Dan Becker was quoted in an article in the Waukesha Freeman on June 11th stating:
{Becker said that he and other board members “thought we had Todd Gray all squared away” to replace their outgoing Superintendent Ron Heilmann, ...}
What does that mean? Could that be a violation of the open meetings laws? Who are these other board members?
If Dan Becker didn't discuss making Todd Gray the new superintendent why is he quoted as saying they thought they had it all squared away? Wouldn't it take 3 other board member to "square it away"? I find such comments very troubling, they certainly give the impression board business was being discussed among Mr. Becker and other board members outside of the publicly noticed meetings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
Oh dear, this is disturbing. Becker couldn't possibly have thought he had a lock with the current board. My money's on him anticipating pals Schneider to have been re-elected and Monte to finally have gotten elected and Traska to be the swing vote. No matter what the situation, in order for him to think something was "squared away" he had to have been flapping his gums to someone with the power to vote and that's a violation isn't it? I seriously hope the board looks into this.
I don't know which board he is talking about (pre or post April 2008 election) but it seems pretty obvious that he was discussing this with voting members of the school board. Don't you think "squared away" is synonomous with "done deal"? The fact that he was wrong doesn't really matter, if he was discussing board business, with other board members, outside of the publically noticed meetings, that is a violation of the law.
haven't you seen the way Mr. Becker has been treated by Amy and Karen, and Kavanaugh? do you really think he would talk to them about a decision outside of a meeting or they would even return his call?
get real!
you got the board you wanted, let's see how they do. they have already proved that they can spend money on new positions. lets see how they can cut at budget crunch time.
Anonymous 11:03 needs to learn to read better, before commenting. It makes perfect sense that he spoke to someone on the board, and probably those he thought might make it on the board. There is no other explanation for his quote in the paper.
There are six other board members besides Mr. Becker and the article didn't say when he "thought they had it all squared away" so it could well have been Mr. Schneider he talked to or any of the 4 other board members you did not mention.
It's a newspaper. Who knows if he was even quoted properly.
Anonymous 4:48, he would not speak to some of the board members about anything outside of the board room and a publicly noticed meeting. But it's pretty obvious from other things that have taken place that he and Mr. Schneider and Mrs. Monte often yak it up. Instead of looking for excuses for your clay-footed hero and spinning things another way, go back and read what's been written. Look at it with eyes wide open instead of eyes wide shut. The board needs to investigate this and get to the bottom of it once and for all.
5:20:
I'm sure if he wasn't quoted properly he would have made a fuss about it and a correction would have been printed.
So the naysaying "do gooders" are over on the Monte blog complaining about a fairminded, and reasonable question about exactly what Dan Becker's comments meant and why he would have said what he did if there hadn't been some private conversations going on beyond the board room walls. It's so telling of their true personalities when reasonable questions are asked and those doing the questioning get accused of being mean spirited, nasty, vile, and whatever else they can think of to call the "attacks" on their chosen few. They on the otehr hand can say and do most anything and still be anointed in the eyes of their friends and colleagues. Or did you miss all the little gems on the Monte blog. But guess what Monte, Becker and Schneider lovers? On election day we put in office people who weren't devisive and constantly negative and we voted out those who are. That's all that matters.
I'm not discounting any comments but let's remember that our board members are regularly misquoted in our local paper and they do not make a fuss. They shrug shoulders and move on.
Moreover, I'd like to see some discussion about current events...we have not yet hired a search firm even tho. we've known for 2.5 mos. that Doc H is leaving. Our board has not even voted on whether to appoint an interim. Our business manager is disappearing and as of June 30th we will be steered by whom as we attempt to put together a referendum? We now have Fond du Lac to compete with for superintendent candidates. Yikes.
Movements are being made to get someone in the super's office. The board will do what is necessary to fill the positions, even without Mr. Becker's "help." While some like to keep complaining they refuse to open their eyes to the reasons we've had 2 business managers leave inside of a year or so. One reason was the constant nitpicking and never ending requests for minutia by a former board member. His requests and demands went way beyond what was necessary or even reasonable.
As for someone not speaking up when they're misquoted, I doubt seriously if their quote makes it look like they broke the law, in this case, a possible open meetings violation, and they didn't really say it, they most certainly should speak up. If they don't they're stupid and deserve whatever grilling or investigation they get. In Dan Becker's case, he's known for his own brand of nitpicking so yeah, he'd speak up if the quote wasn't right.
10:21: Congratulations on your omniscience.
Movements are being made to replace Dr. H. What I'm bringing to light is that it is happening FAR TOO SLOWLY. 7 weeks since discovering (publicly) he's departing and we still haven't hired a search firm. Let's see how fast Fond du Lac moves to hire a search firm!
By the way, Ms. Theil, I am adamantly opposed to the comments on the Monte blog. If I could apologize for the folks posting them I would. Not only are the writers rude and inappropriate but the moderator is also at fault since she should not allow such drivel.
oops...11 weeks
A search firm has been hired or did you miss the newspaper reports and even Ms Monte's choice comments about that board decision too? Check out the ONW from June 4 for the details.
That's true that a search firm was hired a few weeks ago already. The Northwestern has an article in thsi morning's paper about it too. The anonymous person who complained about a saearch firm not being hired should really check it out. I might also point out that many districts looking for a supt do not have one yet. That doesn't make them rudderless ships. I wouldn't be surprised if this district has its eyes on someone, maybe even a couple people to take over the interim position while searching for a permanent person. Some people just want everything to happen overnight without understanding the process while others will gleefully complain about everything, no matter what it is.
BTW, it's good to see anonymous has such strong opinions about the Monte blog.
To be clear, there is a significant difference between being selected and being hired. The paperwork was not yet signed as of late last week when I spoke with a school board member. Perhaps that has now changed. Facts still remain the same. 11 weeks, no firm hired (officially) therefore no job has been posted, no meetings regarding what criteria are to be used have been arranged, and we're none closer to hiring a super. I'm going to remain optimistic that the board will pull out all stops to move as quickly as possible during the summer while board members take vacations and while Joe Q Public is uninformed.
Interesting that you would have inquired as to whether a contract with the search firm was signed or not. In any event, the firm has been HIRED and the meeting you claim has not been scheduled IS in fact scheduled for tomorrow night. Please see today's Northwestern for details.
Meanwhile Michelle Monte is once again bitching at the top of her lungs about the district. This woman is never, ever satisfied (unless of course she gets her way or the way of one of her board buds). While she's busy complaining about everything under the sun, she also continues to misstate the facts. Now she claims the supt in Eau Claire retired and "reincarnated" into a building principal. I hate to inform Ms. Monte of the obvious but to accept another position with your current employer does not equate to retiring. If she had a fulltime job in the workplace she'd maybe understand the difference. Then again...
Government employment (including education) is different than the private sector. But you are not smart enough to know that either.
In education, all you need to do is "retire" for 30 days and then you can return in another position and collect a paycheck AND the retirement check. If you don't believe me, look it up and prove me wrong.
Oh yeah, you can't!!
Here is something to chew on...
If you think Becker broke the law, then do something about it rather than trash him on a blog. I am sure that if it truly was a violation, it would be investigated. I would bet that if the board "investigates" to these alegations, they won't dismiss it like they did for Heilmann.
One last thing... I noticed that the "article" that Thiel is linked to isn't even the newspaper site. That is because you cannot have access to that site unless you get the paper subscription. Who knows if they may have printed a correction? Thiel sure wouldn't print one.
Funny how anytime the behavior of a Monte or their friends is questioned it's called "trashing" them. It's also funny how those same people think everyone else should go directly to the source for answers to their questions when they themselves don't. These people are nothing but hypocrites. Here's something for them to chew on: A call to the paper in question proved to this commenter's satisfaction that Dan Becker was not only quoted accurately but that he did not request a correction. Seeings as you're so hot to trot on calling people for answers, pick up the phone and try it before accusing someone of trashing one of your cronies. (Not that you'd know a real trashing when you read it anyway.)
Yeah right. You called the paper after 7 in the evening. We believe every word.
It's been several days since that article was published. It's also been several days since someone first said Becker was maybe misquoted. I didn't say I called yesterday. Don't ASSume things or are you just naturally an idiot?
P.S. Give 'em a call for yourself. Oh yeah, that's right, you're afraid of the answer.
Anonymous 8:35pm... I appreciate your comments but it seems to me it is a losing battle to try and use logic with the illogical. Monte and her supporters will never acknowledge that anything they have done is wrong.
Monte has claimed that she never talked about board business with Becker or Schneider --- really then who is feeding her information that is not out in the public domain--- like Dr. Herzog offering to be interim supertintendent or Dr. Eickstaedt retiring? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where she is getting her info. from.
Exactly right. As unpopular as she is at the administration office, she doesn't have that many connections to get the info she does any other way. Sad thing is even with a direct pipeline through Becker she still gets it wrong. And when a finger gets pointed in her direction, she gets even nastier or tries lying her way out of it. You mentioned how she says she didn't discuss board business with Becker or Schneider, in particular about Dr. Heilmann's recent situation. But her own words prove her a liar because she lies so often she gets her stories confused. Or maybe she's got a split personality or is in a permanent state of confusion, who knows? What else could explain such huge contradictions. In one post she says she knows the law and didn't ask Schneider and Becker about confidential personnel matters. In another post she says she asked them about the rumors, etc. But you're right in that they always think they're right, even when proven wrong. Yikes.
We believe every word of it too anonymous 6:21, including that Dan Becker made that comment. When you sneak around and do things you shouldn't be doing, you eventually always trip yourself up.
From the Journal Sentinel..."Gray left Appleton last year to become deputy superintendent for business services in the Oshkosh Area School District, where he had been business manager from 1989 through 2000. Gray took over the Oshkosh position after the district’s previous manager, Jason Demerath, left to become the controller for the Waukesha district."
Bet they'll have some interesting stories to share, though I suspect they are on opposite sides of the fence where OASD is concerned.
7:04 PM;
So what that the link is not to the newspaper itself? If you had any idea what you were talking about you'd know that the entire article was archived at this repository site, as are other articles. So, yes, if there was a correction printed it would be there. But if you're so convinced Dna Becker wasn't flapping his gums outside the boardroom or was somehow misquoted, call the Waukesha Freeman and ask them if he called to demand a correction. The only thing you have to lose is your credibility because you'll find out he didn't. Since he didn't, the only logical conclusion is he must have violated the open meetings law and the board needs to ask for an investigation of Mr. Looselips to clear things up once and for all.
PLEASE DO!! INVESTIGATE AWAY!
You will find that there was not a violation after all.
As for the Herzog and Eickstaedt details, who said anything about it being Herzog? Most of us didn't know until now. Doesn't really matter as it is all a matter of public record. Are you jealous that you didn't know it first?
Ah yes, someone who professes to know inside information. For sure, Becker and Monte are a couple of Chatty Cathys. Schneider was a part of it too. 2 + 1 = the 3 Stooges. Or the way voters should look at it, 2 down, 1 to go.
11:32 you talk in such circles you sound just like Michele Monte.
"As for the Herzog and Eickstaedt details, who said anything about it being Herzog? Most of us didn't know until now. Doesn't really matter as it is all a matter of public record. Are you jealous that you didn't know it first?"
How can you not know it if it's a matter of public record? Even more confusing is how you could not know it yet give the impression those who do are wrong and then turn around and ask if we're jealous cause we didn't know it first. I know you're in a permanent state of confusion anonymous 11:32 but I'm confident there is institutional help for you somewhere.
We keep hearing how people are always bashing the Montes or Mr. Becker, and why? Because simple questions get asked and they and their supporters don't like them. Instead of answering the questions they use more of the nastiness they've become known for and put it on blogs. One good turn deserves the other. It's no secret Dan Becker is running a driving school these days. It's awfully ironic that Michelle Monte and some of her friends have driving problems of their own, in particular in school zones. Whoopsie. If they all became pro-active and enrolled in Dan's driving school they might be able to avoid such problems in the future. Ya think??
Well if it wasn't Barb Herzog, why don't you tell us another female Central Office administrator who recently retired...
From Monte's blog:
Could that be why a former OASD administrator who recently retired (more than 30 days ago)volunteered to be interim Superintendent? I think she was simply trying to help and would be an asset, but this practice of double-dipping leaves reasonable doubt about anyone's motives.
We all know mrs. monte was talking about Barb Herzog and we all know where she gets her information from. Anyone who thinks there's just cars, religion, and other superficial talk going on between her and a couple past and present board members is as lost as she is.
Thersa, While I respect your positions on many things, I feel that you may be reaching on this one. To believe that BOE members or any board members do not discuss things outside of regular meetings is a bit naieve. Whether it's legal or not may be another issue but who cares at this point?? It's a moot point...TG's promotion to the Superintendency is not going to happen.
The BOE has set a process in place and intends to stick to it. What appears to be more instructional in all of this is that Mr. Becker's behind the scenes machinations are irrelevant and his positions appear to be far out of step with the rest of the BOE. I don't want 7 people on the BOE to agree on everything and I find it improves the discussion to have at least 1 gadfly in the mix.
Naive to think issues are not discussed among board members? I don't think to expect that people in office abide by the law is naive at all. Apparently neither does our government or they wouldn't have passed such laws regarding open meetings. It's very simple. You just don't discuss board issues when talking to others you serve with.
To believe Mrs. Monte she discusses all kinds of other things with her board pals, past and present. Of course that's just what she says in one post. In another she says she's tried to get confidential information from board members. And she always claims to have an "in" somewhere - someone she knows who knows someone, someone she goes to church with (gossiping - how Christian like) or someone her husband knows, etc. Half of it's probably made up and we need to consider the source as far as the rest's concerned. It's all a crock to get information she wants to badmouth someone with into the public domain. Too bad she steps in a little more doo doo everytime she writes such pseudo fictional junk.
My original point was that why should we be surprised that in the real world people talk more than they should?
I don't dispute the legalities of it but in the grand scheme of things, we need to keep our eyes on the prize. It's akin to Dennis Kucinich trying to impeach GWB for lying about the war - at this point in his term, who cares?? Like Bush, DB appears to be irrelevant except that he can continue to spin his little webs which will lead nowhere and likely get him voted out the next go around as well.
It's time to move on and fix the real issues in the OASD rather than dwell on the little spiders spinning their webs. Life is far too short and we have real issues to address for the benefit of Oshkosh children.
MM will also continue to tell her tales - the more she does, the less credibility she will have. Let's hope that she continues - I have enough faith in the local voters that they can discern the wheat from the chaff.
I agree about the MOnte malarchy, but if people are allowed to continue talking out of turn, so to speak, they will always do so. These matters need to be investigated and even if there is nothing to it, people will at least think twice before flapping the gums in the future. On the other hand if there is something to it, they should be fined, censured, given warnings, whatever happens to them for breaking the law.
Michelle Monte and her minions are still posting negative stuff and blaming Mrs. Thiel for the district's troubles. Thiel was only one vote and didn't serve that long. Are they suggesting all this damage was caused during one term? What idiots. A person more suitable for blame is Ben Schneider II. He served two terms on the board and chaired the facilities committee. His do-nothing attitude is more to blame for the mess we're in. And where were these mental midgets back when Mrs. Thiel was on the board? I don't recall these whiners presenting themselves at a board meeting with concerns about the way money was being spent or buildings were being maintained. I guess when you don't have a defense for any of your own actions, it's acceptable in their mini-minds to deflect and take shots at someone else. That's fine 'coz we still remember all the contradictions Meanmouth Monte has made over the years and voters will be reminded should she have the stupidity to run again.
Mrs. Thiel, your credibility is quickly erroding with the topics you choose to allow on your blog. Apparently you have not noticed that every single thread has corroded to be about Mrs Monte. Whether you are the poster or someone else, you are the blog operator and anything you post can also be considered your opinion just as you have accused Monte of agreeing with everything she allows on her blog.
It seems you are fixated/obssessed with Mrs. Monte. Why would you continue to dwell on someone you say is a liar and unworthy of the energy. That you do says volumes about your character, or lack of. Do yourself a favor and take the high road. Keep your threads on topic and distance yourself from Monte as much as possible or you risk bigger losses, particularly in respect from your community.
And you've not noticed that the same kind of thing not only BEGAN on the Monte blog but continues to this day? Sure you have. You're a hypocrite so stick to the hypocrite's site and stay away from here if you don't like it. Monte preaches how she wants accountability but when people demand the same of her, she and her supporters squeal how they're being bashed. Poor babies. The only thing wrong with pointing out the many and never-ending Monte inconsistencies is the fact that Monte and her supporters can't explain them and would rather point their stubby little fingers at someone else about other things. Or have you forgotten all such "commentary" on Monte's blog, including about Supt. Heilmann? And BTW, it's eroding with one "r" not two. Funny how anonymous makes the same kinds of spelling and grammatical errors as the Montes.
Funny how anonymous here sounds exactly like Thiel. When has Monte been questioned? I mean actually QUESTIONED. All I see is accusations and name-calling. When she was questioned/accused on ONW and answered some smart ass came back with she protests too much. There is no correct answer in the eyes of readers on this blog unless they are identical to Thiel's.
I have trodded through Monte's blog and do not see where "she started it." And just because she does something, should you sheep follow or set a better example? Clearly you choose to follow. BAAAA!
As a business owner with a long history in Oshkosh and many connections, you can bet if Thiel runs again for even dog-catcher, I will be one to work for a write in campaign against her. Her character is transparent on this blog and a disgrace to anyone claiming to love education. I wouldn't want a woman like this who allows these continued obssessive attacks to volunteer to be a speed strip much less in a classroom.
So much for my plea for common sense and the high road.
Sorry, Mrs. Thiel, I no longer support you in anything. Just like you were run off the ONW blog, I have just been run off yours. I am sso gladd you have such grreat suppporters who are sso ggood att supportting their argguments with logic and research and not hot airr.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. So glad one blind ninny who chooses to follow Monte is gone. Instead of spending time posting their drivel here they should really spend more time researching the things they claim to have searched for already. If they truly can't find it then they really are blinder than they already appear. As for the number of business connections the writer suggests they can influence, that's highly questionable. If it were true they'd have been able to get Monte elected any of the three times she's run.
Eeewwwww, a scary write in campaign. We all know how successful those are.
Give it a rest 7:45 AM. You can huff and puff all you want but the Pied Piper you've chosen to follow is a hypocrite, and a nasty, angry hag whose oodles of issues go far beyond not being able to muster the support of district voters, even with your "help." Have a nice day.
Gee, the last time I checked this thread, there were no new posts then suddenly out of nowhere a string of posts that really have little to do with the topic of the thread.
I do find it interesting that there is one poster who keeps posting I should take the high road and not allow posts about Monte as it undermines my credibility... yet this same poster NEVER posts the same on Monte's blog. She allows all kinds of ridiculous and inaccurate posts about me, including the unsubstantiated comment: "She is a self describle "tax and spend board member" so the ? is, was she holding herself accountable to spending tax $ wisely?"
What exactly is a "tax and spend board member" (not to mention a self describle one?). Is this as opposed to a non-tax and spend nothing member? How exactly would one run a school district if one did not tax the publi and then spend the revenue?
I am not the least bit worried about my standing in this community. My commitment to education is well known by many in this community.
I really don't see the need to apologize for people who post on this blog commenting on Ms. Monte. She has put herself out there in a number of ways, and naturally that will lead to criticism, such is the nature of politics.
Once I finish up a couple of large work projects I will have a few new posts. Maybe people will be more inclined to post to the new topics...
ever said I was a Monte supporter so why would I post anything there? I can see where your minds are and will always be.
New Topics? You mean something NOT about Monte? That'll be the day.
As for Monte putting herself out there, so did you Mrs. Thiel. So why are you complaining about someone's opinion of you? Do as I say, not as I do, that's how you run.
Nothing hypocritical about Thiel. She merely points out hypocracies and inconsistencies with the Monte Mantra. Monte and her supporters can't handle that and scream foul. Then they start in with personal attacks. They sure don't like it when the same is done to them. Crybabies through and through.
Post a Comment