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.

What's In A Name? or The "Dynamic Duo" Unmasked!

The Duo has confirmed their status by spending significant time and space reveling in my nicknaming them the "Dynamic Duo." Anyone who was taken even a basic writing or literature class would be able to recognize sarcasm when they read it, but not these "two." Actually, the inspiration for them was none other than Ren & Stimpy.

Since we're on the subject of nicknames, what exactly is so bad about"The Three Amigos," anyway? Last time I checked, "amigos" means "friends" and, after all, isn't that a good thing?

Compare PUSD's "Call to the Public" with Glendale & Peoria City Councils

We have been regaled recently by tales of "free speech" being quashed by the "new" PUSD board. On May 22, they modified (some say clarified) the Call to the Public during meetings so that it is now reserved for non-agenda items. Previously, some people (on both sides of issues) would "double-dip" and speak twice to the same agenda item, once during Call to the Public and again when the item came up.

I think most reasonable people would agree with the logic of this clarification. However, the defenders of the "old" board (which fought against enacting Call to the Public to begin with), have claimed this is a move to silence the critics of the "new" board. Depending on the critic, the new policy will "clamp down on the First Amendment rights of all of us" (Erickson) or eliminates "free speech" in PUSD (Rohrig). This drivel (and worse) has been spewed by the Duo and other bloggers in comments on both AzCentral and Newszap. Let's see if their claims stand up to outside scrutiny.

The logical basis of their claim is that PUSD is somehow out-of-step with other public bodies by limiting Call to the Public to non-agenda items. However, the facts of the matter are that both Glendale and Peoria have the exact same limitation clearly stated on their agendas. They must be fascists!

But seriously, it turns out Call to the Public in PUSD is significantly more accomodating than in either Glendale or Peoria. PUSD's Call to the Public is near the beginning of the agenda, while both cities' are at the very end. If the Amigos' true goal was actually to silence their critics, as claimed by some of those critics, placing the Call to the Public at the end of the agenda would be much more effective.

So to summarize, the Duo claims the Amigos, who supported creating Call to the Public, don't want you to have free speech, while they defend the "old" board, which opposed creating Call to the Public in the first place.

Who's the hypocrite now?

Welcome to the PUSD Truth Squad blog!

Several anonymous bloggers have taken to attacking the three PUSD board members (Douglas, Knecht and Murphy) who are independent from the administration, particularly Superintendent Erb. These board members think for themselves and listen to the entire community, not just administration sycophants.

Two of these bloggers in particular, Michael Erickson (NoHoneymoon) and Frank Rohrig (EyeOnPUSD) have been particularly nasty and biased. Erickson even attacked the two newly-elected members (Knecht and Murphy) before they were sworn in! They clearly have a goal undermining the effectiveness of these independent board members, thereby mitigating the loss of monopoly power by their cronies.

So far, their efforts have either been in vain or backfired altogether. They've been reduced to encouraging a recall for the sin of closing the high school campuses at lunch. Ridiculous!

This site will be the "truth check" on them and anyone else who tries to get away with statements or accusations based on gossip, innuendo, half-truths or outright lies. There will be much more coming about a whole host of subjects. Some of the information will seem new, even though in reality it has been available for quite some time.

Stay tuned...