Well, it is that time of year again... local elections. I must say I was surprised that no one is challenging the incumbents for City Council. The only benefit to that is for once the school board election will not take second place to the Council.
So readers, what are the qualities you are looking for in a School Board Member? What criteria will you use to determine who to vote for in this election or do you think it is already a "done deal" with the incumbents getting re-elected?
I think there are a couple of interesting candidates to investigate this time around. I am looking for someone who is most concerned with providing a quality education (not doing things as cheaply as possible). I want a person who is willing to make the tough choices, to have the courage to do what is right, not someone who plays politics and is swayed by every small but loud group. I will not be voting for someone who believes we need to continue to have 16 elementary schools as I believe that is fiscally irresponsible. I want someone who has a command of the issues facing the district and who can accurately communicate those issues to the public. I want someone who is straightforward and doesn't put a biased "spin" on what they observe, changing the facts to put the district or administration in a bad light. I want someone who will give clear and specific answers to questions like: How many and which schools do you think should be closed? I will not accept an answer of "I will have to study the issue" because after 10 years of study it is time to act and if you are running for the board, you should have a handle on such issues by now --- this issue has been front and center for the last year.
Accuracy is very important to me, I don't think a candidate should make statements that are inaccurate in an effort to try and "set themselves apart" from the rest of the candidates. Case in point this is an excerpt from one candidate's blog (the inaccurate statement is in bold):
Michelle Monte For School Board
We must protect our neighborhoods and not bus kids to mega schools.We must have complete, open, and honest communication.We must meet the needs of our most challenged students to meet the needs of all our students.I am the only candidate with personal and current experience with special education, the fastest growing group in our schools.We need reasonable changes that raise achievement without bankrupting citizens.
The FACT is candidate Kevin Janke has a child in a special education program in one of our district schools so I would call him a "candidate with personal and current experience with special education". In the Northwestern article Mr. Janke referenced his interest in special education, I would think a candidate concerned with accuracy would have changed the inaccurate message, maybe the change is yet to come, time will tell.
Please share with readers (according to the reports I receive, I had over 50 visits to my site this week, even though I haven't had a new post in a month) what you are looking for in a candidate, or the types of questions you would like to see the candidates answer. What are the "burning issues" for you in this race?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
80 comments:
Mrs. Thiel,
I am going to guess Mr. Janke might not mind, but it might be best if you didn't specify his child's specific disability unless/until Mr. Janke makes that info public.
Anonymous -- Your point is well taken and I have changed my original post, while Mr. Janke has made this information public in the past, I agree that I should not have done so until he, should he choose to, discusses it during this campaign. I have also reposted your comment to remove the gender of his child (for much the same reason).
To be fair you should add that Ms. Monte's blog announcement of candidacy, to which you refer with a quote, did not include Mr. Janke as a candidate at the time she wrote that entry.
Let's keep this clean folks.
But the Northwestern story the next day did and Mrs. Monte herself, in her announcement stated that there was still time for people to turn in papers. Don't you think it would make sense to go back and correct your error? or is that what we can expect of this candidate?
Maybe she saw this, maybe she was busy and just got time to make the change, maybe someone else pointed it out. Checking her blog, it seems she did make the change. Maybe those with beefs should recheck their source or even, heaven forbid, offer the benefit of the doubt. Even if she doesn't (I am sure someone is bound to make that claim)the bigger person would.
Is this what we can expect from people on this blog?
There certainly is more decorum here than on either of the Monte's blogs. Kent's especially has plunged to new depths.
Anonymous 8:11 is correct Mrs. Monte has finally changed her blog to reflect that she is NOT the only candidate with a personal interest in special education. Why? who knows but it is an example of one who rushes to judgement and then later finds herself back-pedaling to correct and usually pointing the finger at those who point out her mistakes calling it an attack.
I have followed this candidate's candidacy for 2 years now and in the beginning was willing to give the benefit of the doubt but no longer feel, based on her past performance (which is the best indicator of future performance) that it is prudent to do so.
I do not believe this district needs yet another negative force on its school board. Most of the indecision and multiple plans of the current board can be directly attributed to the majority's efforts to compromise with the negative forces, leading to nothing but stagnation and no willingness to compromise from the "no" men. I see no indication that Mrs. Monte is any more willing to compromise than the others and frankly how will anything get done if the majority of the board just says "no" and my way or the highway? I care deeply about this district and I think Mrs. Monte would be nothing but another negative force that we just do not need, especially at this critical time. When you alienate a majority of the very people you will need to work with if elected, I don't know how one could possibly be effective. This district needs people willing to work WITH others and who will compromise to leave everyone better off. Not someone who will further divide an already divided community and district.
That said, those are my feelings about the kind of board members this district needs. What are your thoughts? I really am interested in what people's thoughts are on this.
A FAVOR --
I find it would be much easier to comment on posts if people used the "nickname" feature (right above anonymous) it is very simple --- you just pick a nickname and write it in the box (no signing up, no password to remember). It is not required but I think it would help discussion and give readers an idea of whether there are six different posters or just one.
SO... I would appreciate it if you would choose the "nickname" feature instead of anonymous (though it is not required).
Thanks!
We need school board members who are truly interested in listening to all sides of an issue; who are able to use their common sense but at the same time use some business sense; who aren't afraid to make a decision because it's unpopular; and who are not going to say no for the same of just saying no. We already have 2 school board members and 1 candidate who follow the Nancy Reagan mantra to the letter and who make it their mission to play gotcha politics with every suggestion that comes down from the district. It is unhealthy for this district while at the same time embarrassing. I'm note sure yet who that candidate may be. I'm waiting for interviews and forums. But I do know who it isn't.
I would like a candidate that won't rubber stamp everything that the administration puts in front of them. The type of school board member that will do the research instead of buying off on every "up and coming" thing that an aspiring adminstrator comes up with.
Whatever happened to the split high school plan?
Where is the K-3 4-8 going to put us?
How much of this $60 million is due to that K-3 4-8 idea?
Maybe challenging the status quo is just what this board needs.
Challenging ideas is one thing. We have members and candidates who are just plain negative and want to challenge for the sake of being bullies. We've seen what that accomplishes and we don't need to continue the pattern of negativity and holding patterns.
I understand what you are saying. But apparently you didn't read all of my post or chose to ignore my questions.
I will ask again... What happened to the split high school? Why didn't the board continue to pursue it?
Is K-3 4-8 the same? Why isn't more going to research this configuration before we spend MILLIONS on the concept?
The K-3 4-8 configuration will COST big dollars and should be researched. If we don't, we will be tied to the changes that are made with all the buildings.
Another question... Did you know that the district is looking to spend $$ on Traeger to change it from a K-8 to a 4-8? That school isn't even paid for yet.
Your comments were not ignored but I don't have answers to your questions. I was only responding to your comment about challenging things and pointing out there is a big difference between challenging something because you're beign a critical thinker and challenging something just to be a stinker.
If you truly want answers to your questions and aren't just looking to pick a fight with others, the better approach might be to contact the district who has the answers. That will get you further than making snotty comments to other posters.
A large part of the questions were rhetorical. I know that they dumped the split high school because it was not feasable in this city. My point was that there are some on the board who jumped at the chance to do the split option and are doing the same with the reconfig of the k-8. I question the motivation of those members and the ease it took the administration to get them in favor of it even though there isn't any research to support it. The only community that they went to look at is Rosendale which has the K-3 4-8 setup and found what they wanted. Nevermind that it is a tiny community that busses the kids in from all over and don't have multiple schools serving 10,000+ students.
We need balance. We need some to question the status quo. Should they do it excessively? No. But questions need to be asked. If for no other reason but to ensure that all the bases are covered.
Any candidate that supports the K-3 4-8 configuration should NOT be elected and they will NOT have my vote.
Rhetorical, yet "making sense" chastises the other poster for not answering them. Sounds like another contrarian, just like some running in this election. I would never vote for someone who says no just for the sake of saying no or who is constantly looking for a conspiracy in everything presented.
Check this out from a certain school board candidate's blog...
"I question why we would spend $60+ MILLION to change the grade configuration of our district if there are no proven academic benefits to do so."
Where does Michelle Monte get off giving the impression that the entire $60 million being touted in the architect's report is for changing grade configurations? Many of our schools need renovations and repairs no matter what the grade configuration is. This is just more of Mrs. Monte spinning things her own way to make a point about K-3/4-8. It's just like her comment about how she thought we could do everything for about $20 million. Are we to now believe that among her talents as an English scholar, education expert, and author extraordinaire, she is also an engineering and construction expert? Shame on her. She is an alarmist who only deals in her own reality and says only what she believes people want to hear. This is exactly the kind of person we do NOT need on our school board.
Well, I was out of town last week and I'm still trying to catch up on school district related "news". I don't even know where to begin.
You have Northwestern Editors posting on OshKonversation as if the board has voted to put a $60M referendum on the ballot, when, as one poster pointed out, they haven't even discussed it. These same editors apparently don't even read their own newspaper of if they do they sure don't remember what is in it. Both Fitzhenry and Goldthwaite-Kriz have posted that they have no recollection of any mention of a new northside school. Well it took me just 3 clicks on the NW website of find this article from the NW on the "new northside school". You'd think they might have tried that before posting?
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/OSH0101/108270025/0/theme
(sorry you'll have to cut and paste, I've yet to figure out how to put a link in this post).
Then on to a certain candidate's blog that is so filled with misinformation, incorrect assumptions and so much lack of understanding I have neither the time nor energy to bother to correct it all. Suffice to say if after a year, said candidate really doesn't understand that a K-8 Oakwood with 2 or 3 classes at each grade level is NOT more efficient than a K-3 Oakwood with 4or 5 classes at each grade level, how said candidate will ever understand the truly complex issues the district faces is completely beyond me.
If that is really what this community wants in its board members, someone who either doesn't understand the simplest of issues (more classes per grade equals more efficiency) or who chooses to pander to that vocal minority, so be it. I hope our voters are looking for something other than that.
I also hope the voters want the truth to be told, even if they don't like what they are hearing, rather than just being told what they want to hear. This is the one and only excerpt I will insert here:
This is from Michelle Monte's blog re: minutes from the "last ASC/CRT meeting" apparently the first part is from official minutes, the bracketed part is Ms. Monte's comments:
We must contrast the options. The choice is not between the current recommendations and doing nothing. The choice is between the current recommendations and critical maintenance of existing buildings. [Yes! You will lose support by making threats that it is the referendum or student programs will be cut. It won't matter if it is true, the threat will put people on the defensive which is counterproductive to gaining support.]
The language in [brackets] is Ms. Monte's and she is advocating that the administration and the board not tell people that if the referendum fails, programs will have to be cut --- she states that even if it is true it should not be told because it puts people on the defensive... so, what should the administration and the board tell the public? That there is a plan "B" but they aren't saying what it is because people will get defensive, that there is no plan "B" or should they just lie and make something up? I truly wonder how someone can support a candidate who all but says --- don't tell the public the truth, it will make them defensive. That is politics at its worst!
There is so much more I could write but I realize that the candidate's supporters are blind to any faults and I can only hope that the thinking voters understand the danger of voting for someone who doesn't believe the public should be told the truth.
Once the board has discussed the recommendations of Team 6 (once that Team has made recommendations) I will start a new thread on that subject, until that time, it is all just conjecture as to what or how much any referendum might be. Too bad the local journalists and at least one candidate don't seem to get that.
I'd like to know more about the candidates. Does anyone have a blog to share ideas besides Ms. Monte?
Eye on Oshkosh is starting to interview candidates this week. The ONW will also be interviewing them.
I'm not aware of any other candidate having a blog. If anyone knows of one please let us know.
From what I already know I have serious concerns about the direction any candidates will take the district.
Although I do not support a lot of ideas coming from the Monte camp, I have seen her listen to ideas respectfully, unlike some others. I am "itching" to see what ideas come from the other candidates.
I'm interested to see how they are planning to work with the other members to further and better our district.
I'm also interested in how they communicate with us. I want a technologically "with it", (don't have to be saavy), board member. It's the problem I have with Amy W. Please, no email in the 21st century? C'mon!
This coming from the person who says Ms. Monte posted on Eye on Oshkosh and then says it was on Oshkonversation. Apparently, someone else has a hard time grasping where she is. Perfection is hard to come by and I do not see the blaring flaws you seem to. Cutting ten teachers may be a cut but how many staff a building?
I think this is all a game of semantics. Ms. Monte pointed out something she was told by staff. If those staff have that im pression, it goes to show the communication problems within the district administration or someone is trying to snow the union or community or both. I would be more concerned with what the staff are telling people and where they get the idea that few if any staff will be cut though at least four buildings are supposed to be closed.
Cutting 10 teachers when closing four buildings is hardly an efficiency to brag about when the budget is 85% salaries and benefits. Mrs. Thiel, you claim to have a greater grasp of things, please find out once and for all.
re: email, I quite agree that there must be a better way to email groups of boe members; however, my discontent lies in the unwillingness to open a completely
free public account if one is not readily available by the district. It's all about how much communication and interest is involved, not where the account lies.
Finally, regarding attrition in staffing, we'd also have to ask the question: "Is a teacher replaced upon retirement or is his/her position eliminated?" I would assume many are replaced. You cannot continue to broadcast the ill-conceived notion that MM doesn't understand basic, simple concepts. By doing so, with flimsy arguments, makes you the duffer.
oops... I had to make a correction, as a poster pointed out, I mistakenly wrote Ms. Monte's post was on Eye on Oshkosh when in fact it was OshKonversation (the difference between me and Ms. Monte, I can admit I made a mistake, no spin involved, I'm not perfect, never claimed to be, I made a mistake and am not afraid to admit it.)
I think it is the district that needs to be more "savy" many school board members in the state have DISTRICT e-mail addresses and don't have to use personal e-mail addresses. It is very time consuming to have to send school board e-mails to the archive one by one. Why doesn't the district just give each board member a district e-mail?
You say Michelle Monte listens to ideas respectfully, I have found that to be true, only if you happen to either agree with her or are bashing the district or certain board members she doesn't like.
Again, I don't understand why people want a board member who doesn't understand key issues facing the district. I just read a comment she wrote on OshKonversation that clearly indicates she doesn't understand a simple concept like staffing will be cut due to attrition rather than layoffs.
Here is what she wrote on OshKonversation: http://forums.thenorthwestern.com/viewtopic.php?t=13423&start=120&sid=c608807a6469a4b6f358669892f8faf0
"According to several teachers and paras I know, the teaching staff is being "promised" that any reductions in staff would be through attrition. No one will get laid off or nonrenewed. Staffing accounts for about 85% of our budget. Are we really going to reduce the number of buildings only to increase the size of the remaining buildings requiring OASD to maintain current staff levels? I do not want to see great teachers lose their jobs. I only question how long we can maintain our level of staffing with a declining enrollment which also means a decline in funding ($$$ are tied to student numbers after all). "
First of all I HIGHLY doubt anyone is being "promised" anything, the district has had teachers on the non-renewal list every year since I started following the district in 1997. Secondly, for simplicity sake, if you currently have 100 teachers and next year you will have 90 teachers, if 5 teachers retire and 5 teachers resign, you have cut your staff by 10 through ATTRITION, but did not have to lay off anyone. That does NOT mean your staffing level is the same, you have 10 less staff. If she doesn't understand something that simple, how would she possibly be able to understand the complex issue of school funding?
I want a board member who has the ability to quickly grasp the simple issues and who will be able in a rather short amount of time to grasp the very complex issues the district faces. Ms. Monte has proved to me time and again, she is not such a candidate.
Well clearly anonymous 2:01 you don't understand staffing reductions through attrition either. Of course some retirees are replaced but that is NOT what she was writing about. She stated that staffing levels would be the same AFTER stating that reductions in staff would be through attrition.
Citizen --- I was using the 10 staff reduction as an EXAMPLE hence the phrase "for simplicity sake" I do not have an actual number of staff positions that will be cut but if the savings is $1.5 million it will be a great deal more than 10.
As I already stated, I will start a thread on the facilities plan AFTER the board has actually discussed Team 6's recommendation.
Thanks for your vote of confidence. You jump to the conclusion that "clearly" I don't understand staffing because I question your statement that "if you currently have 100 teachers and next year you will have 90 teachers, if 5 teachers retire and 5 teachers resign, you have cut your staff by 10 through ATTRITION, but did not have to lay off anyone." ? I have long defended you to many naysayers but I fear your negativity toward MM is becoming your only driving force.
My driving force is to make sure a district I have followed very closely for over 10 years does not beome dominated by negative people who want to tear it down, who do not respect our administration and who do not have a basic understanding of key concepts. That is not what I want for the future of this district. I do not believe in letting misinformation go uncorrected and I would correct any candidate who perpetuates such misinformation.
Because one disagrees with administration and the way they have run our district does not make them negative. It means they have a difference of opinion. As for respect, it is earned not a right. Our district is a mess right now. Administration has to shoulder much of the blame. Certainly we should not blame the members you call negative. After all, they have been in the minority for a decade now. We need a mix of ideas. Administration needs to be scrutinized. SOme members of our board agree with administration on EVERY issue. That is dangerous.
I disagree with "shake things up" saying " SOme members of our board agree with administration on EVERY issue. That is dangerous."
I can't think of a single board member who always agrees with Administration... in the last budget both Mrs. Bowen and Mrs. Weinsheim disagreed with Administration on cutting middle school French and actually worked WITH admin. to change things. I think that is the key... a willingness to work WITH not against. There are other examples but clearly we see things differently. I think voting "no" all the time, often without even explaining why is negative and does nothing to get things done.
How exactly is our district "in a mess"? I just don't see it. Yes it was a mistake for the members in the majority to waste so much time trying to compromise with members who weren't really interested in any kind of compromise, it was either their way or the highway, but you can't really criticize them for trying. On the one had parents criticize the board for "not listening" then when they take months to make a decision so they can listen to every parent who came to say don't move my kid, they are criticized for that too. I don't think that means our district is in a mess.
Look back at the 10 year planning process. Karen and Amy have supported every plan administration has come forward with. That includes the ones that were later proved to be flawed. Yes we DESPERATELY need to get something done, but they have stated they were willing to vote on some of the plans the very night they were being discussed. That is troubling, especially when those plans were proved to be flawed. Just think if they would have acted on one of those flawed plans. We would be in a world of hurt right now. I think your personal dislike for some of the board members is clouding your judgement. While you perceive those board members to be negative, the other side perceives some board members to be big spenders and in the pocket of administration. Classic conservative vs liberal thinking. A true difference in philosiphies on how to run a school district. One side talks of diversity and socio-economics and expensive grade restructuring while the other is looking for a cost effective solution to keep our schools open. What we need is a combination of the two. Unfortunately that will not happen with this board as it is fatally flawed. Neither side can get past their personal dislike for the other. Sad, but true. Maybe if we had an administrator who was willing to lead we would not be where we are today. How about another consultant to see if that would work?
FYI~ Ben Schneider votes yes and with the administration nearly 90% of the time. Please investigate this for yourself. He coaches 3 childrens basketball teams in the winter and three childrens soccer teams in the summer. He teaches catechism at his local church. It is obvious to me that he cares very deeply about children.
Anonymous 9:30 said: "Look back at the 10 year planning process. Karen and Amy have supported every plan administration has come forward with."
That statement is simply incorrect, they might have supported every plan you opposed but they did not support every plan administration has brought forward.
"the other is looking for a cost effective solution to keep our schools open"
It seems to me what they were really doing was making sure no one from the Oakwood attendance area had to go to any school but Oakwood.
Please explain how keeping all our elementary schools open is "cost effective"?
"expensive grade restructuring"
This statement is based on what facts? Do you actually have a dollar figure JUST for the grade restructuring vs. the cost if everything were the same except grades stayed K-5, 6-8? Please provide the data to show the "grade restructuring" is "expensive"
Were you not at the West Auditorium when Karen and Amy stated "I would vote for this plan tonight"? That plan was later blown up by administration. Do you truly believe that the grade restructuring plan does not come with a hefty price? I know you are smarter and more objective than that. As for your comment about Oakwood School. SOme board members do not believe we should bus students to the North side for socio-economic reasons. They are entitled to their opinion. Common sense tells you that is not a smart plan. Thus there defense of those citizens. As for your statement of wanting to keep all schools open. I believe the consultants recommended we close 6 schools. I also support that idea. At this point you are far to filled with hate to be objective. I will leave it at that. I am afraid all the time spent on this plan will wasted if we take an unrealistic referendum to the cizizens. At that point our children will be the losers in the process. Where will we go from there?
"SOme board members do not believe we should bus students to the North side for socio-economic reasons."
Instead they beleived we should bus our poorest children to the otherside of town, those Board members opposed to busing Oakwood (who are already on a bus by the way) had NO problem busing Jefferson students (who are NOT currently bused) ,to the North side, hmm I wonder why that would be OK? Certainly not more effecient since it would have required a "new" bus since those students are not currently bused.
I too think we should close the original 6 school recommended... from the statements made thus far I do not think that is true of Mr. Becker or Mr. Schneider who have both advocated for keeping Green Meadow open. How that fits in with fiscal conservatism is beyond me. How could it possibly be efficient to keep open a school that in the past has had as few as 9 students in a class with a full time teacher, and currently only has 2 4th grade and 2 5th grade classes in a school with 6 classrooms... doesn't sound efficient to me.
What is the projected growth for the Green Meadow area? As for bussing to the North side. 8 years ago the projections were for North to be way down in enrollment. Never happened. It will be interesting to see how the current estimates turn out 8 years from now with declining enrollment across the district. I disagree with Becker and Schneider on many issues. Right now the board is broken and can not be fixed with the current members. Much like Washington and the partisan politics between the Dems and Rep. we have the same thing here in Oshkosh with Karen and Amy vs Dan and Ben. Each side and their chronies are so filled with hate for the other that they do not have the ability to see the other sides point of view, or respect their opinion. Thus, nothing gets done as the 2 sides do not have the ability to work out a compromise.
Anonymous 3:01 asks "What is the projected growth for the Green Meadow area?'
I don't have that figure, but at several board meetings, Mr. Traska has expressed concern that the "new southside school" would only have 149 students... (that would be both Lakeside and Green Meadow students, that doesn't indicate a lot of "growth" to me. In the past 10 years the enrollment at Green Meadow has fluctuated between 128 students in the 03-04 school year and 115 students last year.
I think it is ridiculous to build a school for 149 students you will either be building a school that is too small to ever be efficient or you will build a school that will remain 1/2 full for who knows how long?
I don't think it is efficient or fiscally responsible to keep these schools open just because people don't want their schools to close. 149 students should be able to be acommodated in existing schools. Certainly less costly than the plans drawn up for either Lakeside or Green Meadow thus far.
Teresa, I applaud you for correcting misinformation, especially that which is put out there by candidates about things they really ought to know. Because much of this comes from candidate M. Monte you are accused of being biased. Typical response I suppose from people who don't know better or can't distinguish fact from fiction.
I got a kick out of a recent post by Mrs. Monte on Oshkonversation in which she explained to CJ about diversity circles. Mrs. Monte talks a good game about tolerance but like so many others she can talk the talk but can't (or is that "won't??") walk the walk. All anyone needs to do is review her and her hubby's blogs and they'll see that these two are anything but tolerant and acepting of others different from them. If they're not making comments themselves, they're allowing them by others. Either way it's an endorsement of hatred and intolerance and shows them to be the hypocrites they are.
The more I read what Mrs. Monte writes, the more respect I have for the four on our shool board who have stayed the course on their ideas. It's apparent to anyone with half a brain, this candidate has no clue what she's talking about. On top of that don't you just love "questions" "posed" on her blog to prompt certain answers from her, presumably to help further her campaign? Judging by the misspellings and punctuation errors, it's pretty obvious she and Kent are writing the questions themselves so she can add her two cents worth. Speaking of two cents worth, she's very quick to point out Jonathan Krause's ideas are hers and not his own. Can you say narcissist and egomaniac?
I agree. I doubt many people consider her an expert on anything, especially stuff related to the school district. The only ones who think she's smart are the ones she's got bamboozled. That's a sad state of affairs by itself, but what's sadder is if she'd get elected by people who share her cluelessness. Her ignorance and disregard for even the most basic of concepts would spell doom for the district. Then she'd have to enroll all her kids in the Appleton school district instead of just a couple. Even if she was a worthy candidate, I wouldn't vote for someone who wants to make decisions for a district that she won't even have all her kids enrolled in. Whoever called Michelle Monte a hypocrite understands her completely.
if you all and the FOUR are so brilliant and only doing what is best for the kids- why don't you push the vote through? 4 is a majority. if your ideas and plans are that brilliant you can certainly convinve the voters.
Spoken like a true ignoramus, 12:02PM. You and at least one of the candidates must share a brain.
8:06, Just curious...
How many of the "board majority" have kids in the district?
Guess your theory doesn't really apply as Weinsheim is the only one of the four that currently has any.
I will point out that Monte, Becker, Traska and Schneider ALL have kids currently enrolled in OASD.
this has nothing to do with whether they have kids in the district. it is Bowen and supporters who always push the idea that they are the ones doing what's best for the kids. if they really believe in the plan they should be able to convince the voters and pass a referendum. they have the majority vote. they can do vote it through any night they would like.
You asked the difference. Here it is, anonymous. It is one thing to have had children graduate from the district or not have any children at all. It is quite another to have had them in the district but then pull some out and put them in another district. It's the way Monte does things. If she doesn't like something she takes her ball and goes home. She did it when she quit the committee she was on and progress wasn't to her liking and she's done it with the school district at large. She's 2 for 2 in the 'my way or the highway' department. Let's show her the highway once and for all on the 19th.
If the 4 school board members anonymous hates so much really wanted to avoid political astrocism they would instruct the school super to make decisions about boundaries and such, and then let the chips fall where they may. That would be perfectly legal and not a single one of you would have any say in the matter at all. But they're doing the hard work, despite your insufferable persecution of them. Shame on you for being such a disrespectful jerk to these hard-working individuals.
I am confused. Did Monte pull her kids out of the district? I could have sworn that she said that she has a child in the special needs program at Traeger. Where are you getting your information that she moved to another district?
As for the hard work of the 4 board members... what hard work are you talking about? I just haven't seen it. Just a bunch of huffing, puffing and eye rolling. I have never seen such a high level of disrespect in all my life.
Another anonymous above made a great point. If this administration and the fab four think that their plan is so wonderful, why don't they just vote it through? If it has all the merrit that they beleive it does it should easily pass a referendum.
Maybe it's that the three "naysayers" are speaking for the majority of the community. I don't know, maybe I'm just an idiot and I'm friends with Michelle Monte.
Maybe your last 2 "suggestions" are right.
6:39 needs to improve their reading skills. The poster didn't say ALL of Monte's kids were removed from the district. They said SOME were removed and Monte's own blog said that.
Okay, children. Go to your rooms until you're done bickering.
Let's be constructive and look at the candidates:
Lemberger: Educator at UW. "Strong Catholic". Supports neighborhood schools. I do not feel good about electing a person in an academic position to a school board position. We know that when Ms. Theil was on the board her position as a spouse of an educator did create a difficulty. (Please don't argue uselessly about how many times exactly it was a problem....fact is that it did present difficulties.)
Daggett: Hasn't this guy ran for every public office available? How serious could he be about wanting this job?
Jahnke: Has put out little or no info that I've found. I only know that Ms. Theil seems to support him, he was on the ASC or CRT, and he seems to be most interested in special ed. Puzzled as to why I cannot find info or even a statement of intent for him.
Monte: Has a kid in the district, pulled one out because she couldn't get the kid the help needed...(i.e.: responsible parenting) Don't agree with all her views but seems to take this job very seriously...almost to the point of obsession.
Let's be constructive and discuss.
Puhleaze, to compare the Lemberger academia thing to the Thiel thing is like night and day. And you're right, it really didn't affect Thiel very much at all. Let's see would we rather have had someone who had to abstain once in a blue moon or someone who throws his vote away by consistently voting no? Since Becker is a supporter of Monte I see her in that same category. I'll take an infrequent abstainer over a naysayer anytime. Most every elected official has to abstain from a vote once in a while so your argument is about as weak as they come. Next!!
Being passive-agressive is a true psychological anomaly. I'm hopeful that anonymous 12:13 is not a candidate.
Meanwhile, I'm actually trying to determine who to vote for. Who can most constructively serve the students and families in the district?
I'm completely undecided and have pros and cons in my head for each candidate. Does anyone have an argument as to why I should vote for one specific candidate?
Constructive comments about the election or the candidates are appreciated.
oops. 12:03
Oh Monte's obsessed alright, but not with the job. She and Kent both are fixated on being something more than wannabes. Too bad the words uttered from that side of the table don't add up. It's either lack of understanding of issues, lack of common sense, or being a flat out liar. Good thing most voters have their number.
Didn't Mrs. Monte post somewhere once upon a time that she was working part time at the university as part of her studies there? That being the case and using the "logic" of 12:03 PM, we should not elect her to the school board either.
Anon. 12:49 asked "Who can most constructively serve the students and families in the district?"
Well if you are looking for constructive, that would leave Lemberger, Jahnke or McDermott to vote for, as the other two candidates have not shown, by their actions that they are willing to work WITH others. It is "my way or the highway". Examples: One of the candidates resigned from a crucial committee because things weren't going the way she thought they should, the other deivsed a boundary plan but once it was changed a bit, would no longer support it. You can't get anything done alone on a school board, it takes convincing at least 3 others to go your way. Without this, you are just another "no vote" that leaves the district stagnant.
As for who to vote for of the 3, McDermott obviously has the most experience, is clearly intelligent and has a grasp of the issues and seems to have a good balance between what is best for kids and what the taxpayer can afford. He is the member of the board most willing to compromise to get things done.
Jahnke has served on the CRT and one or two subcommittees seems to have a pretty decent grasp of the issues.
Lemberger, is committed to neighborhood schools and given his position at UW-O should have a good understanding of the workings of a K-12 system. I don't know of any actual involvement on committees etc. in the district but I don't know that, that is essential.
It would be nice if the NW would publish something that gives us an idea of where the candidates stand on the issues. Right now, I know who NOT to vote for but not sure who TO vote for.
Is Lemberger committed to neighborhood schools to the extent that he will not close some elementary schools even if it is fiscally responsible? Given his profession will he unduly side with teachers and the union instead of fighting for what is right for the students?
McDermott is no doubt an intelligent man. I've had many conversations with him through the long-term facilities process. I'm just not sure I understand his position. Some days it is A and some days it is B. Don't mistake this...compromise is good. However, I hear talk but don't see action perhaps due to indecisiveness?
Jahnke: If someone makes no attempt to put their agenda out prior to primaries, how can I possibly vote for him?
Well if you are going to vote for someone who "puts their agenda out there" I guess that would leave only Monte since she has a blog...
Lemberger and Jahnke were both on Eye on Oshkosh but I've seen nothing from either of them to otherwise "put their agenda out there". I would argue that neither McDermott nor Schneider have "put their agenda out there" you can surmise their agenda by watching board meetings but I haven't seen anything anywhere else.
I would suggest you attend / watch /listen to the League of Women voters forum tomorrow that should give you plenty of information on where each candidate is coming from.
Info. on League Forum:
A forum for the six Oshkosh Area School Board candidates is set for Thursday, Feb. 7, 6:30 to 7:30 p.m. in the Oshkosh City Council Chambers, 4th floor City Hall.
The six candidates are incumbents Tom McDermott and Ben Schneider II. The challengers are John Daggett, Kevin Jahnke, John Lemberger and Michele Monte. Panel members are Jim Fitzhenry, managing editor of the Oshkosh Northwestern and Frankie Mengeling, vice-president Oshkosh Area LWV.
This forum will be broadcast on Oshkosh Community Access Television CitiCable 10 and simulcast by WOCT 101.9 FM, Oshkosh Community Radio.
John Daggett also was interviewed by Eye on Oshkosh. He didn't really answer any questions though. This man has his own agenda and from the things he did say doesn't have a grasp of the issues.
I read Oshkonversation's follow up to the forum the other night and observed that Michele Monte just can't stop herself from mudslinging and making her comments personal. In this particular case she went after someone who's not even running. She whines about how she met with a school board member to show she was willing to work with others but then the woman apparently changed her mind about Mrs. Monte. This school board member wannabe points to this incident as the other woman somehow being disingenuous. I believe the woman no doubt quickly figured out what Michele Monte's game is - it doesn't take long - and wanted nothing more to do with her.
She's drunk with the thought of having power and she's a bully. She loves to poke her stick through the cage at others, and then offer sorry-ass excuses as to why she did what she did, just like on that blog. She's also great at claiming to have proof of things, but fails to realize the presence of proof is easily be a 2-way street.
"Excuses," "deception," and "misinformation" are Mrs. Monte's middle names. People know this about her and haven't elected her in the past. It's safe to say she'd be 100 times worse if she got elected so I predict she won't get elected this time either.
Misinformation is a good word for it. Monte was well dressed (more like over dressed) and well "rehearsed" for the forum but spewed forth much wrong information. You'd think for someone who's run for school board 3 times now and boasts how she's been attending school board meetings for years, she'd have a better understanding of some of the most fundamental points. The propaganda she's spinning for the voters is frightening. Her accusatory attack mode is also getting old. When someone acts like that, there's no way they can or will work with others. She says differently but her actions prove she's a liar and doing nothing more than paying the voters lip service. Fortunately, pandering never pulls enough votes to win an election.
cite your "misinformation" claims. If you can...
It's obvious to anyone who's been paying attention. If you're truly "interested" compare the data with what Monte's saying. That will give you the information you act like you want to know.
Give it a rest anonymous. Mrs. Monte's "errors" have been pointed out countless times. Being the blog wizard you are, you can find them most anywhere. And by barely lifting a finger. To point them out again here would be letting you goad me into a pissing contest. Not gonna happen. If it's important enough to you you'll rise to the challenge.
There goes Michelle Monte again with more conspiracy theories in a new post called Facilities Concerns. If anyone else bothers to read it, after you schlep through her entire commentary, there are a few points which jump out.
(1) She says there's so much info about Sodexho available on the net. So naturally one must wonder why someone from another school district looking for information on Sodexho would call her, especially knowing her position on this issue. They could get the information they seek most anywhere. Because he selected her (if it happened at all), it doesn't seem like the man was too interested in seeking out facts, only info from someone who's opposed to Sodexho and Tremco. If he really was interested in facts, he'd have been better served contacting districts who've dealt with the company, not some candidate for office with her own agenda to push. But it's reasonably questionable whether she got such a call at all.
(2) I also question whether or not all these people in the district Mrs. Monte claims to have spoken with have direct knowledge of the Sodexho situation, especially since so many of the powers that be in this district don't like or have respect for her. It's more likely those she's talked to are basing their comments on rumor and one-sided information.
(3) This candidate claims that complaints and lawsuits say this is more than rumor. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Anyone can sue another person. Being the legal scholar Mrs. Monte acts like, she must realize what matters most is not that suits were filed, but what the outcomes of those suits were. Mind you, I'm speaking now about the result of lawsuits brought by their customers, not by employees. Those employment issues are other matters that have nothing to do with poor workmanship, the keeping of product after jobs have been completed, etc.
(4) Finally, it's amazing how a woman who claims to always provide accurate information can't even correctly spell the name of the company being discussed in her commentary. Given that she's done so much research on the company and is speaking to people with such "authority" on the subject, she's surely come across the name hundreds of times. But if still in doubt, Sodexho has their name spelled accurately on their own web site. I'd have thought she would have visited it in her quest for information. I find it hard to take seriously anything else she says when she can't get even the most simple of information correct.
And like she's done other times, she can't say she was in a hurry or that it was a typo. The same typo doesn't occur multiple times in the same post and if she's pressed for time, maybe she shouldn't post until she has the proper amount of time to do so.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=12YdYjVD7F4
Did somebody ask for conspiracy theories?
Oops, the link didn't work, but you can find it on Oshkonversation.
Hey anonymous, not only does the link you posted not work directly from the posting but the YouTube video itself doesn't work too well. It keeps sticking as it's playing. Kudos to the techno genius who put it together and to you for providing the link for comic relief on an otherwise dreary hump day. Bottom line: all the video really says, when you can get through it, that is, is that people either have differing opinions about SAGE or someone has changed their mind. But the way the video sticks makes one wonder how much creative editing was done by the creator. There's the bigger conspiracy theory for you.
You can deflect and pick at the techno genius (it is pretty bad) who put the vid together, but it doesn't change the bottom line. The bottom line is that the SAGE planners acknowledged that there was no clear evidence that SAGE is working and that there is no clear evidence that class size has an effect, but Patti Vickman made a presentation and stated that there is "clear, consistent & powerful evidence that SAGE works in Oshkosh!
I don't know how that could be considered anything but a lie.
You say tomatoe and I say tomato. Different people seeing things differently or interpreting things differently than someone else. doesn't make it a lie but if you'd like to use that logic try this on for size. Candidates Michelle Monte and Ben Schneider see things differently than the majority of board members and some other candidates. Guess that makes Monte and Schneider liars then, huh? See how dumb that kind of "logic" is?
That's apple and oranges, honey.
Anon Feb 13 7:36
I checked out Monte's blog and did a simple google search "tremco lawsuits" and the first item I found said:
"Indiana attorney general refuses Tremco investigation"
However, the attorney general’s office did not see illegal actions committed.
“A review of the materials indicate that there has not been misappropriation of public funds or other wrongdoing in which the attorney general could pursue,” says Staci Schneider, chief communications officer and press secretary for the attorney general."
The most interesting thing of all is the attorney general was contacted by:
"Diana Vice, a Rossville resident, contacted the attorney general’s office in November 2005 on behalf of Taxpayers United For Fairness (TUFF) to ask Carter to investigate possible illegal acts with regard to public sector construction contracts. Vice, along with TUFF and resident Melissa Kingery, had filed a lawsuit in September 2005"
I'm sure that Diana Vice name looks familiar because that is one of the links on Monte's site... some blogger whose claim was dismissed out of hand by the Indiana Attorney General. What a reliable source she uses...
http://www.nrca.net/rp/news/details.aspx?id=1138
Yeah and there's now a post that Mrs. Monte answers by calling the woman Mrs. Vice and the woman says she'd vote for her if she lived here. What an "incestuous" nest she's building.
As for any other lawsuits, about all you can find on the net is suits filed by Sodexho employees. She sure can sling it, can't she? And her "supporters" demand proof of her mistakes and other pieces of unreliability. They're too numerous to mention but if anyone wants more proof, wait for her next rant. There will be more. There always is. It's classic Michelle Monte.
I checked out Diana Vice's Welcome to my Tea Party blog and she's got a posting on there from some roofing contractor in Indiana who spouted off about how Tremcos prices are higher than everyone else's and how they market mainly to public institutions. He's great at making such assertions but what he fails to discuss or even mention is why are the other more reasonably priced companies he mentioned not bidding on these public jobs? The bidding process is open to all. Perhaps there's a reason why they're not bidding and that in turn might be why Tremco keeps getting public sector work around the country. But Michelle Monte and her Indiana cohort would rather deal in innuendo and conspiracy theories. Board member wannabe Monte's rants and ramblings hold as much water as a leaky bucket.
A google search shows that Ms. Vice has been sued by Tremco...
Notice how Michelle Monte doesn't talk about that or bring it up? She's such a hypocrite -- always pointing out the negative about people and things she doesn't like but never once holding those people and things she does like to the same standards. A vote for her Tuesday is a vote for the destruction of the school district in Oshkosh.
Anonymous 7:52
While your comment sounds a little dramatic, I think you are correct. Let's hope this community has more sense.
Post a Comment