Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Keystone cops meet Jerry Spring (part 3)

The gunfight at the O.K. Corral continues...


Anonymous said...

So, I can't wait for the next installment. Because, really... the people that seem reasonable and forthright and on par with my thinking about all this are Maria and Tracy Farnham (who was called Dragonlady on another thread--????). What's so horrible about what they're asking for? Conversation in open session about the initiative taken by Amherst reps? There must be another shoe waiting to be dropped to merit the outrage I've been reading from commenters here and elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

Conversation? In a meeting?

Perhaps they should have gone outside and formed a circle, had a fire and toasted marshmallows, and talked it out there.

C'mon, Anon 6:54, tell us just what board or committee you've been on lately. Or perhaps you could tell us what planet you're on.

Anonymous said...

Some people regard the issue as a spectacle (like a soap opera) others care about governance.

Anonymous said...

And then there are those of us who hold both of those perspectives.

Anonymous said...

To anon 7:21,
I live on the planet that respects long standing working relationships. It's a planet that believes in treating others in a manner that you'd like to be treated. But I'm guessing that's way too kumbaya for you. Maybe conversation was the wrong word to use. Does discussion work for you? Or is that concept tabboo in your world as well?

Anonymous said...

This is Anon 7:21

I don't know about you, Anon 9:36, but I prefer to discuss or converse when I've gotten my thoughts together, weighed my options, and decided what my opinion is.

But the two Chairs were not willing to accept that from the Amherst School Committee. If that appears to be "reasonable and forthright and on par with (your) thinking", then we have some substantial disagreement about how one should conduct oneself in one of these elected jobs.

If I wanted to discuss with you RIGHT NOW about the war in the Congo, and demanded that from you RIGHT NOW, how would you feel about that?

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:03

The chair of Union 26 and the other Pelham members of Union 26 made it quite clear they did not want to discuss the break-up of Union 26 last Tuesday. ALL they wanted to know was WHY Amherst was exploring changing the agreement. What prompted Amherst to begin gathering information.

Not once, even to this day, have the Amherst members of Union 26 said, face to face with the Pelham members of Union 26, why they are gathering information AND hiring a lawyer to map out how Amherst can leave the Union.

Now, Catherine will tell you that Amherst has been very public about all of this, with minuted Amherst SC meetings, coverage in the press, etc. And that is all quite true. BUT, members of the Pelham SC should not have to read in the paper or go to Amherst SC meetings to get their questions answered.

Irv Rhodes constantly talks about how dis-courtesly he was treated. Well, I think Amherst has not shown any courtesy to the Pelham SC members by not answering their question, face to face...why are you gathering information. What is so hard about that?

It would have taken Irv Rhodes or Catherine or Steve one minute to say to Pelham, we are exloring our options because we are not happy that you voted to put Maria Geryk in as Interim Super for 16 months. How hard is that. If that was the impetus, originally for our information gathering then why not say so up front.

I am fed up with the Amherst SC members. They demand courtesy and respect, but they very seldom show it.

couldntbemorebored said...


Anonymous said...

Anon. 10:24:

Right on, on all fronts. Tracy's comment " ...we have an opportunity to briefly discuss what it is we want to talk about in the future..." with the qualification that that kind of discussion can't happen outside of public session without violating open meeting law, totally sets the context for what Pelham members were asking for. But apparently, extending that kind of courtesy was too big of a request of our Amherst members. And that, to me, is a regrettable state of affairs.

Anonymous said...

"If I wanted to discuss with you RIGHT NOW about the war in the Congo, and demanded that from you RIGHT NOW, how would you feel about that?"

Well, if I was the one who initiated the war in the Congo, you would have every right to ask it and, mostly likely, I would have some kind of reasoned rationale to offer, whether you agreed with it or not.

Anonymous said...

This stream of comments would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. We're talking about two school committees but it might as well be the Middle East from the direction it seems to be headed in. It's no wonder there's no peace in the world.