Responses to Audet, Corden and the BOE Propaganda
Editor's note: These letters were submitted to the Villager for publication in next Friday's edition in response to letters that appear in today's edition.
Powers: The record of the WBOE speaks for itself
In response to last week’s letters from Mr. Audet and Mr. Corden relating to the June 9th referendum on the school board matter, it appears that they would like to make this about me, which may suit their purposes of spreading misinformation to protect the empire, but they do not address the legacy of the Board which is the real matter at hand. The 38 signatures on the petition presented to the Town and the legality of the proposed ordinance and the statutes on which it is based appear to be conveniently left out of their arguments as well.
Mr. Rosendahl’s accurate and lengthy commentary that appeared on these pages last week regarding the history and actions of this board reveals just some of the issues that should be of concern to every parent and taxpayer in Woodstock. All of the topics that he covered are those that can be verified with documents and video which can be seen at www.woodstockctcoalition.org & www.woodstocktruth.com. With regard to Mr. Corden’s assertion of these websites being “attack” platforms, they pale in comparison to the website commissioned by the BOE in conjunction with their bus driver employee where dissenters are openly trashed when challenging the propaganda purveyed there under anonymous pen names, whereas the Coalition & Truth sites present irrefutable fact and data put forth by people who have done the homework and have the courage to sign their names. Visit them, learn for yourself and then decide.
So, while these gentlemen would like to point fingers at everything but the issues which should be scrutinized in the context of supporting our children’s educations and addressing the concerns of the taxpayers that foot the bill, 38 of us are in fact walking right through the front door and demanding answers to our questions which this board has refused to address for years now, while hiding behind lawyers at taxpayer expense in order to save themselves the embarrassment of the real stories coming to light.
In the end, it will be a matter of democracy in that a vote will be held on June 9th, and the people will decide despite the claims of these gentlemen to the contrary. For those of us who have taken the time to understand the depth and breadth of the issues, the decision is an easy one.
Craig R. Powers
Woodstock
______________________________________________________________________________
Richardson: 'YES' vote simply the right thing to do
I found the letters against the upcoming referendum by Mr. Audet, Mr. Corden and “The Woodstock Board of Education” interesting. The thrust in each and all seemed to be that the petition and referendum essentially reseating the BOE to shorter terms and to seven members rather than nine is somehow unfair, illegal, “unconstitutional”, “disenfranchising of the voters”, or just plain “disruptive”, and then sprinkled with personal attacks on those who would dare to suggest such a thing.
First, they might want to check the state statutes – Sec. 9-203 and 9-205 – as they will find these actions quite legal, and, further, that the expiration of the terms of sitting members is required if the referendum passes. But that is not the most interesting part of this.
What they as individuals, and this Board, seem most upset about is that the BOE will have to face the voters and defend their records. Records that include things like the 9th grade proposal, the “Breen initiative”, the constant attacks on Woodstock Academy, the misuse of taxpayers dollars, and, in one case, a statement by a sitting member in a public meeting that the BOE can do or say anything it wants in selling a budget and then once it’s passed do whatever they feel like doing with the money – pretty close to an exact quote and may even have been in defense of the BOE having overstated enrollment at Woodstock Academy only to use the monies elsewhere. Strangely enough he was right, it is perfectly legal. But as a BOF member pointed out to him at the time, it might be legal but there are moral and ethical issues as well.
If they are confident in their records and their job performance then they should have no problems with this referendum. They can simply run again.
As far as the number of members on a board or committee is concerned, the only reason to have nine is if it’s necessary to cover a large and broad constituency. That is NOT Woodstock – 8000 residents, two schools, and less than 900 kids. In any other case working boards or committees this large are simply cumbersome and in their own way. Having four year terms instead of six just might attract larger group of people interested in serving – a win-win for everyone. This BOE keeps talking about wanting more community involvement, so if more resources are needed for work by sub-committee’s they should include parents and citizens to get the needed resources.
A “YES” on the referendum on June 9th is simply the right thing to do.
Dave Richardson
North Woodstock
Dear Truth,
Both of these articles are clear, calm, and polite to a fault. I would like to remind readers, however, that sadly, before the WPS bus driver had her job, she was on the side of all the things she now attacks (she was Ernie Wetzel's campaign manager twice). So too Frank Corden who first ran as an independent for the WBOE (almost always a political grave in Woodstock), but he reinvented himself thanks to the Woodstock Republican Party and was elected six years ago to the WBOE. With an historical perspective on these two Woodstock political figures, my only conclusion after seeing them act over a ten year period is that these people became involved for the sport of politics and not from any real values or beliefs or concerns about education. And the game of inflating the number of students about to attend Woodstock Academy, and when they do not show up, spending the excess as the empire likes, was begun by past WPS superintendent Linda Galton; a Harvard grad like WBOE Chair Lindsay Paul. Interesting.
Yours fondly,
Jay Livernois
Thoiras, France
Well said: Jay , Craig and Dave ,
That is one of the biggest problems in Woodstock, corruption, disrespect for laws and statutes. Destroying town property and getting away with it! Buses, Trucks who knows what else, it's hidden and towns people are kept in the dark .
14-12a . would generate income to both the State and Town. No enforcement! Unqualified town employees. The building office is a joke too! It's time for change in Woodstock!
This is a good start.
Becki must be having a menopausal breakdown- she is ranting and raging because taxpayers want a change. They should rename the communistic blog the "rampage cafe". Going over the names of people who signed the petition and adding them to her hate list.
More propaganda to try to prove her point.
Could she be upset because she was not allowed to drive her bus at the "Eve of Destruction demo" at Thompson Speedway tonight??...God protect our children from this vindictive she devil School Bus driver..
Maggie - You seem quite angry. You've mentioned, many times, that this is the only place where your not censored – is that true? When was the last time you tried posting elsewhere and were censored? (Edited by Admin).........cafe.com has revised and their guidelines regarding when to ‘reject’ or delete a comment. Why not try posting there again so you can address your anger directly.
You must admit - your comments are quite personal and directed at persons, not policies (and may even violate THIS website's policies). I know you probably feel entitled to your anger, but personal attacks are either something you support as 'OK' or they are not - I can't tell where you stand or whether you employ a double standard? As for me, I'd like to see you direct your critical thinking toward those who continually anger you - ask them straight out to defend their positions and hammer at them with challenging questions. We will all be watching and if you're treated unfairly I will join you in protest.
I find it easy and helpful to post on BOTH sites with no worries about censorship. I am given the ‘dodge’ and the brush off on this site quite often when I challenge assumptions, assertions and conclusions using tried-and-true rhetorical methods, but at least I've not been censored.
Truly - Is this recent comment something you're proud of? Does it face the important issues and add valuable input? Or are you 'venting' a lot of pent up anger at someone you obviously do not like.
It would have been nice if Mr. Audet placed a disclaimer when he signed his letter to the editor: "This letter represents my opinion and is no way influenced by the fact that one of our family is employed by the WBOE."
Con,
I should have said, the only place I am censored is the Leavitt hate blog! You should check out the section they call "Siberia". This is not blind prejudice and false accusations but the truth. This too is another example of Communism...
“Using multiple pseudonyms…”This is done all the time by Admin on Rage cafe.
When other people voice opposing views, they are called names, persecuted, belittled. When they fire back they are the (Edited by Admin).........cafe.com.
" if you're treated unfairly I will join you in protest". Just read the back logs and you will see exactly what I am saying!
Some of you think we the people have hidden agendas, not so. We read, we attend meetings, we are experienced shoppers and we know when the BOE is squandering our money.
We see how corrupt Woodstock is becoming , it has been going on for years. Now because necessity has made us dig our heels in and say enough! You and some of the cafe supporters on the receiving end of town tax money support the BOE. We think they are tyrants. I hope we get a chance to prove it June 9TH....
Maggie,
Months ago when I saw ‘Siberia’ on (Editied by Admin)...cafe.com I immediately suggested a CHANGE in Policy for the site – and it was changed. WHEN was the last time you were ‘Censored’ and how? You have made the charge of ‘Censorship’ so many times now that I’m requesting that you please prove it.
Today (Editied by Admin)...cafe.com will have NO basis for ‘censoring’ anything you say as long as you follow the guidelines which are quite similar to this site’s Policy. The past is behind us. I don’t think you will be treated unfairly at (Edited by Admin)...cafe.com so please TRY. Depending on your tone, I believe you will be treated with the respect you deserve.
I'm also saying that your comments seem to contain a lot of personal animosity that does NOT relate to our political discussions and, frankly, when you berate someone as "having a menopausal breakdown" and call her a “vindictive she devil” it undermines your own credibility, etc. It makes you seem vindictive and therefore what you have to say becomes suspect.
However, you seem like you have a lot to offer and both sites are appropriate spaces to make comments, arguments, political points, etc. – I comment on both sites with no censorship and there are many readers who may not be on one 'side' or another. It’s not necessary to point out personal flaws in order to expose flaws in someone’s argument or position. I would like to hear what you have to say, but find it very hard to wade through the all these personal comments and anger.
Finally, I have never stated anywhere that I support the BOE - that is a faulty assumption. Please give specific examples of: Corruption and Communism.
And as I've said before this 'hate blog' label is totally, 100% inappropriate - visit the website for the Southern Poverty (splcenter.org) to see a list of TRUE 'hate blogs'. Citizens who have had direct, negative dealings with the ugliness found on such Hate Blogs and their members (whether through violence or otherwise) do NOT take the use of this label lightly. Lives have been ruined, houses burned, teenagers killed – THAT is the product of a Hate Blog - people who TRULY hate certain groups and want to see violent crimes committed against them. I’ve read both Woodstock sites for a while and I don’t see any real HATE thrown around, I don’t think anyone of you would do violence or kill if given the chance – I just see an abundance of frustration.
I also see a group of people on BOTH sites who share many of the same goals and care deeply about the same things: Children, Education and the Town’s well-being. Any suggestion otherwise is out of line and flat-out wrong. NO ONE has a monopoly on love for this Town and desire to improve all aspects.
Finally, ADMIN: Why was: ...cafe.com “Edited by Admin”? I see NO Policy violation. What’s it all about? That's a baffling edit and I just got through saying “there is no censorship on either site” - can you explain? Thanks
Sure Con, I can explain. I said long ago that I refused to post a link or the name of the site on this blog and I won't.
Gee, thanks, but that is not an explanation - it's a reason. What is the explanation for your refusal? Censorship? Avoiding harm in some way that I, being obtuse, cannot imagine? It makes zero sense and plays into the hands of those accusing y'all of 'selective editing'...
Quite frankly Con, I don't owe you an explanation or anything else for that matter. It makes plenty of sense to me and that's really all that matters regarding this issue. Those accusing 'me'all' of anything, matters not to me either.
Why don't you come down tomorrow and introduce yourself and we can talk about it then. Take care.
Admin – I seem to have struck a nerve, eh? You see - Your own Policy states: “Here your posts will not be manipulated or edited.” That was the basis for my question WHY the text of (Edited by Admin)...cafe.com contained in my post was ‘manipulated or edited’.
Saying “I don’t owe you an explanation” may be accurate if patronizing, but by identifying an action which contradicts that Policy statement suggests that a better explanation than, for example, ‘because I can’ would be consistent, AND that the lack thereof would be disingenuous and suggestive of a Double-Standard. Yup, a double standard.
When you tell me “I don’t owe you an explanation” it is much like when you told me “You’re entitled to your opinions” – the statements smack of a patronizing and sarcastic quality antithetical to RESPECT. However, and once again, your own Policy holds you to a higher standard: “Admin will treat you and your posts with respect, period.” Which is it? I rely on posted Policies, but yours have let me down a little bit...
I don’t search for petty issues about which to argue, but I do speak out when treated in a manner that’s simply uncalled for and in this instance you seem to have also compromised your own written standards.
Con, I find your flailing diatribes tiresome. You may perceive and characterize my actions whatever way you wish, but the bottom line is that it's my blog and I will run it as I see fit. If you are unhappy with that, you seem to have found a home at ...cafe.com, or in the alternative since you seem to like to write so much, you should start your own.
So, rather than petty arguments about style, I put it to you- what town issues concern you? What should we do about them? What legwork have you personally done to understand any issue facing Woodstock? Let's hear the state of Woodstock according to Con. Thanks.
Dear Admin, You’re predictable answer (another dodge which fails to answer my challenge/questions) disappoints many of us who expect better because we actually believed your so-called ‘Policy’. I pointed out your clear violations of your own Policy; that is about as valid as it gets - it’s a shame you think that is “petty” because it’s rather important to most of us and stands for your very credibility. Maybe you assume too much about my motives? I wish I knew. My points are clear and challenging, yet rather than face them head-on you perform this ‘dodge’ that’s now common to me and say ‘it’s my ball and I can take it and go home’?
What happened to all of your rhetoric about Transparency, Truth and Consistency? I see none of it in this exchange, though I have seen it elsewhere from you. If you can’t treat my comment with “respect, period.” or refrain from “manipulating or editing” it for weak, personal reasons perhaps you should simply revise your Policy to be more accurate and honest (or simply make an exempt for when Admin is most defensive…) – after all, we all rely on the Policy when we make our comments. Most honest readers cannot abide a double standard. This continued pattern of first dodging valid and challenging questions and then attempting wholesale mis-direction by making personal comments is pretty ‘Transparent’ (and as for my ‘community service’, I do a valuable service by identifying a disingenuous Admin of an influential blog, wile giving clear examples and ‘back up’ to Prove It). Also, what exactly about my comments do you find ‘bitter’ or ‘abusive’? Or is your use of the word “diatribe” simply more over-defensive hyperbole? Thanks for printing this.
Con, again it is you who is dodging my request to debate the issues as ususal. I'll be waiting for the state of Woodstock according to Con- otherwise there will be no further response. Thanks.
Con,
If you have the power to stop her tantrums than you must be her hubby?
She is still at it check out; I started on both sides but when I didn't agree with Admin they edited my entry . When some one insulted me I was not aloud to defend myself . She just did it to Biff
How to Deal with a School Yard Bully
Biff says:
May 27th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Recent pseudonyms: Biff, Ty, Ray, Prudence, Fred, Avenger, Maggie, Maxine, etc. Please stick to one pseudonym. Admin.
“let the voters decide the outcome”good advice.
5
Biff says:
May 27th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Recent pseudonyms: Biff, Ty, Ray, Prudence, Fred, Avenger, Maggie, Maxine, etc. Please stick to one pseudonym. Admin.
Con, Check this out !
May 27th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
You can not change her and her ways, by the way who are you?
What specific thoughts were censored? I'm not talking about personal attacks or complaints, but the kind of even-handed and respectful arguments this site touts as being the best way to communicate, notwithstanding that ADMIN breaks his own rules when it suits him and offers zero basis for it - I don't believe he is afraid of (Edited by Admin)...CAFE.COM but he sure acts like it by censoring their name as though they have power over him...
You both often seem more intent on indulging and perpetuating this petty bickering rather than discussing actual Town Issues...
Con,
This will be the last time I will try to answer your questions. I got this email from my friend Ann. Another victim of vindictive Becki;
Here is an example,
doubtful says:
May 28th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Just curious, isn't Chicklet a multiple pseudonym poster?
That’s going to be the name from now on. Adminm = 3 pseudonym by Becki
Ann says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Kettle,
So happy to see that others know what is going on. Living in lies deceptions and untruth seem to be a way of life for some people. Do you remember when admin said “What’s in a name” or the biggest lie of them all we don’t censor. How about freedom of speech. Thank you for some support.
Mr.Archy says:
May 28th, 2009 at 8:11 am
comment deleted for using multiple pseudonyms and unsubstantive commenting. Admin
Ann says:
May 26th, 2009 at 9:04 am
This for everybody ?
kettle says:
May 27th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Dear Pot,
Nice shade of black. Love, The Kettle
P.S. Ann, no it is not.
Ann says:
May 28th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Comment deleted for using multiple pseudonyms and unsubstantive commenting. Admin
Con, send me your email and I will send you all the proof anybody should need of
this communism, in my opinion. Enough using Truth to spar over Becki's violations.
Maggie – I’m sorry, but I don’t fully understand your latest post. Also, I asked many questions or made points in my previous post that you did not answer or address – I’m seriously asking and looking for your particular answers, etc.
As I said before, I’m not talking about personal comments (EITHER WAY) or whether insults are flying or you are allowed to respond to insults, I’m talking about whether statements and ideas relating to ISSUES (not people) are Censored. I have posted several questions under that same string of comments and asked the same of them.
It seems to me that you either can’t tell the difference between personal discourse and political discourse – when the subject matter is political issues, how they are argued about, the facts, figures and supporting material used during such arguments and challenges to all of these things – THAT is what I have kept saying is NOT being censored. Can you provide SPECIFIC examples? You won’t get censored on this site so you can post the censored statement – of course woostockcafe.com Admin will likely read and verify. Can you provide a concrete example of this kind of Censorship? I meant what I said: I will take up the cause. Like most Americans, I deplore Censorship in all forms.
However, I also see (on BOTH sides) a truly childish, bitter and petty feud between these two groups and I believe that it has no place on either website: no personal comments, no idiotic and offensive references to the language of Terrorists (‘jihad’, ‘saber-rattling’ and ‘Aljazeera’), no mention of a persons Family, spouse, children – NONE of it is relevant to whether the Measure supported by Petitioners is a good idea, will achieve the goals described by supporters, does or does not disenfranchise Voters, etc. etc.
If you believe in your position, then please post your best (non-personal) argument on woodstockcafe.com - give it your best shot, destroy their defenses and do it all with zero insults or family references or ANY purported basis for deletion under their Policy - THAT will show me that you are serious about all of this and not merely putting on a show whereby you post messages meant to be censored so you can say 'see?', etc.
Please read the post I just put up - my money where my mouth is. And who am I? Well, I'm just like most of you: concerned citizen. What else matters about my identity and why?