A potluck is a gathering of people where each person or group of people contributes a dish of food prepared by the person or the group of people, to be shared among the group.
haha there seems to be alot of that dont tell but Ill tell you anyway and dont share but Ill share anyway cause thats just what I do cause I can get away with it cause hobody stands up to me EVER
That makes sense to me. Ivan really wouldn't have had the opportunity to do it, whatever "it" is, in the School Board vacancy interviews. The 5 canned questions asked of each candidate weren't geared towards something like that, whatever "that" is.
He certainly could take his 3 minutes at public board meetings to try to communicate something. However, somehow it's now evolved to where you can't really even mention a board member's name in your public remarks, lest it be seen as a personal attack by someone, somewhere. Mentioning an Administrator's name is just about equally dicey.
Depending on who you are, and who's calling the shots, and their moods, timing, personalities, politics, biorhythms, prevailing impartiality coefficients, the star and planet alignments, and other intangible factors, you could get thrown out of the building. Of course, you also need to factor in the level of truth, distortion, and/or bat crap craziness of what the speaker is saying and/or how the offended person(s) is interpreting, distorting, and/or bat crap crazily reacting to it.
Somebody or somebodies definitely seems to have bugs up their butts about Ivan. Its underpinnings are a mystery to me, though. Please clue me in.
Does he lie a lot? Is he a major hypocrite? Is he nasty and vindictive as all get out? Is he frequently wrong, hard headed, misguided, massively biased, and partisan on many issues?
Those things I can understand, because I see that all the time from several people. Some I don't see so much anymore, especially since November 2011.
If it's because Ivan has a bad lifetime record against Bristol, I don't give a rat's butt. If he's observed the people I've observed and come, on his own, to dislike them and what they stand for too, and these folks dislike him too as they dislike me, well, then Amen, Brother! If he puts his kid in to pitch - well, welcome to every Little League team I ever played on. His detractors engage in enough cronyism (with paying postions) to have little or no leverage there.
So, in conclusion, I don't know Ivan well, but he seems pretty all right to me. Lay it on me why he's not.
If you're familiar with Worob, Mihok, Hellmann etc and don't see that that aptly applies to them in spades, then I won't be basing any decisions about Ivan on your word.
How many houses has he lost because he couldn't stop indiscriminately stuffing his big flapping pyranha yapper with fish??? At least Ivan swims with and not against the school.
I heard Ivan figuratively grills pyranha, and bottom feeder fish that hang around with pyranha, that spend most of their time lying in the mud. If you know what I mean. Wink wink nudge nudge.
You're joking, right? You can't read the thousands of comments throughout this entire blog and the 2 other blogs before it, or see him and his staunch cohorts in action at School Board meetings, and get a sense of how or why he might engender negative feelings in people, or why people might not support him? I find that stunning.
Anonymous, this post of yours from a few minutes ago about how cowardly everybody is might work better on this thread than the one from April 25, 2012, where you just put it.
Anonymous said... You people should really get a life. You ultra liberal cowards are mean spirited and sick in your heads. Three cheers to that mutt, hog for dragging Ed into her political attack. And how bout Jon, you couldn't have sweated anymore than that last meeting, for what? Your own sold you out. Or maybe not, the winner was only twice as smart and twice the speaker that you are. Wow, Jon, you are not all that, that you thought you were. Another loss Jon, hey look at the bright side, you have a great legacy as the Anonymous blogger. wOW
Anonymous (Steve?), please take the time to read and re-read the comments on the 4/25/12 thread that preceded yours (repeated below for convenience). You were already there for whatever reason. Don't just look at them. Soak them in. They offer strong clues about why people might not support Steve Worob or Marlys Mihok.
Jon said... Yet again, Steve Worob vehemently defended Marlys Mihok by trying to get only non-detailed, sanitized versions of Mihok's personally directed public comments into the board meeting minutes.
He should know that the devil's in the details. They were used against him by former Superintentent John Gould, and he lost a $120,000 judgment because of it. He can self-publish all the mediocre books he wants to about it, but he earned it fair and square. Loose lips sink ships - and houses.
Jack Buckman wanted Mihok to have the opportunity to review the detailed version of her comments in the board minutes. When the hell did anyone else from the public ever get the chance to review and edit their comments before they ended up in the minutes? Thursday, April 26, 2012
Anonymous said... If you have personal integrity and could truly stand behind your comments you would welcome the more detsils. Its when you know they can get you into trouble that you want to bury them. Sadly, Mihok and Worob don't measure up in this regard. Thursday, April 26, 2012
Anonymous said... They've been scaring the hell out of people for years with their lies and distortions. They've had way too much power and influence given the weakness of their arguments and the shoddiness of their behavior. Thursday, April 26, 2012
Anonymous said... their days of scare tactics are way over. there is a new regime in town and its taking over step by step. beware burgerbots Friday, April 27, 2012
Steve Worob is a demented man I know that post about Gail is his doing I stood between him and her after the July meeting,as he tried to scared her with his crazy eyes and foul mouth such a tough guy when it comes to women Steve but why did you walk away when I stood up to you because you have no BALLS and your crazy act don't scare me I've kicked the crap out of men crazier then you
Steve twisted Gayle's comments into her saying he's responsible for Ed Frankenfield's death.
That's not really what she said.
Forget about Ed's health before, during, or after that meeting. About this there is no doubt: public speaker Steve shouted down board member Ed with SHAME ON YOU's and finger pointing.
And he lost a $120,000 slander per se lawsuit over his multi-year personal attack crusade against former Superintendent John Gould.
Yet he has the unmitigated gall to lecture about personal attacks and respect. Sorry, that dog don't hunt.
I think it was part of the now gone comments on the morrisville's future blog. It may have been in the comments on the online BCCT too. I'm not certain, but I think it was in the fall 2009 timeframe. I wish I could find it and post it here. It was an anonymous commenter, that seemed like it couldn't be anyone but Steve, explaining his theory about why Ed Frankenfield died. It was truly twisted and disgusting. Something about being overcome with emotion due to the manipulations of Sandy Gibson and blah blah blah. Can anyone out there find and post it?
Steve and Marlys are meddling sickos. Aren't you tired of this community being held hostage by meddling sickos? I'd like to see the 3 minute lid lifted just for them. The more they talk, the more people can see what sickos they truly are. Help us by getting help for yourselves!!!!!
Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Court has struck down a major component of the state’s new gas drilling law.
“It’s a huge, huge victory,” said Nockamixon attorney Jordan Yeager.
On Thursday, the panel of judges ruled that it was unconstitutional for state lawmakers to override local zoning control.
In municipalities across Pennsylvania, Act 13 – the state’s gas drilling law – had stripped township governments of the right to determine where in their community natural gas wells should be drilled.
“Act 13 was a big overreach by the state legislature and the governor, and we’re very pleased that the court had agreed that they went too far, and declared the law unconstitutional,” said Yeager.
In March, Nockamixon, Yardley and the Delaware Riverkeeper Network teamed up with several Western Pennsylvania communities to file a lawsuit against Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale gas drilling law, claiming it strips away constitutional rights of citizens and local municipalities.
Lawmakers had argued that the law strengthens environmental regulations and provided consistent regulations for drilling companies and landowners who want to sell their mineral rights.
The two sides argued their case before the Commonwealth Court in June. Because of the nature of the case, the state legislature has the right to automatically appeal to Pennsylvania
Central Bucks School board meeting ends in shouting match
Christina Kristofic Staff Writer July 26, 2012
Conflict between the Central Bucks school board and community group Central Bucks Engage had been simmering for six months before it finally boiled over this week.
School board members shouted down Central Bucks Engage members, saying they had grown tired of listening to the citizens group call them names and and “repeat untruths” about the middle school schedule changes the board approved in February. Board members said it was their turn to speak.
“Do you know what it’s like to sit here six months in a row and hear what we’ve heard, see what you’ve posted (online)?” school board member Steve Corr asked.
“Our children see what you write about us,” school board member John Gamble said.
“Not once did we push back. Not once were we nasty.”
School board members said they have tried to speak — to address comments and answer questions from CB Engage members — many times over the past six months. Each time, CB Engage members booed them, shouted them down and called them liars.
Gamble said he wanted to speak at a meeting at Tohickon Middle School in March, but decided not to after he watched the crowd “tear apart” school board member Jerel Wohl. He said, “It got so visceral, what was the point?”
School board vice president Geri McMullin called it “bullying.”
She and other board members read a list of names community members have called them over the months — “liars,” “fascists,” “fecal matter.”
“I find it troubling that a handful of parents would spend so much time and money attacking the leadership of the school district,” McMullin said. “Don’t you realize when you attack the leadership, you attack the whole school district?”
McMullin said the board decided to finally break its silence because of the publication in the newspaper of the results of a survey conducted by CB Engage member Doug Keith.
The survey had 509 responses. Many of the respondents said they think Central Bucks is an excellent school district, but they have little confidence in the administration and the direction the school district is going.
The conflict began Tuesday night when school board member Tyler Tomlinson questioned Keith, a Buckingham-based market researcher, about how he conducted the survey. Tomlinson asked Keith how he created the survey, who monitored the survey results, why he extended the deadline for responding to the survey, how he advertised the survey and to whom Keith sent e-mails and fliers.
Keith hesitated to answer the questions. He said he thought the “line of questioning (was) going down the wrong path.”
“This isn’t a dialogue anymore,” Keith said. “I already told you, if you don’t like the survey, throw it in the trash and do your own.”
“These are simple questions,” Tomlinson said, and continued to question Keith about the survey.
But Keith didn’t want to answer any more questions. He shouted to the school board that he was “not going to stand up here and be interrogated,” and stormed out of the room. Several CB Engage members followed him.
A few Central Bucks Engage members stayed and sat in silence as they took the brunt of the school board’s anger.
School board members apologized to some of them, saying they knew specific individuals who remained were not responsible and their comments really were directed at Keith and leaders of CB Engage. But they continued to speak. Corr said he thought Keith’s survey was “useless.” Corr said people could have taken the survey multiple times; he took it twice and Tomlinson took it several times. Tomlinson said he believed Keith told only members of CB Engage about the survey. “He never sent me an e-mail asking me to take the survey.” Tomlinson said. “He sent an e-mail to his Engage friends.” Tomlinson criticized the newspaper for publicizing the survey. The Intelligencer publicized the survey through brief articles in the newspaper and on its website. The newspaper agreed to publicize the survey after editors reviewed its questions and were satisfied that there was opportunity for a full range of responses to the questions. McMullin said she thought the purpose of survey was to “continue to divide the community.” McMullin asked of Keith, “What incentive have you provided that would make us want to work with you?” School board members said they wanted to move on from the controversy over the middle school schedule changes. “In (my) 11 years on this board, we have been through some very contentious things — major redistricting, a high school that opened six months late. Every single time, we have had open dialogue,” school board president Paul Faulkner said. He said he wanted to continue to have open dialogue. “Can we please agree to disagree with civility?” Gamble asked. “Can we please move on with this new superintendent?” McMullin said the board and the community need to “focus on being supportive, positive and proactive.” “We’re doing this for the right reasons,” Faulkner said. “We’re doing this because this is in our hearts... We do want to hear from everyone. We don’t know everything. You can help us to understand things we don’t understand.”
BRISTOL TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS2 Bristol Township schools among the 'lowest-achieving' 15 percent Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2012 3:30 pm | Updated: 7:52 pm, Thu Jul 26, 2012.
By DANNY ADLER Staff writer | 8 comments
Posted on July 26, 2012
by Daniel Adler
Two Bristol Township elementary schools are listed among the lowest-achieving 15 percent of elementary schools in the state, according to a list published this week by the Pennsylvania Department of Education.
Those schools — the only two in Bucks County on the list — are Clara Barton and Lafayette elementary schools. They were named in a list of low-achieving schools in which students living within their boundaries might be eligible for scholarship money through the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit Program.
Bristol Township Superintendent Samuel Lee gave the following statement to the newspaper: "While we are disappointed to have two of our schools on the (Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit) list, we are confident that the perpetual processes employed here in the Bristol Township School District, the hard work of our staff and students and support of our families will continue to render academic improvement and successes."
The list, with 414 school buildings in 74 districts statewide, is comprised of the lowest-achieving 15 percent of elementary schools and the lowest-achieving 15 percent of secondary schools, based on combined math and reading PSSA scores from the 2010-11 school year.
The tests are used to determine whether students are learning at grade level. Students who score in the proficient or advanced ranges are considered proficient and learning at or above grade level.
In terms of the Barton students in third through sixth-grade, 73.7 percent of them demonstrated on the mathematics exam that they were learning at grade level. On the reading tests, 55.2 percent of the Barton students demonstrated proficiency.
Lafayette’s scores on the PSSA math test show that 69.3 percent of students in third through sixth grades were learning at grade level and 52.4 of the students scored either proficient or advanced on the PSSA reading test.
Of the 414 schools listed, 158 are in Philadelphia, 28 are in Delaware County and four are in Montgomery County. No schools in Chester County made the list.
Gov. Tom Corbett signed the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit Program into law earlier this month. The program gives low-and moderate-income students in these schools the option to obtain scholarships to attend another participating public or nonpublic school.
"The scholarship program has the potential to impact more than 242,000 students," the state Department of Education said in a news release Wednesday.
Students who live within the boundaries of these schools are eligible for the funding if the household annual income is no greater than $60,000, plus $12,000 for each dependent member of the household.
For 2012-13, the maximum scholarship award available for non-special education students in $8,500; the maximum for a special education student is $15,000.
Businesses in the state that donate to opportunity scholarship organizations are eligible for tax credits.
Lafayette School is located on Fayette Drive in the residential area behind Lower Bucks Hospital; Clara Barton is in the Blue Ridge section of Levittown.
For the benefit of the CB group and as a reminder to all of Morrisville
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Christina Kristofic Staff Writer Posted on July 29, 2012 Central Bucks school board members recently said there is no merit to citizen allegations that the board had violated the state’s open meetings law. But Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler said that interpretation of his office’s conclusion is “a little bit out of whack.” Heckler said he did not see any evidence that the board had made decisions behind closed doors or done anything else with the intent of violating the Sunshine Law, but “there were definitely a couple of technical violations.” “The board did some things that were counterproductive — certainly some things that reflected the administrators’ view as much as the school board’s of ‘Hey, come here. We’re not inviting you to participate in the discussion. The longer you yak, the longer this is gonna go. So sit back.’ I don’t blame the citizens for taking umbrage,” Heckler said. “The school board is there to serve the public. They need to be as open as they possibly can. They need to not sit on the inside thumbing their noses at people on the outside.” Heckler said some of the “technical violations” of the Sunshine Law included moving all public comment to the end of school board meetings, providing vague agendas, going into executive session without providing details about the purpose of the executive session, not recording meetings and producing “highly deficient” minutes of the meetings. “The minutes were so condensed as to be way beyond the Readers’ Digest version. They were the as-viewed-from-outer-space version of events,” Heckler said. Heckler said none of the “technical violations” were anything he would see fit to prosecute. A group of community members, many of whom are members of Central Bucks Engage, contacted Heckler’s office with complaints about these issues early in April — around the same time Heckler announced Perkasie had violated the Sunshine Law and put local governing bodies on notice that his office would not tolerate Sunshine Law violations. They believed the school board had violated the Sunshine Law by deciding after a Feb. 27 meeting to reincorporate A/B days into the middle school schedule changes. Heckler said he had Larry King, an investigator with Heckler’s office who is a former newspaper reporter, meet with the community members and investigate the matter. King found no evidence that there was a secret meeting about the A/B days. “There was no doubt a certain amount of talking on the phone and ‘holy-cowing’ back and forth,” Heckler said. Central Bucks solicitor Jeff Garton said individual board members had asked Superintendent N. Robert Laws if it would be possible to reincorporate A/B days into the revised middle school schedule or come up with some other compromise. “The superintendent and other administrators determined that you could do an A/B schedule. There was no meeting of the board to deliberate on that issue,” Garton said. Garton said he did not believe the board needed to vote on one schedule period per day being an A or B day. “I don’t think there’s anything that’s been done by the district or the board of school directors that’s not proper with regard to the changes in the middle school schedule,” Garton said. King found the other “technical violations” during the course of his investigation, Heckler said. Heckler met with Garton and school board president Paul Faulkner in May. By that time, Heckler said, the board already had addressed some of the “technical violations.” Garton said he already had advised the board that it could not hold all public comment until the end of meetings and the board changed its agenda to allow public comment on agenda items at the beginning of meetings.
The school board also started posting complete agenda packets — agendas with supporting information — at the end of April. Heckler advised the board to record meetings again and to have its secretary prepare more detailed minutes. The board took action on that advice last week. Heckler said he got the sense that Central Bucks Engage members had complained to his office about the school board as another way of disagreeing with the board’s policy, as if they were saying, “If we don’t get anywhere with the policy, we’re going to hit you over the head with this.” Heckler said he was “not in love with” that approach. “The real issue here that divides the folks ought to be one of policy — periods, schedules,” Heckler said. “That’s the ground on which they should be engaging.”
48 comments:
A potluck is a gathering of people where each person or group of people contributes a dish of food prepared by the person or the group of people, to be shared among the group.
maybe thats what worob was having last night
Everyone showed up with nothing but sour grapes and a huge appetite for vengeance.
Glad I missed it!!
I know nothing about the new guy, but I hope he turns out to be a positive addition.
Where was Ivan Colon ??? Did he change his mind, he was the peoples choice.
Don't jump to conclusions. Speak for yourself, not 'the people'. How did you find out he applied and didn't show?
With all the Press in his resignation letter to the Trentonian it was obvious he had applied for the seat. He said so himself in the article.
The article said he was running for school board. That implies election not appointment. Care to
try again??
“I’m going to run for the school board,” said Colon. “I’m going to tell the truth; I’m going to let the truth come out.”
Don't tell me somebody told you something they weren't supposed to tell you???
haha there seems to be alot of that dont tell but Ill tell you anyway and dont share but Ill share anyway cause thats just what I do cause I can get away with it cause hobody stands up to me EVER
A bit snarky in here all of a sudden
Anonymous said...
A bit snarky in here all of a sudden
"A bit"? "All of a sudden"?
Clearly you are incapable of reading previous post comments.
Yes but like a Kung Fu/Grasshopper, seek and find kernels of wisdom in here.
To the snarky you must turn. Wisdom in unusual places is found.
Yes; Colon said run but this was the oppurtunity to let the truth out that he spoke of. Two years is to long to wait to hear the truth.
I agree; whoever you are, wouldn't it make sense for you to take it up with Ivan?
That makes sense to me. Ivan really wouldn't have had the opportunity to do it, whatever "it" is, in the School Board vacancy interviews. The 5 canned questions asked of each candidate weren't geared towards something like that, whatever "that" is.
He certainly could take his 3 minutes at public board meetings to try to communicate something. However, somehow it's now evolved to where you can't really even mention a board member's name in your public remarks, lest it be seen as a personal attack by someone, somewhere. Mentioning an Administrator's name is just about equally dicey.
Depending on who you are, and who's calling the shots, and their moods, timing, personalities, politics, biorhythms, prevailing impartiality coefficients, the star and planet alignments, and other intangible factors, you could get thrown out of the building. Of course, you also need to factor in the level of truth, distortion, and/or bat crap craziness of what the speaker is saying and/or how the offended person(s) is interpreting, distorting, and/or bat crap crazily reacting to it.
Good luck to all!
Man, the guy is barely retired, and folks are already lining up to snipe at him!
Somebody or somebodies definitely seems to have bugs up their butts about Ivan. Its underpinnings are a mystery to me, though. Please clue me in.
Does he lie a lot? Is he a major hypocrite? Is he nasty and vindictive as all get out? Is he frequently wrong, hard headed, misguided, massively biased, and partisan on many issues?
Those things I can understand, because I see that all the time from several people. Some I don't see so much anymore, especially since November 2011.
If it's because Ivan has a bad lifetime record against Bristol, I don't give a rat's butt. If he's observed the people I've observed and come, on his own, to dislike them and what they stand for too, and these folks dislike him too as they dislike me, well, then Amen, Brother! If he puts his kid in to pitch - well, welcome to every Little League team I ever played on. His detractors engage in enough cronyism (with paying postions) to have little or no leverage there.
So, in conclusion, I don't know Ivan well, but he seems pretty all right to me. Lay it on me why he's not.
Ivan is a Big Fish in a small pond. So only the fish he swims with don't get eaten but the others do.
If you're familiar with Worob, Mihok, Hellmann etc and don't see that that aptly applies to them in spades, then I won't be basing any decisions about Ivan on your word.
How many houses has he lost because he couldn't stop indiscriminately stuffing his big flapping pyranha yapper with fish??? At least Ivan swims with and not against the school.
I heard Ivan figuratively grills pyranha, and bottom feeder fish that hang around with pyranha, that spend most of their time lying in the mud. If you know what I mean. Wink wink nudge nudge.
The metaphors are flying like a flying fish!
Why do you all dislike Mr. Worob so much? He was a wonderful council man and his late wife was a saint who dedicated her life to Morrisville.
He's an angry one dimensional hypocrite attack dog bully for starters.
You're joking, right? You can't read the thousands of comments throughout this entire blog and the 2 other blogs before it, or see him and his staunch cohorts in action at School Board meetings, and get a sense of how or why he might engender negative feelings in people, or why people might not support him? I find that stunning.
Anonymous, this post of yours from a few minutes ago about how cowardly everybody is might work better on this thread than the one from April 25, 2012, where you just put it.
Anonymous said...
You people should really get a life. You ultra liberal cowards are mean spirited and sick in your heads. Three cheers to that mutt, hog for dragging Ed into her political attack. And how bout Jon, you couldn't have sweated anymore than that last meeting, for what? Your own sold you out. Or maybe not, the winner was only twice as smart and twice the speaker that you are. Wow, Jon, you are not all that, that you thought you were. Another loss Jon, hey look at the bright side, you have a great legacy as the Anonymous blogger. wOW
Aside from all the negative behavior problems, he hasn't made very good decisions while in his various public office positions either.
Anonymous (Steve?), please take the time to read and re-read the comments on the 4/25/12 thread that preceded yours (repeated below for convenience). You were already there for whatever reason. Don't just look at them. Soak them in. They offer strong clues about why people might not support Steve Worob or Marlys Mihok.
Jon said...
Yet again, Steve Worob vehemently defended Marlys Mihok by trying to get only non-detailed, sanitized versions of Mihok's personally directed public comments into the board meeting minutes.
He should know that the devil's in the details. They were used against him by former Superintentent John Gould, and he lost a $120,000 judgment because of it. He can self-publish all the mediocre books he wants to about it, but he earned it fair and square. Loose lips sink ships - and houses.
Jack Buckman wanted Mihok to have the opportunity to review the detailed version of her comments in the board minutes. When the hell did anyone else from the public ever get the chance to review and edit their comments before they ended up in the minutes?
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Anonymous said...
If you have personal integrity and could truly stand behind your comments you would welcome the more detsils. Its when you know they can get you into trouble that you want to bury them. Sadly, Mihok and Worob don't measure up in this regard.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Anonymous said...
They've been scaring the hell out of people for years with their lies and distortions. They've had way too much power and influence given the weakness of their arguments and the shoddiness of their behavior.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Anonymous said...
their days of scare tactics are way over. there is a new regime in town and its taking over step by step. beware burgerbots
Friday, April 27, 2012
You called Gayle Haug a mutt? And purposely misspelled her name as "hog"?
43 years ago we walked on the moon. Steve can't even begin to crawl out of the gutter.
Steve Worob is a demented man I know that post about Gail is his doing I stood between him and her after the July meeting,as he tried to scared her with his crazy eyes and foul mouth such a tough guy when it comes to women Steve but why did you walk away when I stood up to you because you have no BALLS and your crazy act don't scare me I've kicked the crap out of men crazier then you
Steve twisted Gayle's comments into her saying he's responsible for Ed Frankenfield's death.
That's not really what she said.
Forget about Ed's health before, during, or after that meeting. About this there is no doubt: public speaker Steve shouted down board member Ed with SHAME ON YOU's and finger pointing.
And he lost a $120,000 slander per se lawsuit over his multi-year personal attack crusade against former Superintendent John Gould.
Yet he has the unmitigated gall to lecture about personal attacks and respect. Sorry, that dog don't hunt.
I think it was part of the now gone comments on the morrisville's future blog. It may have been in the comments on the online BCCT too. I'm not certain, but I think it was in the fall 2009 timeframe. I wish I could find it and post it here. It was an anonymous commenter, that seemed like it couldn't be anyone but Steve, explaining his theory about why Ed Frankenfield died. It was truly twisted and disgusting. Something about being overcome with emotion due to the manipulations of Sandy Gibson and blah blah blah. Can anyone out there find and post it?
Steve and Marlys are meddling sickos. Aren't you tired of this community being held hostage by meddling sickos? I'd like to see the 3 minute lid lifted just for them. The more they talk, the more people can see what sickos they truly are. Help us by getting help for yourselves!!!!!
Jon, Dan Dingle is twice as smart and twice the speaker you are.
So it is only fitting that Stevie's only votes went to -- wait for it --
Al Radosti.
Loyalty and cronyism above all else.
Some day I will recover from this. "This" being my aching facial muscles from smiling after last Wednesday's board meeting.
Court strikes down gas drilling law
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:06 pm
By Amanda Cregan Staff Writer | 1 comment
Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Court has struck down a major component of the state’s new gas drilling law.
“It’s a huge, huge victory,” said Nockamixon attorney Jordan Yeager.
On Thursday, the panel of judges ruled that it was unconstitutional for state lawmakers to override local zoning control.
In municipalities across Pennsylvania, Act 13 – the state’s gas drilling law – had stripped township governments of the right to determine where in their community natural gas wells should be drilled.
“Act 13 was a big overreach by the state legislature and the governor, and we’re very pleased that the court had agreed that they went too far, and declared the law unconstitutional,” said Yeager.
In March, Nockamixon, Yardley and the Delaware Riverkeeper Network teamed up with several Western Pennsylvania communities to file a lawsuit against Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale gas drilling law, claiming it strips away constitutional rights of citizens and local municipalities.
Lawmakers had argued that the law strengthens environmental regulations and provided consistent regulations for drilling companies and landowners who want to sell their mineral rights.
The two sides argued their case before the Commonwealth Court in June. Because of the nature of the case, the state legislature has the right to automatically appeal to Pennsylvania
Central Bucks School board meeting ends in shouting match
Christina Kristofic Staff Writer July 26, 2012
Conflict between the Central Bucks school board and community group Central Bucks Engage had been simmering for six months before it finally boiled over this week.
School board members shouted down Central Bucks Engage members, saying they had grown tired of listening to the citizens group call them names and and “repeat untruths” about the middle school schedule changes the board approved in February. Board members said it was their turn to speak.
“Do you know what it’s like to sit here six months in a row and hear what we’ve heard, see what you’ve posted (online)?” school board member Steve Corr asked.
“Our children see what you write about us,” school board member John Gamble said.
“Not once did we push back. Not once were we nasty.”
School board members said they have tried to speak — to address comments and answer questions from CB Engage members — many times over the past six months. Each time, CB Engage members booed them, shouted them down and called them liars.
Gamble said he wanted to speak at a meeting at Tohickon Middle School in March, but decided not to after he watched the crowd “tear apart” school board member Jerel Wohl. He said, “It got so visceral, what was the point?”
School board vice president Geri McMullin called it “bullying.”
She and other board members read a list of names community members have called them over the months — “liars,” “fascists,” “fecal matter.”
“I find it troubling that a handful of parents would spend so much time and money attacking the leadership of the school district,” McMullin said. “Don’t you realize when you attack the leadership, you attack the whole school district?”
McMullin said the board decided to finally break its silence because of the publication in the newspaper of the results of a survey conducted by CB Engage member Doug Keith.
The survey had 509 responses. Many of the respondents said they think Central Bucks is an excellent school district, but they have little confidence in the administration and the direction the school district is going.
The conflict began Tuesday night when school board member Tyler Tomlinson questioned Keith, a Buckingham-based market researcher, about how he conducted the survey. Tomlinson asked Keith how he created the survey, who monitored the survey results, why he extended the deadline for responding to the survey, how he advertised the survey and to whom Keith sent e-mails and fliers.
Keith hesitated to answer the questions. He said he thought the “line of questioning (was) going down the wrong path.”
“This isn’t a dialogue anymore,” Keith said. “I already told you, if you don’t like the survey, throw it in the trash and do your own.”
“These are simple questions,” Tomlinson said, and continued to question Keith about the survey.
But Keith didn’t want to answer any more questions. He shouted to the school board that he was “not going to stand up here and be interrogated,” and stormed out of the room. Several CB Engage members followed him.
A few Central Bucks Engage members stayed and sat in silence as they took the brunt of the school board’s anger.
School board members apologized to some of them, saying they knew specific individuals who remained were not responsible and their comments really were directed at Keith and leaders of CB Engage. But they continued to speak.
Corr said he thought Keith’s survey was “useless.”
Corr said people could have taken the survey multiple times; he took it twice and Tomlinson took it several times.
Tomlinson said he believed Keith told only members of CB Engage about the survey.
“He never sent me an e-mail asking me to take the survey.” Tomlinson said. “He sent an e-mail to his Engage friends.”
Tomlinson criticized the newspaper for publicizing the survey.
The Intelligencer publicized the survey through brief articles in the newspaper and on its website. The newspaper agreed to publicize the survey after editors reviewed its questions and were satisfied that there was opportunity for a full range of responses to the questions.
McMullin said she thought the purpose of survey was to “continue to divide the community.”
McMullin asked of Keith, “What incentive have you provided that would make us want to work with you?”
School board members said they wanted to move on from the controversy over the middle school schedule changes.
“In (my) 11 years on this board, we have been through some very contentious things — major redistricting, a high school that opened six months late. Every single time, we have had open dialogue,” school board president Paul Faulkner said. He said he wanted to continue to have open dialogue.
“Can we please agree to disagree with civility?” Gamble asked. “Can we please move on with this new superintendent?”
McMullin said the board and the community need to “focus on being supportive, positive and proactive.”
“We’re doing this for the right reasons,” Faulkner said. “We’re doing this because this is in our hearts... We do want to hear from everyone. We don’t know everything. You can help us to understand things we don’t understand.”
BRISTOL TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS2 Bristol Township schools among the 'lowest-achieving' 15 percent
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2012 3:30 pm | Updated: 7:52 pm, Thu Jul 26, 2012.
By DANNY ADLER Staff writer | 8 comments
Posted on July 26, 2012
by Daniel Adler
Two Bristol Township elementary schools are listed among the lowest-achieving 15 percent of elementary schools in the state, according to a list published this week by the Pennsylvania Department of Education.
Those schools — the only two in Bucks County on the list — are Clara Barton and Lafayette elementary schools. They were named in a list of low-achieving schools in which students living within their boundaries might be eligible for scholarship money through the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit Program.
Bristol Township Superintendent Samuel Lee gave the following statement to the newspaper: "While we are disappointed to have two of our schools on the (Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit) list, we are confident that the perpetual processes employed here in the Bristol Township School District, the hard work of our staff and students and support of our families will continue to render academic improvement and successes."
The list, with 414 school buildings in 74 districts statewide, is comprised of the lowest-achieving 15 percent of elementary schools and the lowest-achieving 15 percent of secondary schools, based on combined math and reading PSSA scores from the 2010-11 school year.
The tests are used to determine whether students are learning at grade level. Students who score in the proficient or advanced ranges are considered proficient and learning at or above grade level.
In terms of the Barton students in third through sixth-grade, 73.7 percent of them demonstrated on the mathematics exam that they were learning at grade level. On the reading tests, 55.2 percent of the Barton students demonstrated proficiency.
Lafayette’s scores on the PSSA math test show that 69.3 percent of students in third through sixth grades were learning at grade level and 52.4 of the students scored either proficient or advanced on the PSSA reading test.
Of the 414 schools listed, 158 are in Philadelphia, 28 are in Delaware County and four are in Montgomery County. No schools in Chester County made the list.
Gov. Tom Corbett signed the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit Program into law earlier this month. The program gives low-and moderate-income students in these schools the option to obtain scholarships to attend another participating public or nonpublic school.
"The scholarship program has the potential to impact more than 242,000 students," the state Department of Education said in a news release Wednesday.
Students who live within the boundaries of these schools are eligible for the funding if the household annual income is no greater than $60,000, plus $12,000 for each dependent member of the household.
For 2012-13, the maximum scholarship award available for non-special education students in $8,500; the maximum for a special education student is $15,000.
Businesses in the state that donate to opportunity scholarship organizations are eligible for tax credits.
Lafayette School is located on Fayette Drive in the residential area behind Lower Bucks Hospital; Clara Barton is in the Blue Ridge section of Levittown.
For the benefit of the CB group and as a reminder to all of Morrisville
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Interesting reading. Many are in use here in the Ville. Thank you for posting.
DA advised CB school board to be more open
Christina Kristofic Staff Writer
Posted on July 29, 2012
Central Bucks school board members recently said there is no merit to citizen allegations that the board had violated the state’s open meetings law. But Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler said that interpretation of his office’s conclusion is “a little bit out of whack.”
Heckler said he did not see any evidence that the board had made decisions behind closed doors or done anything else with the intent of violating the Sunshine Law, but “there were definitely a couple of technical violations.”
“The board did some things that were counterproductive — certainly some things that reflected the administrators’ view as much as the school board’s of ‘Hey, come here. We’re not inviting you to participate in the discussion. The longer you yak, the longer this is gonna go. So sit back.’ I don’t blame the citizens for taking umbrage,” Heckler said.
“The school board is there to serve the public. They need to be as open as they possibly can. They need to not sit on the inside thumbing their noses at people on the outside.”
Heckler said some of the “technical violations” of the Sunshine Law included moving all public comment to the end of school board meetings, providing vague agendas, going into executive session without providing details about the purpose of the executive session, not recording meetings and producing “highly deficient” minutes of the meetings.
“The minutes were so condensed as to be way beyond the Readers’ Digest version. They were the as-viewed-from-outer-space version of events,” Heckler said.
Heckler said none of the “technical violations” were anything he would see fit to prosecute.
A group of community members, many of whom are members of Central Bucks Engage, contacted Heckler’s office with complaints about these issues early in April — around the same time Heckler announced Perkasie had violated the Sunshine Law and put local governing bodies on notice that his office would not tolerate Sunshine Law violations. They believed the school board had violated the Sunshine Law by deciding after a Feb. 27 meeting to reincorporate A/B days into the middle school schedule changes.
Heckler said he had Larry King, an investigator with Heckler’s office who is a former newspaper reporter, meet with the community members and investigate the matter. King found no evidence that there was a secret meeting about the A/B days.
“There was no doubt a certain amount of talking on the phone and ‘holy-cowing’ back and forth,” Heckler said.
Central Bucks solicitor Jeff Garton said individual board members had asked Superintendent N. Robert Laws if it would be possible to reincorporate A/B days into the revised middle school schedule or come up with some other compromise.
“The superintendent and other administrators determined that you could do an A/B schedule. There was no meeting of the board to deliberate on that issue,” Garton said.
Garton said he did not believe the board needed to vote on one schedule period per day being an A or B day.
“I don’t think there’s anything that’s been done by the district or the board of school directors that’s not proper with regard to the changes in the middle school schedule,” Garton said.
King found the other “technical violations” during the course of his investigation, Heckler said.
Heckler met with Garton and school board president Paul Faulkner in May. By that time, Heckler said, the board already had addressed some of the “technical violations.”
Garton said he already had advised the board that it could not hold all public comment until the end of meetings and the board changed its agenda to allow public comment on agenda items at the beginning of meetings.
The school board also started posting complete agenda packets — agendas with supporting information — at the end of April.
Heckler advised the board to record meetings again and to have its secretary prepare more detailed minutes. The board took action on that advice last week.
Heckler said he got the sense that Central Bucks Engage members had complained to his office about the school board as another way of disagreeing with the board’s policy, as if they were saying, “If we don’t get anywhere with the policy, we’re going to hit you over the head with this.”
Heckler said he was “not in love with” that approach.
“The real issue here that divides the folks ought to be one of policy — periods, schedules,” Heckler said. “That’s the ground on which they should be engaging.”
Post a Comment