Topic: School Board Elections This Fall

[Steve.Deserved.Better]

I agree

[steelman]

Ditto  on the agreement !!!!!

[seabiscuit]

School Board Update:

Paula Barone, a newly elected member of the Mt. Vernon Board of Education, has decided to recuse herself from participating in executive sessions and voting on the Freshwater matter when it comes before the Board again. Her decision is based on advice from the Ohio School Boards Association, the Ohio Ethics Commission, and David Millstone, the Board’s attorney in the matter. While all three advised her that there was no legal conflict of interest associated with her participation in decisions on Freshwater, nevertheless her participation could give Freshwater’s legal team a pretext for further litigation. She therefore is recusing herself–at this time, anyway–from participation in the decision-making process.

Comparing Barone’s situation with that of Steve Thompson, the other newly elected member of the Board, it’s apparent that Thompson is in a substantially worse conflict of interest situation than Barone, and is doubly obliged to recuse himself.

Please read the whole article at this site:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/02/freshwater-one.html

[belushi]

Chickens do come home to roost, ya noed...

[Steve.Deserved.Better]

School Board Update:

Paula Barone, a newly elected member of the Mt. Vernon Board of Education, has decided to recuse herself from participating in executive sessions and voting on the Freshwater matter when it comes before the Board again. Her decision is based on advice from the Ohio School Boards Association, the Ohio Ethics Commission, and David Millstone, the Board’s attorney in the matter. While all three advised her that there was no legal conflict of interest associated with her participation in decisions on Freshwater, nevertheless her participation could give Freshwater’s legal team a pretext for further litigation. She therefore is recusing herself–at this time, anyway–from participation in the decision-making process.

Comparing Barone’s situation with that of Steve Thompson, the other newly elected member of the Board, it’s apparent that Thompson is in a substantially worse conflict of interest situation than Barone, and is doubly obliged to recuse himself.

Please read the whole article at this site:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/02/freshwater-one.html

I respectfully disagree.   She voluntarily did this as a precaution, not because it was a conflict (she was told it wasn't).   Thompson may not feel that way and until it has been deem so, he exercises his decision to stay.  He's not obliged to follow suit.

[seabiscuit]

SDB

Isn't it better for a Board member to take a position of precaution to prevent any further litigation?  The wait and see attitude is what got the school board/district in the position they are in now. 

I would much prefer that a Board member take prevention in this situation.  Remember the old adage, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

Mrs. Barone has met with agencies who could council her about her decision.  I don't think Mr. Thompson has met with anyone concerning his potential conflict of interest.

Here's the part from Panda's Thumb regarding this:

Why Steve Thompson should recuse himself

But now consider Steve Thompson, the other new Board member.

1. His son Andrew, a teacher in the middle school and a former student of Freshwater, testified on Freshwater’s behalf at some length in the hearing. Andrew also addressed a Board meeting in August 2008, defending Freshwater.

2. Andrew met privately with Steve Short, superintendent of schools, to urge that Freshwater be reinstated.

3. Immediately after taking office as a Board member Thompson raised the possibility of a settlement with Steve Dennis, when Dennis and the Board are not adversaries in any legal proceeding. Apparently Thompson was speaking on behalf of Freshwater.

4. Steve Thompson was a founding member of the “Community Council for Free Expression,” which was organized in part to raise funds for Freshwater’s legal defense. That is a genuine conflict of interest, not merely the perception of one. If Thompson doesn’t recuse himself he is exposing the Board and District to some serious litigation risk.

Of significant interest is the fact that the web site associated with the “Community Council” has been taken down and access to it via the Internet Archive has been blocked by a robots.txt file, which on the Internet Archive also blocks access to already archived pages. That route was still available a month ago, on January 15, 2010. Fortunately, I archived that page locally; and donation requests from the Council are still up on other sites supporting Freshwater. The purpose of the “Community Council” read in part

The Community Council For Free Expression is a non-profit corporation and has developed a Legal Defense Fund to help with John Freshwater’s legal expenses. Those wishing to donate to this fund can give via credit card on this web site or write your check to

The Community Council For Free Expression
c/o Trinity Assembly of God
1051 Beech Street
Mt. Vernon, OH 43050
This historical revisionism appears to be a transparent attempt to shield Thompson against charges of ethical and legal conflicts of interest. Thompson has already committed one ethical breech as a Board member, and his continued participation in decision-making on Freshwater would be an additional serious violation of his legal and ethical responsibilities as a Member of the Board of Education. Thompson had better have a frank conversation with the Ohio Ethics Commission sooner rather than later.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/02/freshwater-one.html#comment-207922

It bothers me that the web page for Community Council on Free Expression has been blocked on the internet, yet, John himself on a radio program about a month ago asked that donations for his legal expenses be sent to that agency so it's still up and running.

[Steve.Deserved.Better]

SDB

Isn't it better for a Board member to take a position of precaution to prevent any further litigation?  The wait and see attitude is what got the school board/district in the position they are in now. 

   

I don't agree it was the 'wait and see' attitude that got them in trouble.  I believe it was improper action over a complaint.  They plain and simple didn't do their jobs.  To say they took a wait and see attitude, would be like watching someone bleed, hoping the gaping hole will stop.  If he did something wrong, correction wasn't made immediately.  Fail on their part.

I would much prefer that a Board member take prevention in this situation.  Remember the old adage, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

  But no problem exist to prevent.  The decision there is no conflict has been rendered.

Mrs. Barone has met with agencies who could council her about her decision.  I don't think Mr. Thompson has met with anyone concerning his potential conflict of interest.

  But we don't know for sure then, right?

Here's the part from Panda's Thumb regarding this:

Why Steve Thompson should recuse himself

But now consider Steve Thompson, the other new Board member.

1. His son Andrew, a teacher in the middle school and a former student of Freshwater, testified on Freshwater’s behalf at some length in the hearing. Andrew also addressed a Board meeting in August 2008, defending Freshwater.

2. Andrew met privately with Steve Short, superintendent of schools, to urge that Freshwater be reinstated.

3. Immediately after taking office as a Board member Thompson raised the possibility of a settlement with Steve Dennis, when Dennis and the Board are not adversaries in any legal proceeding. Apparently Thompson was speaking on behalf of Freshwater. 

'Apparently' is a word of assumption, so do we know for sure?

4. Steve Thompson was a founding member of the “Community Council for Free Expression,” which was organized in part to raise funds for Freshwater’s legal defense. That is a genuine conflict of interest, not merely the perception of one. If Thompson doesn’t recuse himself he is exposing the Board and District to some serious litigation risk.

  I don't see how possibly this is a conflict of interest.  It is one citizen supporting someone who he felt needed support.  I don't see it as a conflict in doing his duty in this position.   And for that matter, what if he's had a change of heart since doing this? 

Of significant interest is the fact that the web site associated with the “Community Council” has been taken down and access to it via the Internet Archive has been blocked by a robots.txt file, which on the Internet Archive also blocks access to already archived pages. That route was still available a month ago, on January 15, 2010. Fortunately, I archived that page locally; and donation requests from the Council are still up on other sites supporting Freshwater. The purpose of the “Community Council” read in part

The Community Council For Free Expression is a non-profit corporation and has developed a Legal Defense Fund to help with John Freshwater’s legal expenses. Those wishing to donate to this fund can give via credit card on this web site or write your check to

The Community Council For Free Expression
c/o Trinity Assembly of God
1051 Beech Street
Mt. Vernon, OH 43050
This historical revisionism appears to be a transparent attempt to shield Thompson against charges of ethical and legal conflicts of interest. Thompson has already committed one ethical breech as a Board member, and his continued participation in decision-making on Freshwater would be an additional serious violation of his legal and ethical responsibilities as a Member of the Board of Education. Thompson had better have a frank conversation with the Ohio Ethics Commission sooner rather than later.[/b]

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/02/freshwater-one.html#comment-207922

   Perhaps it was removed because he wants to distance himself from the endeavors of support now.  I mean could it be he has just changed his mind and decided that he has no position?

It bothers me that the web page for Community Council on Free Expression has been blocked on the internet, yet, John himself on a radio program about a month ago asked that donations for his legal expenses be sent to that agency so it's still up and running.

But that is Freshwater asking, not Thompson.   The site must have some connection that Thompson doesn't want to have anymore, else why is it blocked from access?

I sure don't have any answers.  I just have questions.  But when I read assumptive type words, it sends a flag up for me.   Just me.   

I was just saying that for one member to recuse and the other deciding not, when there is a decision there is no conflict, is a personal choice and not up for a precautionary type action, until advised.

[seabiscuit]

SDB

You are incorrect.  No one has said there is not a conflict.  Every person this has been discussed with says it is, in fact, a conflict of interest for the reasons posted at Panda's Thumb.  To "assume" there will be no litigation if Mr. Thompson doesn't recluse himself is foolish. 

If you read back through the posts on MVOhio and KnoxPages, supporters of John Freshwater said that if Mr. Thompson had a conflict of interest than so did Mrs. Barone.  So if Mrs. Barone has recused herself, should he by their own admission?

If Mr. Thompson had met with the same agencies that Mrs. Barone did, he would have been told that he should recuse himself.  Since he hasn't recused himself, it safe to say he has not met with those agencies.

There's a bit of "the rules don't apply to me" going on here by Mr. Thompson.   He has already gone outside of the rules by attempting to negotiate with Mr. Dennis at the gas station.  He has also not been accountable for the statements that he made during his election and which I have specifically asked him to address now.  He has not provided me with any information which supports or refutes his position on whether or not there is a deficit or rainy day fund.  And I specifically asked him to address his involvement with the Community Council for Free Expression.   My questions were not complicated and to date he has not responded to any of them.  I even provided him with a paper copy of my questions.  Certainly if he wasn't involved with the Community Council, he could just state that to me or anyone else, right?

 

[seabiscuit]

SDB

Mr. Thompson has specifically related my birth name to my user ID, seabiscuit, in a conversation with others, so he is very aware of what I have stated on topics.

Interestingly, when I have commented about election signs in topics, they disappeared.  I have commented on the CCFE website, it's now been blocked.  There's a pattern going on here and I believe it to be deception.  It's bothersome and can be corrected with a few simple statements by Mr. Thompson.  Why has he not made them?  I can only guess......

[Steve.Deserved.Better]

If you read back through the posts on MVOhio and KnoxPages, supporters of John Freshwater said that if Mr. Thompson had a conflict of interest than so did Mrs. Barone.  So if Mrs. Barone has recused herself, should he by their own admission?

It would seem this is their litmus test of propriety then.    However, if her stepping down is a challenge for Mr. Thompson to step down, he didn't take it. 

[seabiscuit]

SDB

Actually, it appears that both Barone & Thompson left the building tonight before the rest of the board members so I would speculate that Thompson may have excused himself from the discussion as well. 

[steelman]

Thompson has too much of conflict. He must excuse himself and answer the questions put before him. His candidacy will be a sham other wise.

[seabiscuit]

I just posted this information on KnoxPages:

I want to report that I have now received answers to my questions in yesterday's mail. I planned to post them yesterday but have managed to develop a pretty stiff migraine headache and just couldn't get it done. So here's the scoop:

The response is dated 2/23 and the date on the postage is dated 2/24.

Question 1: Is there a $3 million deficit or is there a $6.5 million rainy day fund?

08/09 Revenue: $30.9m Expenditure: $33.2m Deficit: $2.3m

Year Cash Balances

08/09 $5.8m - Anticipated
08/09 $6.5m - Actual

Question 2: If there is a $3 million deficit, what are your plans to bet the district back in the black?

The Boards plan includes:

A) Establishing a "Financial Advisory Group" to review the current financial state of the school district.
B) Continuing to support the Superintendent and Treasurer on cost reduction measures where possible (without affecting quality of education for students)
C) Supporting emergency renewal levy generating $1.6 m annually

Question 3: What has the district spent on the Freshwater hearing to date?

$479,626 ~ As of 12/30/09

Question 4: Are you still on the Community Council for Free Expression?

No

So in his campaign, Mr. Thompson told a "half-truth". The district is spending at a $2.3m (not $3m as he stated) deficit each year and the previous School Board did, in fact, have a $6.5 million savings to deal with that funding deficit.

The fact that Mr. Thompson used this as a key point in his campaign was irresponsible for several reasons.

1) He could have easily verified this information during the campaign but choose not to because it was more important to defame previous and current board members in an effort to win his seat on the board. It was irresponsible to take a small piece of information received in a mailer and not research it thoroughly to be sure of its accuracy before you build an entire campaign around it.

2) Mr. Thompson will now have to do damage control with some voters. By throwing previous and current board members "under the bus" and stating that they fiscally mismanaged funds (which they obviously did not since there is a savings to deal with deficits), he has created a belief in many voters that the school has had more than enough money to fund the district but has just not managed it properly. (That was pretty much what Mr Thompson said in his campaign rhetoric). I have talked with several people, especially older folks, who aren't convinced that this renewal is needed based on Thompson's ascertion that someone like him can better manage the money that was wasted by the previous board. Unfortunately, people are looking for a way to reduce their own costs and Mr. Thompson has given them a reason to not support this levy renewal.

As far as new ideas on how to better manage the school's budget, I don't see anything that Mr. Thompson has thrown in the ring that previous and current board members weren't already doing. I believe it was another candidate that had stated during their campaign run that they thought it might be useful to establish the Financial Advisiory Group so I don't believe he can take credit for that idea.

I will take him at his word that he is no longer involved in Community Council for Free Expression for now but will monitor that situation to be sure that doesn't change in the future.

[phred]

 


           Good and solid information, Seabiscuit.

           Your work in going directly to the source
           is greatly appreciated.

           I also find your and Panda's Thumb analyses
           significantly worthy.

           Thanks.

[seabiscuit]

Good to have you back, phred!  You've been missed!