I don't even know where to begin with this episode of the Regional School Committee or was it Amherst School Committee or Union 26 meeting?
Simply put Amherst is in a "partnership" via Union 26 with Pelham and as such controls 50% of the vote but Amherst funds 94% of the business overhead (paying the School Superintendent.) Not a great deal for Amherst.
Classic case of the tail wagging the dog--and in this particular case, a stubby tail at that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I usually object to most of what you write, but I've gotta admit...this video clip is hilarious. And appalling. Its good to know what our school committee officials spend their time doing.
He obviously wanted the Regional Committee to be able to conduct further business after any results of the Union Committee without calling another meeting.
Why didn't he just say that?
The bigger question is why were the Amherst members so loathe to discuss the issue in public session? Aren't these a bunch of folks who campaigned on a platform of wanting increased public transparency?
What's to discuss?!
The Amherst School Committee unanimously voted previously to seek legal council as to whether they can get out or modify this lopsided 100+ year old union (enacted before women had the right to vote) and figure out what their options are.
They were not informed of this particular "public discussion" and obviously had nothing to say until legal questions had been answered.
What town do you live in?
I live in Amherst and I was put off by the chair if the regional committee, who does not live in Amherst, working with the chair of the Union 26 committee, who does not live in Amherst, putting this on the agenda without ever informing any of the Amherst SC members.
Amherst is gathering information. Farshid, for whatever reason, wants to short circuit that process. The Pelham folks, for very obvious reasons, want Farshid to short circuit it.
I keep watching the video and seeing Farshid as Eddie Haskell and, for the very first time, Irv reminds me of Ward Cleaver trying to talk with him.
Prior to the meeting, I thought of Farshid as an unfailingly kind man. Here he comes across as simply faux innocent doing the "Who, me? What's the big deal?" routine. Apparently, somebody put him up to this.
It's true: the video clip is hilarious, especially if you don't have to be there trying to unpack the two Chairs' motives. The meeting goes on to feature the Dragonlady of Passive-Aggressive, Tracy Farnham talking to herself, while the rest of the room waits for her to finish.
Those were four + hours of life that the five members of the Amherst School Committee are never going to get back.
Rich Morse
To answer Larry's question, I live in Amherst. And comments like the one above that refer to a member of another SC that we have had a long standing and respectful relationship (sic union) with as "a Dragonlady" are offense and unproductive, as is, in my opinion, this foray (including a request by Mr. Rivkin to examine the issue in executive as opposed to public session) into, "I didn't get my way, so I'm taking my marbles and going home (and never playing with you again!)." territory. What's the harm in Pelham getting a chance to question what's going on in public? What are our Amherst reps afraid of? Answer the inquiries and move on. That's the respectable thing to do. Instead, a holier than thou attitude was assumed. Which is more and more what I'm coming to expect from these elected representatives, many of whom I regretfully voted for.
"Those were four + hours of life that the five members of the Amherst School Committee are never going to get back. "
If the Amherst SC members bedrudge the tiime they spend in SC meetings they should resign. All the Pelham members of Union 26 asked for was one half hour of time so that they could hear directly from their Amherst counterparts why they wanted to leave the Union. Simple as that.
Their was 15 minutes of haggling over Farshid's right to call a recess to the Regional meeting and Tracy's right, as chair of Union 26, to call a meeting of the Union. Then 30 minutes of obfuscation and avoidance from the Amherst members, who for whatever reason, do not want to tell their Pelham counterparts why they have hired a lawyer.
So, out of a 4.5 hour long meeting, the Regional committee sat through 45 minutes of challenge and obfuscation from the Amherst members. I thought the Amherst members were an embarrasement and I was sorely disappointed in their performance. They acted, as they have in the past, like bullies. A fine role model for the students in the audience.
So, Rich, if the Amherst SC members wish they could get back 4.5 hours of their life, they should resign. They will NOT be missed.
Post a Comment