Thursday, October 21, 2010

A letter from Margaret Brodkin's campaign

"Many supporters have asked me why my campaign for School Board was not endorsed by the United Educators of San Francisco (UESF).

I deeply respect and support teachers. As a Board of Education Commissioner I will fight not only for students, but also the dedicated teachers, school counselors, social workers, instructional aides, nurses, and administrators who have dedicated their lives to helping children learn. I will advocate for better compensation, improved working conditions, and an increased voice for educators when it comes to shaping education policy. I will oppose the anti-teacher culture that blames teachers for the failings of our education system, and stand up against the teacher bashing that continues to threaten the future of the teaching profession.

As a pro-teacher candidate, I had hoped the UESF endorsement process would have been more representative of this diverse union as a whole. The UESF represents more than 6,000 San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) employees, but at the August 3, 2010 member endorsement recommendation meeting only 28 of those 6,000 members cast their endorsement vote. While I certainly wish there had been more member involvement in the UESF process, I will always welcome the support of educators in San Francisco."


--
Laurel Moeslein
Margaret Brodkin for School Board 2010

85 comments:

  1. Where does Brodkin stand on assignment to middle schools: citywide middle schools or feeder plan?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course Margaret Brodkin is going to say she is pro-teacher. That is about doing what is required to get elected. What I would like to know is what will she do to ensure that principal's take the necessary, if sometimes unpleasant, steps as managers to root out poorly performing teachers and to remove them from the system, rather than to simply move them from one unlucky classroom or school to the next.

    I am really disappointed that she did not address the failure of UESF to self-select out for unsatisfactory performance or to strengthen disciplinary procedures between management and labor.

    I suppose one could say that is another conversation. But in the current climate, if she is going to try and curry favor with the union that failed to endorse her, she should come straight out and make her views crystal clear on where she stands on the question of teacher performance issues. It isn't nearly enough to say she supports teachers unless she wants us to believe that we will get little in the way of greater oversight and follow-through on unsatisfactory UESF employees.

    Oh, and, yes, I support the teaching profession, too. Now can we move on from campaign management to performance management?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Can Don ever NOT comment on something?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'll comment on whatever I wish.
    Get used to it. Problem with free speech, 12;42 or is it that you don't have a response of substance so instead you attack the speaker?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Don: Where do the other candidates stand on your question?
    Can you give us a synopsis of each candidate's position on how they will ensure that Principals take "the necessary, if sometimes unpleasant, steps as managers to root out poorly performing teachers and to remove them from the system"?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Margaret's points are:

    Only 28 people voted among 6,000 (I'm sure more than a handful of those were retirees, as has been the case in the past.)

    In any event, hardly representative of the teachers as a whole in SFUSD.

    So therefore, while the UESF didn't endorse her, the group voting hardly represented the teachers as a whole.

    Instead, this group was very vocal BEFORE the election that they were going to support Kim-Shree Maufas, a candidate that is incabable of thinking independently and is firmly in the pocket of the UESF leadership.

    Kim Shree proudly cast the only vote against any job cuts - while her fellow BOE colleagues did the hard thing and looked squarely at reality and the fact that we have to make hard, awful choices.

    She didn't do her BOE fellow members a favor (didn't come up with any alternatives to closing the gap) and can proudly say she voted no to cut teacher jobs. (This doesn't even address the fact that she was making personal charges to her SFUSD credit card and only paid it back after being caught, or that she is among the - if not THE - person with the biggest expenditures for travel and other costs on the BOE.)

    With UESF's decsion to support her, they have completely lost credibility with me.

    And I AM a supporter of teachers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It seems like Bodkin and the BOE other candidates besides Starchild are laying low and trying not to state their opinions on anything as controversial as the SAS. Instead, they just spout the same platitudes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The fact that only 28 voted shows the lack of civic duty on behalf of our educators and their willingness to allow leadership to use union dues without any consensus from the rank and file. Really it is a bad mark - an F for bad behavior and apathy.

    Anyway, Brodkin should be happy that she doesn't have their endorsement. Why step in the dog dew? Better to keep her nose clean. With both the Democratic Party and UESF endorsing Maufas they have totally lost credibility and are thumbing their noses at the electorate. A union endorsement may not be what it used to be. I suspect Brodkin knows that all too well.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm a teacher. I always do my civic duty. I voted to take a pay cut of $8000 (yes, you read that right-I got multiple prop A stipends because I have a job no one else would ever want, SPED at a hard-to-staff school) at the beginning of the summer in order to preserve the jobs of other teachers, because I thought it was the right thing to do. I also would have voted to endorse Margaret Brodkin, had I known such a vote was happening...I never received a ballot from UESF, nor did my partner, also a SFUSD teacher. Please don't make assumptions that only 28 teachers voted because of "bad behavior" and "apathy."

    I haven't commented before because I haven't wanted to read the nasty comments that I'm sure will be forthcoming, but in the interest of accuracy I'd like to correct some assumptions about school reform and role of UESF.

    Principals are the ones who evaluate teachers, not the union. UESF doesn't "protect" bad teachers-principals have the opportunity to remove bad teachers-especially in the first two years, during which teachers can be fired for no cause. However, when principals don't do their jobs those teachers stay in place. Also, while unions do put in provisions that make it harder to remove bad teachers with tenure, that's what unions do- represent the rights of workers. As a formed non-union teacher (out of state) I can say that the classroom is actually worse for students when teachers aren't unionized-class sizes soar, bad teachers can be retained because of favoritism, etc.

    I'm a good teacher by any measure-my students make tremendous gains and the district has sent many new teachers to observe in my classroom and learn from me. I KNOW I would make more money if we were given "value-added" incentives. However, I do not support this form of school reform. What then, is the incentive to work in low-performing school (as I do)? It's a ridiculous concept that will cause experienced teachers to flock to good schools where achieving gains on standardized tests is a guarantee.

    I think it is criminal that anyone endorsed Kim-Shree Maufas, a thief, and I am ashamed that my union did this. However, I can only assume that those 28 people who voted were simply ill-informed outliers-I have yet to meet a single teacher who supports Maufas.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ballots weren't sent out on the UESF endorsement; it was made by members who attended a meeting in midsummer.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To the teacher @ 11:04--thanks. Your statement is based in the reality of teaching life. Thanks too for being a teacher for our kids.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 11:04, if you spent your time addressing your union leadership's endorsement decisions rather than the SF kfiles, you might put your mouth where your money is.

    It doesn't matter why only 28 members voted on behalf of 6,000. They did your bidding and the lack of notification is not much of an excuse. If you want your unions dues to go to support candidacies you don't personally endorse, then your silence will ensure that outcome. Your money has spoken in your stead and in spite of your views. Such is the nature of your union leadership and the lack of proper concern amongst the rank to get its views heard. Money talks even if you don't.


    The money flows from the taxpayer, to the public employee, to their union and then to the candidates that in turn support the union. If you didn't hear about a meeting or didn't take the time to find out about it, I suppose that may be an understandable excuse, but it won't change the outcome.

    Also, a few months ago, Dennis Kelly posted a letter on the blog in which he specifically stated that the union has its own internal disciplinary procedures or something to that effect. If that is true, why is it that members of his union know nothing about those procedures as you have alluded to in your post?

    I suggest that your unwillingness to subject yourself in the past to "nasty comments" is the same psychology that prevented you from getting your views heard, vis-a-vis the use of union dues to support Board candidates.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I wonder if any reporter has ever bothered to investigate how the UESF determines who it will endorse for school board. Do they have some kind of self-generated procedure or rules they are supposed to follow, and do they do so? From what the teacher at 11:04 says, it sounds like most of the union's members were not given a chance to vote on the endorsements and the decision was made by a tiny fraction of the membership, yet it is promoted to the world as being the endorsement of "the teachers union."

    ReplyDelete
  14. 7:07, the UESF members had to be present at a meeting to vote on endorsements. As I recall, it was at the very beginning of August, though don't quote me, but definitely midsummer.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm done with this blog. I am tired of a few people dominating the conversation and information. It is of course within people's rights to comment as much as they want and push their agenda if the moderator allows it but I don't want to waste my time sorting through the posts to try to offer up information and our perspective to help families in their own kindergarten selection journey. Just like our national politics - the loudest and most insistent opinions have crowded out everybody else. Good luck to those families entering K next year.

    ReplyDelete
  16. don't let the door hit ya ...

    ReplyDelete
  17. What is wrong with people? They act as though they have never participated on a blog before. It is supremely easy to read what you want and to ignore the rest. In the case of Don, he puts his name on his comments. They are easy to identify unlike all the anonymous posts.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Don puts his name on a few comments, and then posts anonymously to complement himself. or to agree with himself. It's creepy.
    You just have to ignore it, though, as annoying as it is.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Just like our national politics - the loudest and most insistent opinions have crowded out everybody else."

    No one is crowding you out. You are opting out of your own volition and then blaming others as if you are the victim of bullying. If you don't want your voice heard, so be it. But don't blame others for your own decisions.

    What you are really trying to do is cast a negative light on the opinions (mine) that you don't like by these " I quit" histrionics. Instead of acting like a baby and crying in your soup, try responding with an intelligent retort. Sorry, but the blog cannot fire me a la Juan Williams. I don't think you're cut out for debate.

    Regarding a synopsis of candidates views, hey , your guess is as good as mine. I suggest you ask them yourself at the community forums. There is one tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If it is true that the UESF endorsement vote was held at the very beginning of August, that is extremely troubling. It makes it appear that the vote was scheduled for a time when most teachers would be unable to attend. Many of them travel or take classes or visit family during the summer. This year, even though school started earlier than usual, the very beginning of August would still have been during the time when teachers were on summer break.

    Why on earth would the UESF schedule something as important as their school board endorsement vote for a time when most of their members would be unable to attend? What was the big rush? Was it really necessary to have this matter already decided before the teachers came back for the start of school, and a full three months before the election?

    It almost looks as if the vote was deliberately scheduled for a time when most UESF members would not be able to attend, perhaps to let a small select group make the decision on behalf of everyone else? I wonder how the rank and file UESf members feel about this.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Could we ignore the whole "don is making it all about him again" stupidity and stick t the subject?

    VOTE FOR BRODKIN!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Personally I would prefer if this blog gave room to everyone's campaign. I don't any of this particularly informative or helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 1041:

    -Don puts his name on a few comments, and then posts anonymously to complement himself. or to agree with himself. It's creepy.
    You just have to ignore it, though, as annoying as it is.-

    I don't know that. What I know is that you post anonymously and accuse others for doing the same. It isn't Don making the blog about him even if he has strong views. It is YOU with your constant and anonymous personal attacks. Get a backbone.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Whatever, I voted for Brodkin. Absentee.

    ReplyDelete
  25. To the teacher, October 21, 2010 11:04 PM.

    Thanks for an enlightening post. It helps to hear your perspective. The overwhelming majority of the teachers my kids have had (they are both in middle school now) have been good to great.

    I want to comment on the teacher evaluations and principals vs. UESF. While I agree that principals really should be held accountable for evaluating teachers, and that that doesn't seem to happen as well as it should, I have been involved with instances when a UESF rep has insisted that a teacher isn't unfit, but just a 'bad fit' for a particular school. In one case the teacher was clearly medically incapacitated (I think he'd had a stroke) - the first week he lost kids during a fire drill, he was pinching kids that were "bad", he misspelled letters to kids (mine said "Deer (name)" on it. This was first grade.

    This teacher was a known problem in the district (was consolidated to our school following a school closure). The principal asked parents to document, because she wasn't getting anywhere. We did. UESF said he just wasn't a fit with our school.

    I couldn't help but wonder: So he WAS a good fit with the Bayview school he had to leave?

    I had a similar experience last year - administrators not getting anywhere and asking parents for help with documentation when parents came to them to complain.
    Those teachers are still there - not sure if they are on PARS or not.

    I hope more principals will/can address the handful of teachers in everyschool that need help or to get out. But it certainly doesn't seem like they are set up to do this with their jobs anymore than teachers are set up to win, either.

    Sorry this veered off topic...

    ReplyDelete
  26. 12:07, and everyone else who is interested in what all the candidates have to say: The PTA is sponsoring two candidate forums, the first one TONIGHT at 6:30 p.m. at Tenderloin Community School (Turk St. at Van Ness). The second forum will be Weds Oct 27 at 6:30 p.m. at Lincoln High School (2162 24th Ave at Quintara).

    ReplyDelete
  27. It would be really great if someone could post some of the more salient points expressed by the candidates tonight. I cannot attend as we have cub scouts tonight. I hope to go to the following forum.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Even if union leadership and membership are not on the same page, most people will associate union endorsement and monetary support for electoral candidates as the actions of the rank and file. .They pay the bills

    ReplyDelete
  29. Um, Don, Cub Scouts don't allow gays. Prejudice should not be taught or mandated. We do not allow our sons to participate in Boy Scouts, an organization with such Draconian views on sexuality. Viva San Francisco!

    Signed: straight mom.

    ReplyDelete
  30. What is Omar Khalif's position on school assignment. Someone mentioned that he was supportive of the Students First group that wants neighborhood schools. Yet Omar Khalif's 2008 race for the School Board web material says that he supports parental choice, regardless of what the neighborhood is. What is Omar Khalif's position on school assignment?

    Is it fair to say that the candidates, Khalif, Brodkin, etc. will not give a straight answer? Only Starchild will give his position openly and honestly. For that, he gets my vote.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Rewrite:

    For that, Starchild gets my vote.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Straight Mom,

    You obviously know nothing about the Boy Scouts or the Cub Scouts. As the Cubmaster I am very familiar with the organization. You are dead wrong.
    Can we get back to the election now?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Omar and I helped to get Students First off the ground. (I am no longer involved. ) It isn't a matter of all NS or all choice. As long as there is a robust alternative school selection there is a possibility to have both. Of course, more NS will lead to less choice unless the district expand alternative schools to meet demand.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Boy Scouts of America
    Resolution [Feb. 2002]

    1. WHEREAS, the Resolutions Committee of the Boy Scouts of America (on behalf of the Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America) on June 1, 2001, assigned the Relationships Committee of the Boy Scouts of America with the responsibility for considering and making recommendations to the Executive Board with respect to various resolutions submitted by members of the National Council at the annual meeting concerning the appropriate flexibility to be employed by the Boy Scouts of America in establishing standards for leadership; and

    2. WHEREAS, the Relationships Committee duly formed a Task Force on Resolutions, composed of a cross section of representatives from religious and civic chartered organizations and others represented in Scouting, to consider these resolutions and make recommendations to the Relationships Committee; and

    3. WHEREAS, the Task Force has reported the results of its thoughtful and extensive deliberations to the Relationships Committee, which submitted the report to the Relationships/Marketing Group Committee, both of these committees having approved and adopted the Report of the Task Force on Resolutions as their own; and

    4. WHEREAS, the national officers, having received and considered the Report, unanimously adopt the recommendations of the Report without reservation; and

    5. WHEREAS, the national officers agree with the report that "duty to God is not a mere ideal for those choosing to associate with the Boy Scouts of America; it is an obligation," which has defined good character for youth of Scouting age throughout Scouting's 92-year history and that the Boy Scouts of America has made a commitment "to provide faith-based values to its constituency in a respectful manner;" and

    6. WHEREAS, the national officers agree that "conduct of both Scouts and Scouters must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law" and that "membership is contingent upon one's willingness to accept the values and standards espoused by the Boy Scouts of America," and

    7. WHEREAS the national officers further agree that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the traditional values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the values of the Oath and Law; and

    8. WHEREAS, the national officers reaffirm that, as a national organization whose very reason for existence is to instill and reinforce values in youth, the BSA's values cannot be subject to local option choices, but must be the same in every unit; and

    9. WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America respects the right of persons and individuals to hold values and standards different than the Boy Scouts of America, the national officers also agree that the Boy Scouts of America is entitled to expect that persons and organizations with different values and standards will nevertheless respect those of the Boy Scouts of America;

    10. THEREFORE, the national officers recommend the National Executive Board affirm that the Boy Scouts of America shall continue to follow its traditional values and standards of leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  35. From the
    Boy Scouts of America
    Resolution [Feb. 2002]


    7. WHEREAS the national officers further agree that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the traditional values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the values of the Oath and Law; and

    8. WHEREAS, the national officers reaffirm that, as a national organization whose very reason for existence is to instill and reinforce values in youth, the BSA's values cannot be subject to local option choices, but must be the same in every unit; and

    9. WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America respects the right of persons and individuals to hold values and standards different than the Boy Scouts of America, the national officers also agree that the Boy Scouts of America is entitled to expect that persons and organizations with different values and standards will nevertheless respect those of the Boy Scouts of America;

    10. THEREFORE, the national officers recommend the National Executive Board affirm that the Boy Scouts of America shall continue to follow its traditional values and standards of leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Don's a homophobe. Ignore him.

    ReplyDelete
  37. OMG, he is a cubmaster? How'd he pass the psychiatric evaluation?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Don,
    What is about you that makes others go completely unhinged?

    ReplyDelete
  39. 10:52, it's the shameless lying. Go ahead and say you know the Boy Scouts discriminate against gays, but that you feel it's offering deeply important things to your kid. Go ahead and say you don't care about their policies, or even that you're against gay scoutmasters yourself. But don't say that "straight mom" is "dead wrong" about the Boy Scouts when evidence to the contrary is available all over the internet and in the Boy Scouts' own materials.

    If Don lies about this, what else is he lying about?

    ReplyDelete
  40. You guys are way more annoying than Don! And you leave way more posts talking about how annoying Don is, than Don himself leaves! Seriously, stop writing about him and write about the topic. If you don't agree with him, then disagree with his opinion, but stop writing ABOUT DON. Who cares if he writes anonymously? So do you!

    I'm sure someone will respond calling me a "sockpuppet".

    ReplyDelete
  41. Don doesn't need any defending, but when I read this stupidity i felt compelled to respond.

    I have had 2 children in scouting for many years. As I understand BSA policy, sexual discussion of any kind is out of bounds, period. As for the sexual orientation of scout leaders, BSA policy it is similar to the military policy, Don't Ask Don't Tell, which has been upheld by the courts.

    You can be whatever you want to be, but keep your private sex life to yourself. Don't go flaunting your sexuality in the cubscouts. I have come across plenty of people in scouting. Whose to say who is straight and who is gay? Who cares for that matter as long as everyone keeps their personal sex lives to themselves.

    Shis is about providing kids with fun useful activities upon which to grow. There is no proselytizing in scouting, unless you consider saying the Pledge of Allegiance proselytizing.

    To respond to the comment about homophobia... let me see... according to your logic anyone who is affiliated with the scouting is a homophobe? Does that include SFUSD? They authorize scouts to disseminate flyers.

    Enough of your stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 3:03 said: "You guys are way more annoying than Don! And you leave way more posts talking about how annoying Don is, than Don himself leaves! Seriously, stop writing about him and write about the topic. If you don't agree with him, then disagree with his opinion, but stop writing ABOUT DON."

    Whatever you say, Don

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hi 4:26, it's 3:03. Haha. I told you someone was going to say that. I am not Don. I am a single mother with a seven year old daughter in a private school. I don't know nearly enough to write long rants about candidates for the school board. But I do vote, which is why I opened the original post. I'm not Don. Let me have an opinion without trying to discredit me by denying my existence.

    ReplyDelete
  44. 3:03

    Thanks for the tip, puppet of Don.

    ReplyDelete
  45. On sfschools he pretended to be two housewives, a plumber, a teacher, a mailman, and other 'people", all of whom agreed with him and told him how smart and witty he was. It went on and on. And it continues.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I also think that 1) the attacks on Don are gratuitous, and 2) it would be preferable to focus on a discussion of Margaret Brodkin and the other BOE candidates rather than to get sidetracked with discussions of Don and the Boy Scouts of America.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Please please please stop responding to don or talking about him. He's a maniac.

    ReplyDelete
  48. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/10/24/MN0P1FUVKS.DTL

    ReplyDelete
  49. Is there a love/hate relationship going on here among the anti-Don forces? It is getting weird. They despise the very ground he stands on. And as far as I'm concerned, it is pretty solid ground.
    If what they really want is to marginalize him, why keep drawing attention to him on every thread? From what I can tell he's not precipitating this animosity. Someone is obsessed and he is the object of their afflication.

    ReplyDelete
  50. 9:57
    It is DOn who is posing as people complaining about Don, do you not *get* that?
    It's sockpuppet mania.

    ReplyDelete
  51. No, I don't get it. Why would Don pose as people complaining about Don? Aren't you complaining about Don, now? Am I supposed to believe that you are Don complaining about Don posting as a sockpuppet? All the while we have totally lost track of the topic. Reading back I see that Don's comments are on topic. This is not.

    ReplyDelete
  52. afflication? Another dumb don supporter.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I am proud to be able to participate in scouting and to help kids. No organization can please everyone. Boy Scouts provide a tremendous community service all around the world.

    Unlike presidents before him, the current President probably agrees with the naysayers here. He couldn't be bothered to take time out of his fundraising schedule to appear at the World wide Jamboree in W. Virginia this year. Most progressives are anti-scouting. It is an affront to their secular socialist world view. I am not a religious man, but I can recognize a good thing when I see it.

    Regarding the attacks upon me, I think the stupidity and distemper displayed in this thread speaks for itself.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ignore the trolls.

    ReplyDelete
  55. And the troll is you, 5:03 - a troll and a barren man-hating frustrated witch.

    ReplyDelete
  56. It is time to put this thread to bed. Total waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  57. 8:06 is another example of Don's sock-puppeting, and how he sinks the level of discourse on any thread he participates in.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I like brodkin because she and Hoehen are committed to keeping families in SF. I think that's a very important platform.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Of the last 20 posts, 12 of them have been the anti-Don brigade. Seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  60. It's clear to me that the anti-Don disrupters want to focus every thread on Don. In this way people will blame Don one way or another. Why they do this I don't know. It appears to be some sort of personal grudge or the district's handywork. I know they don't like his meddling and very problems he has caused them.

    The obvious answer to this disruption of the blog is to require everyone to log into an account. That wouldn't solve all problems but it would cut down on much of it. The very fact that the moderator doesn't require this is reason to believe that she condones this kind of thing.

    ReplyDelete
  61. 1. There is no anti-Don Brigade. This is the work of one coward. i agree that some people don't like my views, but they don't go out of their way to defame me for them. Why would they waste their time?

    2. Why do you call my efforts to stop district malfeasance "meddling"?

    The so-called Balanced Scorecard 2.0 is the result of my efforts to make SFUSD's scorecard more community friendly and lawful. It was an imbalanced scorecard and the only reason they did it over is because of my complaints to the Cal DOE about it. So I do not think that working for greater public transparency and accountability is meddling and I take objection to your characterization of it as such.

    ReplyDelete
  62. 12:35, all of them are Don. But let's IGNORE it all and just stick to the subjects, ok?

    ReplyDelete
  63. R U kiddin me? If you are right and it is true that Don sometimes posts anonymously along side his named posts, you do it ALL OF THE TIME. So what the hell R U talking about? You are clogging up the blog if anyone is.

    ReplyDelete
  64. sick of don and katyOctober 28, 2010 at 2:06 PM

    8:13 10/27 (AKA "Moggy" AKA Katy AKA 10/25 10:08, etc, etc) seems fixated on the idea that no one besides Don, himself, would think he has anything valid to contribute. IMO she is mostly pissed off at Don b/c he's not a big supporter of Rachel Norton (Katy's SpEd advocate on the BOE).

    ReplyDelete
  65. 2:06 a.k.a Don's 12th imaginary friend:

    I ignore Don. I am not the one posting all the posts against him, and I agree with others, I think Don's sock-puppeting illness is back.
    I really don't care if Don supports Rachel, because support from someone like him isn't something a smart person would WANT.

    >^..^<
    Moggy

    ReplyDelete
  66. Everyone knows who is on this sick anti-Don crusade. Now you are trying to deny it? If that is the reality and you ignore it as you say, why do you begin your post by accusing Don once again of sock-puppeting? Caught in your own trap. The raw underbelly revealed. You have no clothes.

    ReplyDelete
  67. 3:48, A.k.a. Don ... AGAIN

    you accused me of posting all these things against you, I replied saying that I didn't but that I agreed with the posters who think you are the one doing all the back and forth sockpuppeting. Yes, they are right, ignoring you entirely is the only thing to do.

    >^..^<
    Moggy

    ReplyDelete
  68. Oh, and take your meds, for god's sake.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Who is Katy? What does Rachel Norton have to do with this feud? This is getting juicy. Can someone fill me in?

    ReplyDelete
  70. IGNORE THE TROLLS

    ReplyDelete
  71. It TROLLs for thee.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Both Don and Moggy both have very distinctive writing styles; 2:06 and 3:48 write differently from either of them.

    ReplyDelete
  73. @4:26

    Katy = Moggy
    Don = Don
    Katy/Moggy is friends with Rachel Norton.
    Both are advocates for kids with special needs
    Not sure what Don's agenda is, except he seems to really dislike Ms. Norton.
    Starchild appears to be some sort of Libertarian.

    I thought this thread was about Margaret Brodkin?

    Ah, never mind.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Thanks for that 8:18.

    Don is the only one who logs into an account. Who pens the anonymous posts is speculation. So I'm still not very clear. What does any of this have to do with special education? And where do you get the idea that Don dislikes Rachel Norton? Did I miss simething?

    I gather that Don's agenda is to expose the failings of the Garcia administration. He writes mostly about administrative things.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I don't dislike Rachel Norton. I'm disappointed that she is not more of a moderate voice on the Board. During her campaign I had the impression she was not a hard line progressive. Her voting record tells another story.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Katy Franklin is a well known local special education advocate. She is not the same as Moggy.

    ReplyDelete
  77. 8:51- I'm pretty sure, you are wrong. If not, seems like a huge coincidence that they both have a son the same age at CACS.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Would you people stop writing about me and where my son goes to school?

    The TOPIC was Brodkin for BOE.

    >^..^<
    Moggy

    ReplyDelete
  79. That didn't stop you from posting at least a dozen attack emails against me that were not exactly on topic.

    You are the one getting personal. So stop complaining.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Get help, Don. Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Mental illness is not the reason you have opponents.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Same as the radicals at NPR who suggest that Juan Williams should see a therapist.

    ReplyDelete
  83. past time to move onNovember 3, 2010 at 9:53 PM

    Don and Katy, please take this offline. Thanks!!

    ReplyDelete