whether a meeting will
be purely deliberative or if action will be taken. The notice must alert the public of
the importance of the meeting. Although a failure to expressly state whether action
will be taken could be a violation, the importance of knowing whether a vote would
be taken is diminished when no input from the audience is allowed or required. State
ex rel. Olson v. City of Baraboo Joint Review Board, 2002 WI App 64, 252 Wis. 2d
628, 643 N.W.2d 796, 01−0201.
Sub. (2) sets forth a reasonableness standard for determining whether notice of a
meeting is sufficient that strikes the proper balance between the public’s right to information
and the government’s need to efficiently conduct its business. The standard
requires taking into account the circumstances of the case, which includes analyzing
such factors as the burden of providing more detailed notice, whether the subject is
of particular public interest, and whether it involves non−routine action that the public
would be unlikely to anticipate. Buswell v. Tomah Area School District, 2007 WI
71, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 732 N.W.2d 804, 05−2998.
Under sub. (1) (b), a written request for notice of meetings of a governmental body
should be filed with the chief presiding officer or designee and a separate written
request should be filed with each specific governmental body. 65 Atty. Gen. 166.
The method of giving notice pursuant to sub. (1) is discussed. 65 Atty. Gen. 250.
The specificity of notice required by a governmental body is discussed. 66 Atty.
Gen. 143, 195.
The requirements of notice given to newspapers under this section is discussed.
66 Atty. Gen. 230.
A town board, but not an annual town meeting, is a “governmental body” within
the meaning of the open meetings law. 66 Atty. Gen. 237.
News media who have filed written requests for notices of public meetings cannot
be charged fees by governmental bodies for communication of the notices. 77 Atty.
Gen. 312.
A newspaper is not obligated to print a notice received under sub. (1) (b), nor is
governmental body obligated to pay for publication. Martin v. Wray, 473 F. Supp.
1131 (1979).
Funny how the people complaining the most about "short notice" seemed to find out in time to show up to the meeting anyway...
If you don't like me, get over it and get on with your life. Why waste your time unless you only want attention? If that is all you want, go to Michelle Monte's blog. She would love to jump all over anything negative to do with me and my family because THAT is the kind of person she is.
And she seemed so sweet during the campaign.
I'm sure some of you will call that an attack... or maybe not...
You are correct, 11:30 AM. The law also states that: "Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of
the meeting."
It is ambiguous as to what would be deemed impossible or "for good cause" but there is no doubt that the district followed the law. Would more notice have been nice? Surely, but that is not always possible and quite frankly, plenty of people showed up at the meeting so apparently the timing wasn't a problem for many. Additionally, it's ot like this was the only time people have had to comment on the boundary issue. It's been discussed for how many months now?
What this has come down to is Michelle Monte and maybe a few others like her finding yet another reason to bitch about a district. If it's so bad, she and Kent should put their kids in another district or send them to private school. Same goes for anyone else who is fed up with the district. Better yet, since Michelle Monte is such an experienced educator, an English major, and she and Kent are so damn smart about everything why don't they home school those kids of hers?
You said it all when you said about Michelle Monte that "she seemed so sweet during the campaign." Just goes to show how looks can be so deceiving, even though her true colors started bleeding through the clothing and hair toward the end of the campaign. A leopard never changes its spots.
Way to go Thiel! You cut and paste from another blog and without using quotations, take credit for it. Nice.
And it appears that anonymous 1:11 seems to think that the district is pretty bad if they think Monte would open enroll out to another district.
Interesting thing about statutes is that they are meant to be interpreted hence the reliance on case law, at least that is what my law profs tell me.
A more accurate indication of how a statute is meant to be read at a particular time is by asking the attorney general who relies not just on statutes, but on case precedent. Here is a link to J. B. Van Hollen's interpretation of the Open Meetings Law from the Department of Justice dated Feb 2007. Page 11, Part A, section 1 is very interesting to this debate.
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/AWP/OpenMeetings/2005-OML-GUIDE.pdf
Common discussions of the law are so interesting I may just write about it in the AT. Keep it up!
Can anyone else understand what the person posting at 8:35am is talking about? Between the misspellings, poor English, and potty mouth, I'm left with a big question mark as to what they're trying to say.
The only thing I did get from it is they have a gross misunderstanding of the law. I'd like this person to post a link to "prove" what they've said bout open meetings. My money is on the fact that they can't because it doesn't exist.
2:24 --- the comment was IF she thought it was so bad she and Kent should put them somehwere else. It's hard to believe we have so many ignorant people in this community defending the Montes. On second thought, I guess it's not.
I hope you do write about it in the AT because people like Michelle Monte and those defending her do not read with much accuracy. JB Van Hollen's own material says: "The chief presiding officer may give notice of a meeting to the public by posting the notice in one or more places likely to be seen by the general public. As a general rule, the Attorney General has advised posting notices at three different locations within the jurisdiction that the governmental body serves." So here again, the Monte defender who referred us to this document is proven wrong again. they need to just give it up because they're fighting a losing battle here. As was stated already, the school district followed the law and anyone who believes otherwise should take necessary steps to prove their point.
Question: Since UW-O is not a law school, how do you have law professors and still write for the AT?
Anonymous 2:24,
Let's call it "fair use." The Montes, especially Kent, are self-proclaimed experts on fair use and wrote a whole lot about it when they were slapped around for allowing entire articles from the ONW on their sites. They can't have it both ways, much as they like to think they can. The only thing about them that goes both ways is their hypocrisy and double standards. People are wise to it though.
UWO does have law classes associated with a pre-law track and political science degree. That is how I can have a law professor AND write for the A-T. I guess I was wrong about the level of intelligence here. As long as everyone agrees with you, you're cordial and even civil. Disagree or appear to support someone you don't and the fangs and claws come out. Sorry, there is enough hate on campus, write your own story, that's the only one you care about anyway.
Eeewwww, nasty. I imagine there is a lot of hate on campus. BTW, might your name be Michelle Monte? She thinks she knows a lot of stuff about the law and politics. Not to mention if you were to write a story in the AT your name would be there and we'd know who you were. Uh oh....Methinks your bluff hast been called.
It is so interesting that Monte defenders call out others for their "so called" attacks but then turn right around and attack anyone who dares to point out that perhaps the Monte's do not have all the facts or have mistated something. Why is every nasty thing the Monte's do overlooked, dismissed or not even seen as nasty but those same defenders do exactly what they accuse others of doing... being nasty to anyone who disagrees with a Monte...I just don't get the contradiction.
I know exactly what you mean. But we have seen for a few years now that the words "contradiction" and "Monte" are synonymous. Perhaps that's the best answer to your question.
Very, very true. Now Monte posts a comment from a "student" (yeah, right) and another one from someone thinking they're a political expert. The "student" needs to stay in school and out of politics. They still have a lot to learn. And the "other" person says because Thiel is a "tax and spend" liberal, she came in dead last. Funny, Monte and her handful of cronies say Karen Bowen and Amy Weinsheim are tax and spenders too but they both have beat "conservative" Dan Becker when they've run. Guess that shoots down that theory. The only thing that hurt Thiel was her husband being a teacher. Still, no matter how you slice it, Thiel has at least run and been elected. That's more than Monte can say or her possee can say, now or ever. But it's nice to see Monte keeps trying for that elusive dream. Keep it up. We enjoy the amusement factor.
More inaccuracies on the Thiel blog.
Dan Becker 5781
Karen Bowen 5681
Michelle Monte 4513
Teresa Thiel 4013
From the looks of it, the "conservative Dan Becker" seems to have beaten Bowen after all.
OK so someone partially goofed on their statement. But you can't dismiss their main point that Amy beat Dan when they ran against each other last year and Karen Bowen -- another tax and spender, as you would call her -- got elected instead of Michelle Monte. There you go.
Oh yeah and BTW, a poster making a partially inaccurate statement about something is not quite the same as Michelle Monte making totally inaccurate statement more often than not because she doesn't understand what she's talking about. They're quite different actually.
No need to apologize for or even say the earlier poster made a mistake, 8:15 and 8:20. They were evidently going by City of Oshkosh results only which had exactly the results they said:
Bowen - 4637
Becker - 4504
Monte - 3488
Thiel - 3246
So in the city Bowen DID beat Becker. 7:12 was using the county web site which included the Town of Algoma votes. So they're both right, not that 7:12 would ever admit that.
http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/City_Clerks/Election_Statistics/results-1.htm
You people will stop at nothing to defend the liberals in this town.
The district INCLUDES the surrounding towns. Using the city data is inaccurate and doesn't mean a thing.
Bowen got her ass beat by a conservative. The sooner you come to that conclusion the better.
It means people in the city either aren't as fed up with taxes as a few of you keep complaining about or they understand you can't have something for nothing. Even if you want to ignore the fact that in the city she topped everyone, losing by 100 votes with the township vote included is hardly getting your ass beat, especially if you still get elected. Another point you might want to consider, if everyone was so tired of the "liberals" you would have seen michelle monte getting elected, you would have seen Esslinger get elected mayor, you wouldn't see the outrage you do over the Bush administration, and you would have seen Julie Pung Leschke beat Gordon Hintz. Didn't quite work out that way, did it? I think you need to accept a few facts about taxes and the so-called liberals.
Post a Comment