Joey Stansbury is accusing the Great Schools in Wake Coalition of trying to chill Wake County school board member John Tedesco's First Amendment free speech rights.
In a Wake Community Network blog post tonight, the conservative activist chides GSIW for saying in their latest newsletter that Tedesco's Tea Party speech may have violated the school board's code of ethics.
Stansbury argues that GSIW is showing a double standard for criticizing Tedesco's remarks while not complaining about former school board member Beverley Clark likening the new board majority to jackasses at the group's March 20 forum.
"Thank goodness she's not on the school board now or you might have to say bad things about her," Stansbury writes. "Well, then again, probably not."
Comments
Watch the video that Mr. Hui
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 12:32 — carson79Watch the video that Mr. Hui has linked everyone, I think the tone and a few of the statements are pretty out of line considering his position.
At least all of you that tried to make us think this was not part of a conservative movement to take over our school board should want this guy to shut his mouth! The rhetoric is pretty clear here guys.
does the way he says "county" sound off to anyone else? I keep noticing it more and more watching his speeches. This guy is a politician through and through.
Chill pill
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 08:02 — bnartistThis comes from a guy who repeatedly called students terrorists last year for exercising their free speech rights in support of peace in Palestine. He's the only one trying to chill free speech.
What was the complaint?
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 07:10 — Eric_BWhat is the complaint against Tedesco? That he made a speech at a political rally? How is that using his position for partisan gain?
Other former school board members have held overtly partisan positions. I'm thinking of Lori Millberg's position in the NC Democratic party. She continued to participate in the Democratic party and served as a delegate to replace Sen. Malone after his passing while serving as a school board member.
BOE members should be
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 08:43 — user12345BOE members should be lobbyists and cheerleaders for the school system trying to aquire more resources for our kids. I would hope that John would use his appearance to push for more resources for the schools.
Are you kidding me? Lori
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 07:58 — DrActualFactualAre you kidding me? Lori Millberg sat in for Sen. Malone until someone was appointed--unbelieveable.
So, she served as a delegate
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 08:04 — Eric_BSo, she served as a delegate for the Democratic Party to appoint a replacement for Sen. Malone. She didn't actually hold the position.
Oh, ok--thanks for the
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 08:08 — DrActualFactualOh, ok--thanks for the clarification, I guess I misread your post--it did get my heart pumpin for the day--thanks!
I would thinnk this one
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 07:31 — duval7. Avoid being placed in a position of
conflict of interest and refrain from using the Board member's
position on the
Board for personal or partisan gain;
What did he gain by giving a
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 07:43 — Eric_BWhat did he gain by giving a speech?
It is the first sentence
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 08:29 — duvalConflict of interest. Tea partiers are against taxes. Period.
BOE rely on taxes in order to support the public schools.
Most likely much higher taxes in order to support Tedesco's new yet to be revealed plan.
Wrong - False Assumption
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 09:49 — Voice_of_Reason_Teaparty members are for the most part are against runaway spending/debt and erosion of liberty. They are also for the founding principles of the US Constitution (i.e. limited Federal Power). They are not against taxes to fund necessary programs. They are targeting federal level government only. Membership (loose definition since there is no formal) includes people that are Conservative Republicans, Conservative Democrats, Libertarians, and independents. It is a patriotic movement, not a new political party.
VERY, VERY FEW ARE AGAINST ALL TAXES. That IMHO is crazy talk.
VOR... These teabag people
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 10:18 — user12345VOR... These teabag people will eventually be cooped into the GOP who will absorb them and use them for their political gain … I consider them Republicans who have gotten out of the barn and now need to be corralled and subdued. I like their message of being fiscally responsible and limiting government but they will just be used and discard by the GOP once they have served their purpose.
That's not a conflict of
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 08:37 — Eric_BThat's not a conflict of interest. From Wikipedia:
I don't see how Tedesco personally exploited his position as a school board member for personal benefit.
Please refrain from making unfounded accusations.
another conflict of interest
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 13:38 — SatchHHReading these posts makes me realize that a solicitation I received from John Tedesco when he worked for the Boys and Girls Club really was a conflict of interest. In an email from him, he asked for donations to the BGC and signed the email with his school board information. Based on what I'm reading here, that is a clear example of using his position as a board member for personal (to help his professional life) gain. Correct?
disagree
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 08:50 — red_balloonFact: Tea party wants no taxes/ lower taxes.
Gain #1: Tedesco will end up paying less by way of taxes (never mind that he apparently makes a princely sum of $11K as a BOE member).
Gain #2: Lower tax collections further Tedesco's agenda of warehousing poor kids and starving them of resources.
Gain #3: Lower taxes will result in fewer buses thus further asphyxiating WCPSS' notion of 'diversity'.
And so on and so forth. All it needs is a little bit of detachment from reality to accuse Tedesco of a COI.
FACT????
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 09:34 — Voice_of_Reason_Where on earth did you establish that " fact "?
That is an erroneous opinion, not even close to a fact.
I thought it was about
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 11:00 — red_balloonI thought it was about lowering taxes. Could you state what it is about? Or is there even a homogeneous definition of the objective?
In a nutshell
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 11:49 — Voice_of_Reason_The "Teaparty" is a grassroot semi-organized group that is trying to reign in unbridled federal power and spending. It's basic foundation is the US Constitution with ratified amendments, not as a "living document" distorted by the federal court system. The members are conservative, not beholding to any party leadership. The left and the lapdog media has been trying to paint them as wacko's, uneducated, uber-religious right, and an arm of the Republican party. The truth is they are generally college educated, middle-class, well involved, well-read, decent, caring taxpayers who have had enough of the direction this country is going. The age group of the members are generally older than the radical movements of the past. The goal is to perserve the nation in the framework of the US Constitution with limited power given to the federal government. They care for their children. I encourage you to go to a rally if you don't believe me.
AGAIN, their focus is federal government. They are not against state or local government taxation or power.
I don't know about power but
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 12:02 — red_balloonI don't know about power but certainly I can understand the fiscal prudence thought. On second thoughts, while typing this, I realize I would like power to govern on certain issues to be delegated to local authorities.
Eric, you may be too close
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 08:58 — user12345Eric, you may be too close to the problem ... the newbies see the BOE as a stepping stone to bigger office ... the schools system's success is secondary to their personal success.
Prove it
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 09:21 — Duhhuh666User if you are going to make such statements please provide proof. If any member have plans for higher office, i guess they are following in the footsteps of Rosa Gill..
I prefer Websters
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 08:46 — duvalconflict of interest
: a conflict between the private interests
and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust
_____________________________________________
He is suppose to represent ALL of the children of Wake county when he sits on the BOE. In everything he says and does for the next 3 1/2 years.
I see his taking sides with a group who is opposed to our current public policies is a conflict of interest, as he is currently in a position to make public policy.
You don't have to be rude to me. I am just trying to figure this out, as I suspect you are.
Huh?
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 10:07 — Bob_SconceSo, by that definition, every member of the Tea Party should be barred from public office? And everybody who has a disagreement with current public policy should be barred?
I suspect that if you look at your standard reasonably, you'll see that it's wholly impractical, unworkable and unconstitutional.
Most public offices are not
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 10:14 — danofncMost public offices are not officially non-partisan.
Non partisan refers to not
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 13:48 — Duhhuh666Non partisan refers to not identifing with a party or holding party primary's for the office. It does not mean the person holding the office can not be part of a political party. I did not se the "non-partisan" uproar when Rosa Gill filled a democratic seat in th NC house. I guess she was doing it as a non partisan person. Face it you can not hold elections and get non political people to run.
If the school board is
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 12:44 — CaryCurmudgeonIf the school board is non-partisan, how come the N&O and NC Policy Watch continue to refer to the "Republican-backed majority?" Come to think of it, why don't they ever refer to the "Democratic-backed minority?"
I believe the Repuplican
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 13:24 — danofncI believe the Repuplican party support for the 4 new members in the last election was unprecedented.
The Democratic Party spent
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 13:33 — CaryCurmudgeonThe Democratic Party spent as much supporting their candidates as the Republicans did, got a better answer?
Uhh...
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 11:18 — Bob_SconceWhat is a non-partisan public office? That doesn't even make sense.
Wake school directors run in non-partisan *elections*, but all that means is that their party isn't identified on the ballot and voting a straight party-line ticket won't vote for any school director. That hardly bars directors from bringing their personal views, even their personal political views (as if they could be distinguished), into play when doing their jobs.
I think some judges are
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 12:25 — danofncI think some judges are elected, aren't they?
I understand that everyone has their personal views, and those views will impact the decisions that they make. I think that's rather obvious.
If you watch the video, JT makes several statements that I think are very questionable. I don't think his speech was a good idea. It sounds like he's campaigning.
This Is The Crux....
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 16:13 — chaboardIf you watch the video, JT makes several statements that I think are
very questionable. I don't think his speech was a good idea. It
sounds like he's campaigning.
WEll..
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 14:16 — Bob_SconceJudges are a different thing and partisan considerations (along with many, many other things) should not inform their decision-making, regardless of whether they're appointed or elected. For that matter, to the extent that the school board is a judicial body, those considerations should also not inform school board decisions.
But, executive and legislative officials are there specifically to create policy.
I have not yet watched JT's speech. In general, I think there's a lot of irrational fear of Tea Partiers. They just seem to be a bunch of PO'd fiscal conservatives. (However, I was amused that many Tea Partiers apparently want to keep medicare and social security, considering their abysmal financial situation.)
The One Thing They Are Certainly NOT Is...
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 16:16 — chaboardThey just seem to be a bunch of PO'd fiscal conservatives.
Watch the video when you get
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 14:29 — danofncWatch the video when you get time (it's only about 6 minutes).
If you still think it's no big deal, then we'll agree to disagree.
So..
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 21:11 — Bob_SconceI see what you mean by "it sounds like he's campaigning" -- it was basically a political rally, and that's what people sound like there. He sounded a little nasaly and you can sure hear his Pittsburgh accent coming through (pronouncing "County" as "Cahny")
And, I can see how people on the left would be mad at his characterization of them in this speech. But, frankly, I don't think it did any harm -- it's not like Yevonne Brennan and her ilk would have pulled any punches if he hadn't given this speech. He's just fighting back.
I'm not as far left as you
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 21:21 — danofncI'm not as far left as you seem to think.
Brennan and her "ilk" are not elected officials. I don't really have any expectations about their behavior.
I don't expect any of the activist groups to really, really have the best interests of the district at heart.
I do expect a standing member of the BoE to have respect for all of his constituents. I'm not sure he expresses that type of respect in this speech.
I don't expect him to go to a political rally and talk a lot about "us" and "them". From the time he took the oath of office, there should only have been Wake County.
So...
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 21:52 — Bob_SconceSorry, wasn't really talking about you -- more of a general statement.
I don't see much difference between what John Tedesco said and what Barack Obama said at Barbara Boxer's fundraising dinner. The fact that one is President of the US and the other is a School Director makes little difference. We see a lot more of that stuff from the Commissioners than from the School Board. But, I don't have any philosophical problem with it.
No problem. See, to me
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 22:35 — danofncNo problem.
See, to me there is a huge difference. Everyone knows that Obama is pushing a liberal agenda. It's expected.
Everyone also knows that Tedesco got a ton of support from the GOP, and he also ran on a certain set of promises. But, I have a philosophical problem with the attitude that he and some other members of the majority projects toward people who disagree with him (them).
They have passed a lot of resolutions without really explaining them.
I can't speak for everyone, but I can tell you that if they present a plan that seems logical and likely to work I will support it. I'd just like to know that it isn't just a big charade. Right now I'm not sure, and speeches like this one don't help.
Also, I don't like that they always say "of course we don't want to isolate minority groups" (or whatever other language is used), but they never, ever are willing to put it in writing. If you have no intentions of letting something happen, and you're going to put in safeguards against it, why can't you just put it in ink?
Using this definition any
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 09:31 — Duhhuh666Using this definition any one could find some way to say any member of the board has a conflict of interest. Saying it doesnt make it so.
Sorry, I didn't intend to be
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 09:30 — Eric_BSorry, I didn't intend to be rude. I just think people are throwing out unfounded accusations and personal attacks against Tedesco, et al.
I don't see John's private interests being in conflict with his public position as a school board member and I don't think anyone has explained how John has privately benefited from his school board position. That's what you must prove to show a conflict of interest.
Eric, The official term
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 09:46 — danofncEric,
The official term that I was given for those maps I mentioned the other day is "Long Range Utility Planning Maps".
Based on that definition,
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 08:45 — danofncBased on that definition, could you explain how being on the board of directors of a private school and being on the Board of Education is not a conflict of interest?
I'm pretty sure he's in position to exploit an official capacity for the benefit of that private school.
agree
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 08:53 — red_balloonUnless there is a public - private partnership, I believe that public schools are competitors to private schools and that one cannot play on both teams without having, or seeming to have, a COI. If it had been a charter school, I would be less certain about the COI.
But - SO WHAT
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 09:24 — Voice_of_Reason_Private schools benefit the public system by educating children that would otherwise be the responsibility of the public. Money saved is available to spend on public schools. Just think if all private schools went bust, how would WCPSS cope?
AND competition is a good thing! A lot of those private schools don't make much money and require benefactors to stay afloat.
They target the same market.
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 11:18 — red_balloonThey target the same market. The poor performance of one enhances the attractiveness of the other. I am not stating that any BOE member would sabotage the school system but at the same time I don't believe that WCPSS and Thales, etc. are not in competition.
Tired of Listening
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 00:42 — jgegbgmgJoey - Have you considered we don't care and are tired of reading & listening to what you have to say - Why don't you and Tedesco meet for coffee so you can both enjoy the first amendment - Wonder who would talk the most ?????
Please pass the same message
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 07:52 — CaryCurmudgeonPlease pass the same message on to Chris "Bark at the Moon" Fitzsimon.