Reporting Questionable Conduct Is A "Threat" (Unless You're Debra Raeder)

Sometimes I get such a kick out of the Duo's blatant hypocrisy!

With regard to contacting the lawyer directly (discussed at the July meeting), they both recently cast aspersions on Murphy's explanation with empty rhetoric, leaving out the actual facts of which they claim to be so fond. They completely omitted any mention of Erb's extremely defensive outburst, in which he said that he was the "staff" person in question. He never once disputed the timeline or substance of Murphy's description of events.

Apparently, Murphy was telling the truth. Otherwise, Erb would have specifically refuted at least some of the substance of Murphy's statement once he identified himself as the "staff" person.

As for Erickson's "Clintonesque" comment, that is pure sophistry, and he knows it! There is a huge difference between asking for the definitions of "threat" and "is." The word "is" has one clearly understood meaning. The word "threat" (when speaking of lawyers in particular) can have any number of meanings and was purposely used to inflame the situation. Saying you will report questionable conduct (is that really a "threat" anyway) is totally different from a physical threat. Raeder was using the timeless "Do you deny you beat your wife?" tactic. Speaking of being "worthy of the best litigator," it was quite artful for Murphy to force Raeder to define the "threat" rather than sounding defensive by doing it himself.

Where the Duo is concerned, here's the clincher. Several meetings ago, didn't Raeder "threaten" Douglas with possibly reporting her for an open meeting violation? For some strange reason, the Duo failed to chastise Raeder for that "threat." Unfortunately for all of them, Douglas' comment turned out not to be a violation at all. In fact, the statutory reason it was allowed was printed right on the agenda under Raeder's nose!

That wasn't just a "threat," it was an "empty threat" and the height of hypocrisy. But hypocrisy is nothing new for Raeder. Apparently when you're motivated by irrational hatred (with a lot of butt-covering thrown in), your own hypocrisy is tough to notice.

Raeder Spanked by AZ Ombudsman for Threat

Most of us remember the PUSD board meeting from last May 22. You know, the one where the Call to the Public was clarified to apply to non-agenda items.

You may also remember that Diane Douglas tried to ask staff to review a point mentioned by a speaker during the Call to the Public. At that moment, Debra Raeder practically tore Douglas' head off, claiming she was violating Open Meeting laws and threatening to file a complaint. Apparently, Raeder didn't notice that printed right there on the agenda under her nose was the statement that explains the agenda item. It specifically says (as does state law) that board members may ask staff to review a matter, which is exactly what Douglas did.

A member of the public, however, didn't think Raeder's inaccurate tirade was appropriate and filed a complaint with the Arizona Ombudsman. After reviewing the recording of the incident, their finding was that Raeder was totally out-of-line and is formally recommending PUSD receive training on Open Meeting laws (again), preferably during a regular board meeting so that the public can benefit from the instruction, as well. That's a good call. Some of our regular speakers need it, quite frankly.

I guess working for the governor causes some people to forget how to follow the rules.

More About Secret Meetings

The Dynamic Duo recently accused Douglas and Murphy of participating in a "conspiracy" to violate Arizona's Open Meeting Laws regarding Challenger. Rohrig has gone so far as to demand both members resign from the board immediately. Erickson said they should be subject to a criminal investigation and not participate in any board proceedings regarding the CLC.

Apparently they believe that if two members meet other than at a posted meeting, it is a violation. Even though it isn't, I'll grant their premise for discussion purposes.

I hope they will level equal condemnation at Galbraith and Raeder. Both of them (Raeder regularly, Galbraith occasionally) have been seen meeting, either individually or together, with none other than Superintendent Jack Erb at the Applebee's at 59th Ave & Peoria after some board meetings going back to at least last year. Mind you, there were weighty issues at hand, such as Jack's "golden parachute" retirement package and "double-dip" contract.

Now that buyout/new contract WASN'T rushed through before the end of the year (just ask them if you don't believe me) after two of the Gang of Four lost the election. Plus, I'm sure they NEVER discussed agenda items or Jack's buyout/new contract. To quote Erickson, "So much for transparency."

Of course, we all know the Duo will make no such rebuke. They will dream up a string of excuses about how that was different, probably because their heroes "care about PUSD" and the "bad" members are just "grandstanding" or flaunting their "own personal agenda."