At the school board meeting tonight, Mr. Becker pulled a number of executive session minutes stating that they were either incomplete, not accurate or violated the open meetings law. He further stated that the meetings were supposed to be started in open session with a reading of the statute that takes them to closed session. Mr. McDermott and Mrs. Bowen said that did in fact occur.
The fact is, if things happened as Mr. Becker explained he had a duty AT THE TIME to question why they were not starting in open session and reading the appropriate statutes, not participate in what HE is calling an illegal meeting and then waiting a few weeks to complain about it. If what he says is true he is JUST as "guilty" as the rest of the board for participating in what he knew was an illegal meeting.
This seems to me as Mr. Becker once again grandstanding, trying to cause problems and get a little attention. He wanted to play "gotcha" but he can't really do that successfully since he is right in the middle of it by staying for the meeting and saying nothing. His objection should have been made at the beginning of the meeting and he is the only one who stated that he knowingly attended such a meeting, since no one else recalled the meeting not being started in open session.
If his recollection is correct (and I doubt it since not a single board member agreed with him) he really shouldn't try and play gotcha -- he should state at the time there is a procedural problem and ask that the meeting be started in open session and the appropriate statue be read, not just go along with what he knows is wrong so he can try and play the hero later. He just ends up with egg on his face by acknowledging that he knowingly broke the law. Not good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Excellent points!! Like you said, this is Dan Becker playing gotcha politics. Sad thing is, he doesn't know how to play the game very well and continues to look foolish, as do the people who continue to cheer him on and applaud such grandstanding behavior. The only thing that surprises me about this is that he didn't run to the authorities or an attorney before bringing it up at last night's meeting, or even instead of. That's more his style.
Why not stop with the finger pointing, the blame games and establish once and for all what is and is not legal in executive session and open meeting laws?
This ever continuing drama and competition between several of the local blogs is out of hand. It does NOTHING to advance working relationships or make the school board more effective.
Keep personal comments and dislikes out of the process. Let's all be adults, learn and move on.
As usual you slant it against Becker. I think Mrs. Monte gives a much better account and detail of what took place. She really put into perspective what we saw last night.
BTW, Becker never said that he didn't break the law. He also never tried to deny the events as they took place. He simply stated that the minutes did not reflect what actually happened and he would not vote in favor of them. The rest of the board got defensive and hostile.
And one more thing Teresa, who said that Becker KNOWINGLY broke the law? Don't you think that this research could have taken place after the fact? Why does everything have to have a negative motive? Why is it so awful to set the record straight?
If so many things didn't happen behind closed doors, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.
If it's something Becker "discovered" after the fact, why didn't he say so at the meeting. There's ways of approaching things without making it always look like you're out to get someone. But the gotcha card is the one Becker always likes to play.
For someone to suggest that Dan Becker did not know a closed session meeting must convene in open meeting is ridiculous. He's been in public office long enough to know better and he associates with plenty of people who are familiar with the laws. He's just whining again about things to gain attention. This man is so gluttenous when it comes to media attention it's beyond funny. The meetings started in open session. All one needs to do is go back and look at the tapes of the open session meetings. Problem solved. The only thing he's right about is the minutes from the open and closed sessions should reflect the meeting began in open session. But I agree he went about it the wrong way, as usual.
Anon. 7:26am
Any board member in their second term on the board well knows that ALL meetings begin in open session and then go to closed session. Mr. Becker is just grandstanding and trying to cause trouble. Anyone watching the school board meetings lately can see that this board gets along well except for Becker who is odd man out every time. There would be no tension at all were he not on the board. He seems to enjoy stirring up trouble but this time he is in the middle of it!
I'm very pleased that at the meeting last night Mr. Traska made it clear that the entire board was aware of and had taken steps to deal with the conflict of interest from the very beginning with Mr. Gundlach. I did not hear any board member beside Becker of course dispute Mr. Traska's comments -- what does that tell you about Mr. Becker? Maybe Mr. Becker's view of what goes on is skewed from reality, that maybe his quote in the Northwestern stating that no other board member was concerned about the conflict was a lie? I do not trust what he says after several occasions where his view differs drastically from EVERYONE else. I just see no evidence that he is working for what is best for our district. He just seems to enjoy being the fly in the ointment. I can't understand why some insist that his word is gospel when 5 others disagree with him? Seems the odds are against him.
It makes sense that the conflict of interest issue was discussed in greater depth AFTER Becker left the meeting. That is too bad, so sad for him and makes it even more egregious that he would make the comments that he has to the media about it not being discussed and so forth. The board has no obligation to chase after him to tell him what happened had a meeting he had to leave from. 'Dems 'da breaks (or as another site would say "brakes.").
I stumble on your site occasionally and although I have no children in Oshkosh schools right now, I find the level of passion, intrigue, and chatter rarely has any relationship to how the kids are doing. Do you collect, evaluate, or even review documents like SAT scores in Oshkosh and comparable communities? If not, why not? Are you the kids advocate or your own?
What a comedian you are! Your stumbling is one of the best explanations for you we've seen in some time. But you didn't just stumble here and you're not kidding anyone with that phony baloney. Why not ask Mr. Becker who he's an adovocate for? What has he done lately for the kids? Nothing. He's too busy making phone calls and grabbing headlines wherever he can. That's AFTER he's spent time saying one thing, then changing his mind and saying something else.
P.S. I guess the chatter is much like that michelle monte site where much of the postings are meaningless and worse than a coffee klatch (not sure if that's spelled right, but at least we can recognize possible errors here, unlike the aforementioned site.).
This as most all things, when cut to the bottom line is all about money.
The teachers and other public sector union workers want more money (higher wages and better benefits)
The taxpayers also want more money (don't want to pay more taxes for public sector labor)
Who will win?
Wow, Stew Rieckman is actually right. You have no room for any discussion, only vicious chatter and attacks. Has it worked pretty well so far for the kids? Good luck with that!
Wow, Stew Rieckman is actually right. I've checked out the michelle monte blog and see what you mean. It has no room for any discussion, only vicious chatter and attacks, gossip and innuendo. Has it worked for her any of the 3 times she's run? Nope, never has, never will. Not only is Stew right. So have been the voters.
michelle monte is giving praise to patrick k., saying he's trying to understand the process. Bullcrap! He served on the board so if he doesn't understand the process it's best he's no longer there and we should help make sure he stays off in the future. His intent is what it's always been and that is to bully and intimidate people. That must be why she likes him so much. Birds of a feather, you know.
The Montes enjoy this kind of drivel since they keep approving the posts.
Yup, the Montes are your life. Thank God, or you would have to actually deal with the needs of the children. You never address them here. They may be lucky, at least you don't discuss them with contempt?
No it actually isn't on topic at all, 7:42. Only you would stretch that far to make it seem on topic. The topic is Dan Becker and the last meeting. Your post has nothing at all to do with that and even in your wildest imagination could not come close. You're a union hater on a one "man" mission who's fighting a lost cause, NO ONE CARES!!
As for you 9:56 when the Montes stop their attacks on other people, they may find the attacks on them stop too. But as long as they keep posting things like they do they will be treated accordingly. Apparently you don't think the Golden Rule should apply to them, eh? Only a Monte supporter would think that.
I think there are those on the BOE that are pro teachers unions and others that are pro taxpayers. I for one want our teachers to be compensated at a reasonable level, but not to the extent of excess. I think in general, unions attempt lean to the excess and taxpayers do have to pay the price. I'd agree to a referendum that would improve our building structures, but I would not support it if any parts directly increased any employee compensation.
This thread is NOT about unions, union bashing, salaries or benefits. For those who can't read or understand the original post, maybe you should spend less time blogging about the aforementioned B.S. and more time on your reading and comprehension skills.
The Montes have no idea how to stop attacking other people. It's their nature, kind of like having different children with different fathers and running around with a married man. They have a name for that don't they? I believe it starts with an "s".
Post a Comment