John Sherffius, the Post-Dispatch editorial cartoonist for the past five years, has resigned effective immediately. This was John's decision, saying he did not feel his work was a good fit for the paper any longer.
I'm going to indulge a little and poke whitefolks in the eye for a minute. But I'll be more specific and poke whitefolks from St. Louis who voted during the 80s. Every once in a while blackfolks get accused of being paranoid about race. But then somebody like say, Mark Fuhrman, gets outed and blackfolks say, where the hell were all you good whitefolks whan this person got power?
"The strong language shows a lapse in civility but doesn't paint him as a white supremacist," says Baum. "It doesn't sound like Earl. He must have been imbibing when he did that. As far as the rhetoric is concerned, I don't go along with that."
"The strong language shows a lapse in civility but doesn't paint him as a white supremacist," says Baum. "It doesn't sound like Earl. He must have been imbibing when he did that. As far as the rhetoric is concerned, I don't go along with that."
Dr. Deval Patrick
Several years ago, the magazine Heterodoxy ran an article about Dr. Deval Patrick, the negro who replaced Alan Bakke at the University of California-Davis Medical School as a result of its ?Affirmative-Action? program. Mr. Bakke sued California?s Board of Regents in what eventually became a landmark Supreme Court Case, Bakke v. Board of Regents of the University of California.
Dr. Patrick managed to graduate from Cal-Davis? medical school, and became a plastic surgeon in the Los Angeles area. To date, Dr. Patrick has at least one kill to his record.
It seems that Dr. Patrick performed liposuction upon a woman patient in his office, who later developed a severe infection and died from it. When the woman upon whom he performed the liposuction returned to his office a few days following her surgery -- rather than take her to the emergency room of some hospital -- instead, Dr. Patrick had his "nurse" (i.e., girlfriend) take this patient to his own house, whereupon she died. He was obviously trying to hide her condition from medical authorities by treating her, "privately."
You see, serious infections following liposuction had previously occurred with at least two other patients of his, and not only were these two patients in the process of suing him, but Dr. Patrick?s license was under review by the state at the time of his ?kill.? He has since lost his medical license.
There should be a law requiring any advocate of Affirmative Action (such as Teddy Kennedy) to use only black surgeons, airline pilots and attorneys who participated in an affirmative action program at their respective graduate schools.
Earl P. Holt III
Deval Patrick is not a physician; he is a former Assistant Attorney for Civil Rights and is still deeply involved in civil rights law. The physician he is referring to is the late Dr. Patrick Chivas, and his account of the events are only half true. There is also little evidence that he was admitted instead (not replacing) Bakke. A rather amusing mix-up.
For someone with an IQ of 130, this is probably the dumbest error that could have easily been checked.
500,000 people leave the city and this guy stays?! Makes me want to leave the city.
The indictment also says several high level political officials knew about a vote fraud coverup.
One of those high level types: St. Louis Comptroller Darlene Green, who allegedly sat in a February 2001 discussion about destroying the fake voter cards to stymie police investigators.
======
Criminal investigators say Green listening to a conversation about destroying evidence in a criminal case is not a crime. However, a well known politician, when asked about Green's conduct, was surprised she didn't contact police when she learned of the scheme.
At one high school, the entire food service staff did not show. The district delivered frozen meals for students. Elsewhere, city health inspectors would not let cafeteria workers prepare food because they had no hot water to wash their hands or utensils.
still dont believe it, but i will when i hear it; and i must have said "different", too? it must have been hyperbole and i just didnt remember it; apologies to jake for doubting his accuracy, tho final judgment will wait until i hear the tape; just when i thought the week couldnt get any worse; all part of god's plan somehow; boy, she must be really mad at me for something. thank, i think, bill
mkoenig@post-dispatch.com wrote:
Bill,
I just heard the interview tape. You said "20'' not ''4.''
Marcia Koenig
yea yea yea; i get it; that'll teach me to use figures of speech, and i've always been a literal kind of guy; the case can me made that you shouldnt have used a hyperbole without making it clear that that's what it was; otherwise, people who havent read the email, which is all the post readers, wouldnt know; but nothing i can do now. i'll listen to the tape.
jwagman@post-dispatch.com wrote:
Check your voice mail, hombre ...
Regarding the editorial criticizing my recent email to my friend Superintendent Bill Roberi:-------- TITLE: To the Right are Links to Requested Stories AUTHOR: archpundit DATE: 10/10/2003 - [Link] ----- BODY: I can't send e-mail right now, but for those who have asked for the links to the original e-mails from Haas to Roberti and the curse letter look to the right and click the appropriate links. -------- TITLE: Haas Files: "Unfocused" AUTHOR: archpundit DATE: 10/10/2003 - [Link] ----- BODY: the unfocused part should be my call; and as i figure you had at least 5 times that much to trash me. hardly seems fair but typical for your department.
First, I did not apologize to Bill Roberti. He can take care of himself, called me the next morning to tell me not to get upset; it wasn?t until your paper called him for comment that he starting making noises about a lawsuit. I thought you were supposed to report the news not make it. I have, on the other hand, apologized to Karen Marsal (if my email inappropriately hurt her feelings. I would never mean to do that.
As for the email itself, your editorial called it ?profane? (yes), ?insulting? (yes), ?possibly libelous? (not according to the lawyers I?ve talked to), ?absurd, self-centered rantings? (you must have been reading one of your own editorials by mistake), and a ?tirade? (yes) ?filled with sexual innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations of sexual impropriety? (NO, NO, NO!), and ?with one mote of legitimate complaint?. Well, actually, it had several good ?motes?:
-. I told him that with all the problems the district had, I was surprised he didn?t have better things to than send me the sarcastic email I received from him.
-I said that if we were going to pay our consultant another $500,000 for their work in the reorganization, what were we paying his firm $4,000,000 for?! (And I used the ?f? word twice for emphasis, which by the way the FCC has just ruled is not obscene in a non-sexual context.)
-I told him that his blaming recent layoffs in the payroll department for the recent snafu of overpaying district employees $350,000 was a cheap shot and failure to take responsibility for their own actions since he and Karen Marsal had been in charge of the district for 6 months and ordered the layoffs!
-Finally, I said that it seemed that Karen Marsal and Vince Schoemehl were running the district and it was unfair for him to have to take all the public criticism. Didn?t he have enough money to just retire and leave this aggravation behind him and spend time with his lovely family? (And I used a vulgar graphic metaphor to express how I thought Vince and Karen were treating him.)
A few final thoughts:
-As recently as a month ago, editorial page editor Christine Bertelson emailed me to ask for my opinion of what?s really going on in the district and how and what I think we should do better. That was a great honor, and would seem to belie their general criticism of me.
-I know my email was a little rough. I was angry then and I am now, at what they are doing, how they?re doing it, how they?re treating people, and my being left out of the loop of decision-making. . It was the first time in my six years on the board I expressed myself like this. It?d do it again with modifications if I had it to do over. I was venting anger in the hopes that the embarrassment and discomfort it might cause would change their behavior somewhat. We can always dream. And it?s always good to stand up to bullies.
-Finally, the editorial board sort of called for my resignation. I?ll tell you what: I?ll resign when they resign ? they first.
Bill Haas, Member for the foreseeable future, St. Louis School Board
Regarding the editorial criticizing my recent email to my friend Superintendent Bill Roberi:-------- TITLE: Haas Files: The Apology AUTHOR: archpundit DATE: 10/10/2003 - [Link] ----- BODY: I have apologized generally to Karen Marsal, during a recent schoolboard's executive session, for some of the things I said in my email of earlier this week. I thought I should apologize to her again in an email to those who received the original email.
First, I did not apologize to Bill Roberti, as reported in the editorial and elsewhere, nor do I intend to. Until now I have always treated him with respect in public and private, even tho sometimes it wasn't easy. He was recently sarcastic to me twice, once in person and once by email Sunday night, to which my email was in response, as well as raising other issues. Bill Roberti can take care of himself. As far as I'm concerned he and I are cool, and I consider us friends until he tells me otherwise. The morning after I emailed him that vigorous email he called me to tell me not to get so upset it wasn't good for my blood pressure (something I always tell him), and that we should do coffee more often. Then I asked him a favor about something and he said he'd do it. I thought he took that hit pretty good. It wasn't until your paper called him for comment that he starting making noises about a lawsuit. I thought you were supposed to report the news not make it.
I have, on the other hand, apologized to Karen Marsal (twice) if my email inappropriately hurt her feelings. I would never mean to do that. I would welcome the opportunity to apologize to her again.
Ok, let's get to the email itself: your editorial called it "profane" (yes), "insulting" (yes), "possibly libelous" (not according to the lawyers I've talked to, tho no one wants to test that in litigation), "absurd, self-centered rantings" (they must have been reading one of their own editorials by mistake), and a "tirade" (yes) "filled with sexual innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations of sexual impropriety" (NO, NO, NO, and my lawyers and I may be discussing whether that violates the standard for libel of a public figure of knowingly false or in reckless disregard of the truth; maybe too much drugs during the 60's, I'm thinking - them, not me) and "with one mote of legitimate complaint". Well, actually, it had several good "motes":
-My email was in response to a sarcastic one he sent me late Sunday night about essentially nothing. I told him that with all the problems the district had, I was surprised he didn't have better things to do than send sarcastic emails to a board member.
-I said that if we were going to pay our number crunching consultant $1,000,000 for their work in the reorganization, what were we paying his firm $4,000,000 for?! And I used the "f" word twice for emphasis, which by the way the FCC has just ruled is not obscene on television when used in a non-sexual context. (Otherwise I wouldn't have used it.)
-I told him that his blaming our payroll department peole and recent layoffs for the recent snafu of overpaying district employees $350,000 was a cheap shot and failure to take responsibility for their own actions since he and Karen Marsal had been in charge of the district for 6 months and caused the layoffs!
-Finally, I said that it seemed that Karen Marsal and Vince Schoemehl were running the district and it was unfair for him to have to take all the public criticism. He didn't need this aggravation, it wasn't good for his blood pressure, didn't he have enough money to just retire and spend time with his lovely family? And I used a vulgar graphic metaphor to express how I thought Vince and Karen were treating him. (And I didn't call him stupid several times as has been reported. I did say that "he seemed like a nice guy if not very smart." That was more or less teasing, tho he?s not always as smart as I would like him to be; neither am I. He's very smart, and we?re in good hands all things considered.)
In the interest of honesty, in my first reference to Karen Marsal, I referred to Bill Roberti and his "girlfriend" Karen Marsal. I was sure that no one familiar with the district would think I meant "girlfriend" literally. I meant it figuratively, sarcastically and dismissively. And when I heard that some crazed talk show host was trying to make something more out of it, I emailed everyone I had originally emailed to emphasize that?s not what I meant, and that as far as I knew or cared Bill Roberti wasn't dating Karen Marsal, Vince Schoemehl or anyone else except his wife, and that it wasn't any of my business, and I didn't care what people did anyhow, as long as they got their work done and didn't do anything in the street and scare the horses.
A few final thoughts:
-I was angry then and I am now, at what he and they are doing, how they're doing it, how they're treating people, and my being left out of the loop of decision making, which seems in my opinion to include Vince Schoemehl and not many else. That's not how an elected board is supposed to operate. I was venting anger to express myself and in the hopes that the embarrassment and uncomfortableness it was designed to cause might change their behavior somewhat. We can always dream. And it?s always good to stand up to bullies, though there are always risks to doing so.
-Since the editorial board has been a knee-jerk supporter of this ruling cabal from the get-go, I think they should recuse themselves from any criticism of myself and Rochell Moore, the loyal opposition to the cabal running roughshod over everyone and everybody.
-As recently as a month ago, editorial page editor Christine Bertelson emailed me to ask for my written opinion on what's really going on in the district and what I think needs to be done to change it for the better. That was a great honor. How bad can I be?
-I know the email was a little rough. It was the first time in my six years on the board I expressed myself like this. It'd do it again with modifications if I had it to do over. You know, Vince Schoemehl gets in trouble sometimes for his mouth. Maybe it's the company I've been keeping.
-Finally, the editorial board sort of called for my resignation. I'll tell you what: I'll resign when they resign - they first.
Bill Haas
Member for the foreseeable future, St. Louis School Board
A firm run by a former St. Louis School Board member has received a $62,900 no-bid consulting contract with the school district to train principals.
Former board member Madye Henson Whitehead, who served until April, is president of a firm called Strategic Vision Inc. The firm is slated to provide the training classes and a leadership development program over an eight-month period beginning this month.
Whitehead said she originally was approached by school administrators to provide the training. Superintendent Cleveland Hammonds Jr. said that when he learned of it, he suggested that the training be conducted through the district. He approved the selection of Whitehead, and the board agreed to the hiring last month.
Hammonds said he knew from the outset that the contract would raise questions. He said he pointed out at a school board meeting that Whitehead ran the company.
"Madye wouldn't be one of the board members I would want to reward anyway," Hammonds said. "She was not one of my staunch supporters. She voted against renewing my contract."
When Hammonds' contract came up for a vote in 1999, Whitehead was one of two board members voting against the renewal. The other was Bill Haas.
Consulting contracts do not have to be bid.
However, board member Amy Hilgemann said the district should still bid such projects and former board members should be barred from doing business with the district for a year after they leave.
Whitehead said her clients have included Anheuser-Busch, Enterprise Rent-A-Car and the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Whitehead said she avoided any conflicts during her six-year tenure on the board and added, "I clearly didn't approach the district. I was approached. I'm always sensitive to conflicts."
St. Louis is one of 12 districts in the country that received the grant, worth about $1 million for up to five years. But last year, the Wallace Foundation voiced concerns about how the money was being spent in St. Louis and threatened to cut funding for the district's project.
"Unless there is significant improvements in both the rate of implementation, the quality of the work itself and the alignment of the plans to support the LEAD objectives in the next five months, the continuation of St. Louis as a LEAD district is highly questionable," Wallace's former director of education programs, Mary Lee Fitzgerald, wrote to then Superintendent Cleveland Hammonds Jr. in June 2002.
The letter, obtained by the Post-Dispatch through a public information request, says the school district had veered from the original proposal.
"When the review panel rated the proposal St. Louis submitted, it gave high marks to the plan," Fitzgerald wrote to Hammonds. "In the last six months, however, there is little evidence that plan has been followed."
Henson, who has no classroom teaching experience, was interim director of the LEAD project at the time. Several months later, she was made permanent director, despite Wallace's request that the job go to an experienced educator.
"It is highly desirable to have someone in the position who has been a superintendent, a principal or has a background in teaching and student learning," Fitzgerald wrote.
-------- TITLE: Taking Bets on How Many Haas E-mails will come from this AUTHOR: archpundit DATE: 10/08/2003 - [Link] ----- BODY: Looks like the P-D thinks the letters weren't suitable for a family newspaper. But they have editorialized on Haas and Moore today.
But Wallace officials have criticized the results. A critique titled "Progress Report Feedback" sent to the district last year criticized Henson's work for containing vague goals and incomplete principal surveys and for failing to answer a list of questions submitted three months earlier.
Fitzgerald, in a November e-mail, also questioned Henson's compensation - about $110,000 a year. "The project director's salary in St. Louis is out of line with other LEAD directors," Fitzgerald wrote. "We suggest a cap of $85,000."
Henson says her contract is more because, as a consultant, she does not get employee benefits. Her contract ends in December.
The school district's new management team has shifted Henson's duties to staff member Larry Hutchins, the district's accountability officer.
Wallace has awarded St. Louis a second year of funding, largely because of the district's new leadership, said Richard Laine, who replaced Fitzgerald in April.
"We recognized St. Louis as a district with a lot of potential," Laine said.
WHEREVER THE BOUNDARIES of propriety lie, St. Louis School Board member Bill Haas stepped way beyond them this week by sending a profane, insulting, possibly libelous e-mail to interim Superintendent William V. Roberti.
The subject field of the e-mail Mr. Haas sent was "YOU CAN KISS MY A-." Much of it was a tirade filled with sexual innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations of sexual impropriety, unpublishable in a family newspaper. The rest was the absurd, self-centered rantings - with one mote of legitimate complaint about the rising costs of the consultants' work - that have long characterized Mr. Haas' communications.
Mr. Haas apologized to Mr. Roberti and said he didn't mean anything by the allegations of sexual impropriety. One could sigh and dismiss it as another example of Bill Haas being Bill Haas. For all his eccentricities, Mr. Haas has occasionally seemed like one of the more rational School Board members, asking necessary and pointed questions about sex education, guns in schools, the hiring of a pedophile priest and the cost of hiring Mr. Roberti and his firm, Alvarez & Marsal.
But Mr. Haas, together with board member Rochell Moore, have created more disruption than any board, community or employee should have to bear. In the past six months, Ms. Moore placed a curse on the mayor, called for her supporters with guns to stand up for her and continued to disrupt meetings. No sane visitor from outside St. Louis would understand why the city puts up with this appalling conduct. Mr. Roberti and his colleagues - and other board members - have a tough enough job to do without being verbally abused by their employers.
The School Board is one of the most important public bodies in St. Louis. It is responsible for the future of our children. That involves difficult issues about which there is plenty of room for strong disagreement. But Mr. Haas and Ms. Moore too often express their disagreements in ways that throw the entire process into turmoil, undercutting their own credibility and any legitimate points they raise.
State law permits two board members or 10 citizens to sue for the removal of a board member. But that process is generally limited to misuse of funds. The board itself does not have the power to vote off a member, but it can censure one. At a minimum, the board should censure Mr. Haas and Ms. Moore for unprofessional behavior.
If the two of them are not willing to act more civilly, the community would be better off if they resigned to pursue other interests that don't involve a deliberative body and issues as important and urgent as the education of 40,000 children.
During the height of such active audience participation, Greg Johnson allegedly jumped on the table the Board was sitting around as others moved toward it. Mr. Johnson is a parent of children being victimized by the Board. Police handcuffed and arrested several people, including Green Party Co-coordinator David Sladky, who had been sitting near Mr. Johnson.
According to Green Party spokesperson Kim Jayne, who was at the meeting, "David Sladky was not doing anything when police handcuffed him. He might have been targeted because he was wearing a t-shirt with 'MISSOURI GREEN PARTY' in large letters and he had been passing out Green Party newsletters before the meeting began."
Ms. Jayne sees conflicts initiated by the School Board as reflecting much larger problems. She says that "The Democratic Party of St. Louis is carrying out an experimental program at eliminating public schools that politicians in other cities are watching closely. If they get away with it here, you can watch it spread across the country like a disease. Charges against everyone arrested tonight at the St. Louis School Board meeting should be dropped. The criminals are the School Board majority, their management teams and all the politicians who find unlimited money to fund sports stadiums and war for oil while attacking school children and school employees.
Activist Jamala Rogers, who earlier this summer promoted a boycott of the first day of school, had a $4,800 contract from the school's development office for an anti-violence workshop. A company owned by Anthony Shahid, an ally of former Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr., was awarded a $38,700 contract to counsel students at Turner, Stevens and Northwest middle schools.
Shahid said he did not think political ties or activism helped him get the contract - most of the time, he said, his views are a hindrance to business.
"I guess we got it because we know what we are doing," Shahid said. "Most of the time people don't want to deal with me because I am politically active."
A key selling point for all the turnaround firms that applied for the job was that they would be outsiders, capable of making the tough decisions and heading home.
But the team running the city schools has found that running a school district is not as simple as running a business. The reality is that patronage and politics have been institutionalized in St. Louis and many other urban school districts. That's a lesson the management firm is learning.
"That's part of the cost of business," Roberti said. "There isn't a city in the United States of America that doesn't have some sort of patronage. Name one - can you?"
KISS MY BILL: St. Louis School Board member Bill Haas is known for his inflammatory e-mails and outrageous comments. But an e-mail he sent out Monday that included personal attacks on interim Superintendent Bill Roberti and consultant Karen Marsal of Alvarez & Marsal may have gone over the edge. "I think he should be punished," Roberti said. "He may have broken some laws. We are both totally incensed by this. He has slandered us. We have no other choice" but to turn the e-mail over to legal counsel. For her part, Marsal said: "This is harassment. This man (Bill Haas) is my boss, and this is harassment. This is defamation of character."
If Hageman is not expressing the opinion of the Mayor, then he needs to step in and try to resolve this issue. The hard-nose political reality is that unless a well-funded black candidate emerges who can challenge Slay, he is almost certain to be re-elected. But what kind of tenure will he have if over half of the population thinks that he is insensitive to racial discrimination? By the way, if it should turn out that Chief of Staff Jeff Rainford's fingerprints are on this dubious decision, the EYE would be far from surprised.
The Board of Education reaffirms its commitment to foster an environment in the St. Louis Public Schools that is conducive to both excellence in education and attainment of career goals. It is the policy of the board that all students, faculty and staff have a right to a working and learning environment free from all forms of discrimination, including sexual harassment. The Board of Education prohibits sexual harassment. "Sexual harassment" includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexually motivated physical conduct or other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature when:
1. Submission to such conduct or communication is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individuals employment or education; or
2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct or communication by an individual is used as a factor for employment or educational decisions affecting an individual; or
3. Such conduct or communication has the purpose or effect of unreasonably or substantially interfering with an individuals employment or education or of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment or educational environment.
This prohibition applies to sexual harassment of other staff members and of students. This prohibition extends to sexual harassment which takes place either on or off school premises.
Employees who violate this policy shall be subject to disciplinary action, including dismissal.
BE IT RESOLVED:
THAT THE BOARD ASK ITS ATTORNEYS, KEN BROSTRON AND LASHLEY BAER TO OBTAIN AN INDEPENDENT OPINION FROM AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, OR RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FROM WHICH THE BOARD CAN OBTAIN AN INDEPENDENT OPINION, WHETHER:
VINCE SCHOEMEHL AND THE LAW FIRM OF BRYAN CAVE MAY HAVE COMMITTED THE TORTS OF INTERFERENCE WITH A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP, INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP, AND/OR INTERFERENCE WITH ANTICIPATED BUSINESS, AND/OR RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION, BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIONS IN OBTAINING AND PROVIDING, INTER ALIA, RESOLUTIONS (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE RESOLUTIONS PROVIDING FOR REORGANIZATION OF THE DISTRICT AS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD BY THE 4 NEW BOARD MEMBERS AT ITS FIRST MEETING, AND PROPOSED BY-LAWS CHANGES FOR THE BOARD, WHILE THEY KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE BOARD AND DISTRICT WERE CURRENTLY REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IN A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT PURSUANT TO A LEGAL OPINION FROM THE MISSOURI SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION, THAT BOARD MEMBERS SCHOEMEHL, CLINKSCALE, JACKSON AND ARCHIBALD, SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO A CONCOMITANT RESOLUTION REQUIRING THEM TO OBTAIN INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE IN THEIR LITIGATION WITH LIZZ BROWN ET AL, AS WELL AS BE PRECLUDED FROM VOTING ON THIS RESOLUTION, AS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROHIBITED BY MISSOURI LAW.
WHEREAS BOARD MEMBERS SCHOEMEHL, CLINKSCALE, ARCHIBALD AND JACKSON ARE CONTENDING IN THEIR LAWSUIT WITH LIZZ BROWN ET AL, THAT CERTAIN ACTIONS WERE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE SUNSHINE LAW BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT YET BEEN SWORN IN AS BOARD MEMBERS; AND-------- TITLE: Support the Wire AUTHOR: archpundit DATE: 10/06/2003 - [Link] ----- BODY: Dear Friends:
WHEREAS ANY SUCH DEFENSE WHICH RELIES ON ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY WERE NOT BOARD MEMBERS COVERED BY THE SUNSHINE LAW DOES NOT WARRANT REPRESENTATION BY DISTRICT COUNSEL WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS TO REPRESENT BOARD MEMBERS IN THEIR ACTIONS AS BOARD MEMBERS;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
THAT SAID BOARD MEMBERS OBTAIN THEIR OWN COUNSEL NOT AT DISTRICT EXPENSE TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES IN SUCH LITIGATION WITH RESPECT TO THOSE CLAIMS RELATING TO SUCH ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE MISSOURI SUNSHINE LAWS FOR ACTIONS THE BOARD MEMBERS CONTEND WERE TAKEN BEFORE THEY WERE OFFICIALLY BOARD MEMBERS AND THEREFORE ALLEGEDLY NOT COVERED BY THE SUNSHINE LAWS.
although people from whom i received feedback on my previous email, including bill roberit, seem to have taken it in the business not personal spirit it was intended, it has been pointed out to me that at least one person, lizz brown, may have been wondering whether my email was meant to imply a romantic connection or involvement between Mr. Roberit and Karen Marsal. OF COURSE NOT, WHAT COULD ANYONE HAVE BEEN POSSIBLY THINKING? my position is that i have no romantic involvement with anyone, so no one else should either. I hope this clears up any non-confusion.
Bill Haas
and just in case, as a postscript, i should make clear that i didnt mean to imply that Vince and Mr. Roberti are or were personally involved either, although they're both fine people in their own right and anyone would be lucky to have them; all references in the email of a romantic, sexual or related nature were metaphorical, not literal, and presumably even lizz brown realizes that now; tho she's and smart and fine and feisty womanperson and lawyer in her own right, and as far as i can tell very much on the side of truth, justice and the american way on issues educational; so i presume that reports that she misinterpreted my original email were erroneous.
and for the record, my position as a board member on liaisons, romantic and otherwise, is that people can do what they want as long as it's consentual, that they get their work done first, and that, as we used to say in England, they dont do it in the street and scare the horses, residents of st.patricks center behind the administration building, or other innocent bystanders or people of a sensitive nature.
billhaas
i sent a feisty email last night (this morning) to my friend Bill Roberti, responding to something he wrote me in response to something i wrote board members and him; i copied you all on my response. At least one person told me that Bill's email to him was not attached to my reply to him, so they didnt even know whom i was sending it to, let alone why. It's a mystery to me; perhaps it has something to do with the settings on her computer, or mine, as in the past I've received replies to my email that didnt have the original email so i did even know what they were talking about.
in any case, this should clear up any latent mysteries about my original email, and would welcome hearing from anyone who got me original email (entitled something to the effect of "you can kiss my .... . .") but didnt have anything attached to it, so i know how common this is and how i can avoid it; the person in question about whom i'm speaking didnt even have to whom i sent it on her email.
anyhow, email mysteries and thanks; good times
if kwmu doesnt start giving some balance to their programming on the current school board complexities, people need to contact the new chancellor and threaten complaints to the fcc on their license. mcnary's commentary was in praise of those do nothing know nothing see no speak no hear no think evil castrated buttboy sheep darnetta bob ron, and vince schoemehl who is at least trying, even tho he has, as we know, considerable limitations.
Jerry: regarding your "itiem" (?) in Sunday's column on Cher: "the groupies . . . caught whom they thought was the artist"! Even my comp I students at Harris Stowe and East Central College know that it is "who" they thought was the artist - "who" being the subject of the subordinate clause "who was the artist", not the direct object of parenthetical interjection (?), "they thought". We even have an exercise in my classes with virtually the same sentence.
What are you and your editors possibly thinking?! You've always been like a god to me! How are you and they going to win a Pulitzer this way? Maybe the way you and the others down there have been bending over the last several months for Vince, Karen Marsal and her strap-on, and their ilk, has cause too much blood to rush to your respective heads or, uh, whatever, and has caused you to become dizzy.
love as always, Bill
peter, others: what the hell meeting with the board of alderpeople; if the board is invited, no public notice or notice to board members has been given is required; can someone enlighten me tho i would have a teaching conflict and might not be able to attend; if it's adminstration, that would be different, tho if the board members might show up, if 4 or more show up, they cant hold it; the alderpeople notice wouldnt suffice for board purposes. did you ever get my check for my subscription and that of the post? you dont have to acknoledge that magnanimous gesture in your newsletter; knowing i did the right thing is always reward enough for me; tho being elected to a paying public office once before i die would be nice, too; can anyone say Mayor Haas? (actually Mayor Bill, or just Bill, will be fine, thank you).
