Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36

Thread: Why abstain on the HS Project vote?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    As your own rules don't seem to apply, and if you and the rest of the SOS-friendly crew who felt emboldened to post here (vs. the thread highlighting the misdeeds of their pals), are trying to put the final nail in the coffin on any future school committee runs by Jeff Baron, as seems to be the case, you might want to save that nail for something more useful like crucifying the next candidate to come along that should have the audacity to run against the SOS-approved candidate. I can't see why Jeff would waste his time on this again.
    John, Jeff Baron volunteered the information about his not voting on the HS project. How is asking a once and potentially future School Committee candidate about that decision a "crucifixion?" Mr. Baron seems to have no qualms about asking questions of and about SOS, yet I don't see any condemnation from you about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    So, now that this less than stimulating discussion about who one person in town voted for has run its course, how about if we return to something more substantive, like why Jeff Dieffenbach spent thousand of dollars of our money in order to hide a public document from us, or why after Heather's scathing review of Gary Burton did he go on to receive rave reviews and raises, while Heather quietly took her place at the table and voted in concert with her colleagues for those reviews and raises, and what is the future of SOS and why are so few people here willing to weigh in on it, or what exactly did Louis mean in his email about "the next override" and “more to come”, clearly implying further OML violations.
    John, I think you know that Jeff Dieffenbach hasn't spent a dime of taxpayer money. I'm one member of a five member Committee--it's the Committee as a whole that makes decisions, as it did in deciding to defend itself from a lawsuit that the Committee considered to be misguided (acknowledging that this is a matter of opinion where reasonable people may disagree, I supported that defense because the law is unclear and because I find the public evaluation of an employee to significantly weaken the effectivess of that evaluation and therefore its ability to help improve the organization). In saying that "Jeff Dieffenbach spent thousands of dollars," you are in error.

    Dr. Jurist never said "the next override"--rather, he said "next year's potential override." If there's anyone in town that doesn't wonder whether there might be the need to consider an override next year, well, that person hasn't been paying very close attention. By your use of quotes, you put words in his mouth that weren't there; again, you are in error.

    There is a constant refrain from you about the Superintendent's "three secretaries." The Superintendent does not have three secretaries. Rather, the three functions of Superintendent, Curriculum, and Personnel each have an administrative assistant. Again, reasonable people can disagree about whether that staffing is appropriate. That does not lessen the importance of getting the facts right. Yet again, you are in error.

    John, you are not shy about crying "spin" or calling someone out for one imagined transgression or another. Similarly, you've not been shy about making it clear that you don't like at least most of the School Committee and at least several of the administrators. This dislike undermines the credibility of your accusations and insults almost as much as the errors you make and repeat even after being corrected.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BTDowns View Post
    Nancy, there is no reasonable rationale. I'll give Jeff the courtesy of a little while to answer your question himrself. However, if by tomorrow he has decided not to do so, happy to log on again and fill everyone in. ; )
    Ben -
    Do you still plan to comment on this?
    Steve

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    117

    Default No blank ballots turned in for Precint 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Perlman View Post
    Ben -
    Do you still plan to comment on this?
    Steve
    Steve,

    I feel kind of like this boat has sailed as is evidenced by Jeff B's absence but since you asked....Jeff said he went to the polls and abstained on this question in the Nov 17 election there were no blank ballots turned in from people who live in precinct 3.
    Last edited by BTDowns; 02-06-2010 at 09:03 PM. Reason: clairification

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BTDowns View Post
    Steve,

    I feel kind of like this boat has sailed as is evidenced by Jeff B's absence but since you asked....Jeff said he went to the polls and abstained on this question in the Nov 17 election there were no blank ballots turned in from people who live in precinct 3.
    You said above he went to the polls abstained. Is that your understanding?

    But did he say that he actually turned in a blank voting ballot?
    He could have gone to the polls and then decided he was going to abstain by not even participating.
    Not voting after going to the polls is a way of abstaining too.... and it appears a more likely way to abstain since the abstains were rare and either 0 or 1 across all precincts.

    Of course I don't know the real answer to this and neither do you.... only Jeff does.
    But no blanks in precinct 3 gives us no absolute definitive proof as to exactly what he meant when he said he went to the polls and abstained.
    Last edited by AlanJReiss; 02-08-2010 at 03:55 AM. Reason: Clarification of the quote

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    You said above he went to the polls abstained. Is that your understanding?

    But did he say that he actually turned in a blank voting ballot?
    He could have gone to the polls and then decided he was going to abstain by not even participating.
    Not voting after going to the polls is a way of abstaining too.... and it appears a more likely way to abstain since the abstains were rare and either 0 or 1 across all precincts.

    Of course I don't know the real answer to this and neither do you.... only Jeff does.
    But no blanks in precinct 3 gives us no absolute definitive proof as to exactly what he meant when he said he went to the polls and abstained.
    Alan,

    As I stated above this boat has sailed. To answer your question it is what he posted not my understanding. You can make up a number of different scenarios and even get the OCPF to agree with you but the statements and facts only support one thing.
    Last edited by BTDowns; 02-08-2010 at 08:03 AM. Reason: clarification

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    You said above he went to the polls abstained. Is that your understanding?

    But did he say that he actually turned in a blank voting ballot?
    He could have gone to the polls and then decided he was going to abstain by not even participating.
    Not voting after going to the polls is a way of abstaining too.... and it appears a more likely way to abstain since the abstains were rare and either 0 or 1 across all precincts.

    Of course I don't know the real answer to this and neither do you.... only Jeff does.
    But no blanks in precinct 3 gives us no absolute definitive proof as to exactly what he meant when he said he went to the polls and abstained.
    It need not be a mystery. It is easy to check. The list of those who voted is a matter of public record.
    Last edited by Kim Reichelt; 02-08-2010 at 10:16 AM. Reason: clarification: changed "voter list" to "list of those who voted" to clarify

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default Just to keep some perspective on this....

    This is the 22nd post on this thread from some of the brightest minds in Wayland about whether or not one particular private citizen voted in the last election.


    .
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    This is the 22nd post on this thread from some of the brightest minds in Wayland about whether or not one particular private citizen voted in the last election.
    Actually, this thread discusses whether a two-time (and perhaps future) candidate for School Committee -- who raised this issue himself -- was being truthful when he claims that he abstained from the most important school-related vote in a decade and, if so, how the answer to that question reflects on his suitability for future public office. (Of course, if Mr. Baron were not to be such a candidate in the future, this issue would become of little consequence.)
    Last edited by Steve Perlman; 02-08-2010 at 01:52 PM. Reason: clarification

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Perlman View Post
    (Of course, if Mr. Baron were not to be such a candidate in the future, this issue would become of little consequence.)
    Put another way, if Mr. Baron were to BE such a candidate in the future, THEN this issue would become of ANY cosequence.

    In the meantime, is of no consequence whatsoever. It's kind of like trying to have a serious in-depth discussion about whether Brad and Julie are realy breaking up - not only is it none of our business, but it has absolutely no bearing on our daily lives.

    And in the meantime, issues of real present consequence, go undiscussed:
    We have an existing School Committee whose members have just voted to make paltry cuts to a bloated administration, while making significant cuts to our teachers and aides, and doing so with very little breakdown, very little information provided by the administration. Once again, as they always do, they took the recommendations of their subordinate and didn't take the time to closely look at what they were voting for.

    This is one of many significant issues in the town at the moment that some would prefer to ignore, in favor of discussing a former candidate's voting habits and whether he provided detailed accurate details about it here on the eNews forums, which of course all candidates are supposed to do.....(?)

    .
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    It need not be a mystery. It is easy to check. The list of those who voted is a matter of public record.
    According to the public record, Mr. Baron voted. And Precinct 3 reported no blank ballots. These facts speak for themselves, and I don't see how they can be reconciled with his claim that he abstained. Does Mr. Baron have anything to add?

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Perlman View Post
    According to the public record, Mr. Baron voted. And Precinct 3 reported no blank ballots. These facts speak for themselves, and I don't see how they can be reconciled with his claim that he abstained. Does Mr. Baron have anything to add?
    All I can say is that it must be frustrating when you ask some one a question/set of questions and they provide no answers. See http://www.waylandenews.com/forum/sh...ad.php?333-Sos for a glaring example of this.

    And Steve, facts sometimes speak for themselves, sometimes not. Just because you can't see how your factset can be reconciled with my "claim" does not make it false.

    I really have nothing else to say on this subject. Fire away

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    165

    Unhappy High School Text Messaging

    I wonder if anyone on this thread has teenagers who use text messaging to banter with their friends. It would appear (to me) that the level of maturity and content is several notches lower on this board. A potential School Committee member making ridiculous claims that really reflect poorly on him and then refusing to clarify whether or not he was lying? Come ON! It feels to me as though the goal of this board is to see who can outwit who with idiotic childish banter devoid of information, conclusion, or interest. Oh, there are exceptions, but it would be nice if there were actually something of non-biased interest posted here. Of course, sticking to the facts is not a strong suit of this town, now is it?

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    117

    Default Ow

    Carl, you're sincerely invited to help make this discussion group better.

    Do the number of ballots counted equal the number of people who signed in and out?

    don

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Rosenblatt View Post
    It feels to me as though the goal of this board is to see who can outwit who with idiotic childish banter devoid of information, conclusion, or interest.
    This has to be the truest statement ever written on the eNews forums.


    .

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Put another way, if Mr. Baron were to BE such a candidate in the future, THEN this issue would become of ANY cosequence.In the meantime, is of no consequence whatsoever.

    And in the meantime, issues of real present consequence, go undiscussed:

    We have an existing School Committee whose members have just voted to make paltry cuts to a bloated administration, while making significant cuts to our teachers and aides, and doing so with very little breakdown, very little information provided by the administration. Once again, as they always do, they took the recommendations of their subordinate and didn't take the time to closely look at what they were voting for.

    This is one of many significant issues in the town at the moment that some would prefer to ignore, in favor of discussing a former candidate's voting habits and whether he provided detailed accurate details about it here on the eNews forums, which of course all candidates are supposed to do.....(?)
    I will post one more time so that everyone can free themselves of this issue. I am NOT running for School Committee. I never planned to (just in case anyone thought this made my decision for me). To John's point, the SC is made up of people who desire the status quo, and are not interested in making things better. Even if I won, I would be one seat on a Board of five. I already know how the other four people feel, and as should be clear, I am often in exact opposition to those positions. So, rather than wasting the next two months campaigning for the seat, enduring the incredibly rude and unneighborly behavior I have endured in the past two elections, and then maybe winning only to frustrate the heck out of myself for the next three years, I've decided to devote my time to my work and my family, pursuits I know will be worthy of the time spent. Deep breath, people.

    Now, how about addressing some of the substantive questions posted on this board?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •