The new Wake County school board majority has an unflattering nickname coined by Chris Fitzsimon.
In a pair of columns last week, Fitzsimon, executive director of the liberal N.C. Policy Watch, has been calling them the "Gang of Five." He's targeting their practice of introducing resolutions at the board table for adoption without giving advance notice to the board minority or the public.
"After the third meeting of the new Wake County School Board Tuesday, one thing is clear about the Gang of Five that now runs the board," Fitzsimon writes in a Jan. 5 column. "The democratic process will not stand in the way of their single-minded pursuit of their ideological agenda."
in that Jan. 5 column, Fitzsimon complains that the board introduced at the table and passed the resolution ending mandatory year-round schools without thought of the cost of implementation.
In his Friday column, Fitzsimon takes school board chairman Ron Margiotta to task for directing staff to modify the calendar survey to speed up completion. He complain about how the online survey disregarded what the board had agreed to in the Dec. 15 committee of the whole meeting.
"It is amateur hour," Fitzsimon writes in the Jan. 8 column. "Thumbs are turned up instead of votes taken. Formal motions are rare and all but useless when they are made. Decisions made by a committee reported in the minutes are completely ignored by the board chair who signs the minutes."
You can expect the new nickname to be picked up and used by other critics of the new board majority.
Comments
The Resegregationist 5
Mon, 01/18/2010 - 01:31 — raleighwoodncThe Resegregationist 5: Wanted for Crimes Against School Children
How's that work, y'all?
Clyde Smith: raleighwoodnc.com
What rock did you crawl out
Mon, 01/18/2010 - 20:16 — changewcpssWhat rock did you crawl out from? Sick and twisted indeed.
Not Nearly as Sick and Twisted as The Resegregationist 5
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 00:15 — raleighwoodncIs city life hard on you son?
If they're going to try to ruin the lives of poor children, I'm going to try to ruin their brands, if not their lives.
Some consider it name calling. I consider it Brand Destruction in the Name of Justice!
I bet these people have never dealt with a rogue marketer before. They'll be kissing my rock before I'm done.
Bwahahaha!
Sticks and stones
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 00:13 — SDR256Plenty of us have been called worse. Heads down and keep working for a positive change. This is just an silly attempted distraction from a very worried set of detractors.
When all else fails........
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 19:32 — nancyncgo juvenile by name calling. That always helps win the hearts and minds of intelligent people doesn't it Mr. Fitzsimon?
This is good. Fitzsimon can
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 19:20 — woodstockThis is good. Fitzsimon can concern himself with procedural issues that don't meet his desires and coming up with "clever" names for the new board majority. In the mean time, the Fab Five (better name) will move ahead as planned.
I prefer "Ronnie and the
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 15:39 — jeannie84I prefer "Ronnie and the Renegades"
Renegade? - Traitor?
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 18:37 — loriacRenegade? - Traitor? deserter? Seems this fits the status quo better - betraying ED kids with a 54% graduation rate, delegating them to the lower math classes, board reps quitting before their terms are over....
But if you meant renegade as a dissenter - then yes, that fits. Ron Margiotta spent many lonely years dissenting on the status quo board against the above practices.
doesn't make sense
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 15:23 — red_balloon"The democratic process will not stand in the way of their single-minded pursuit of their ideological agenda."
The democratic process calls for a majority being able to modify the agenda before the agenda is adopted by the board. The new BOE operates within these guidelines. The author, if he wants to be upset, needs to pick a valid cause.
Did you watch the board meeting?
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 22:37 — supportwcpssDid you see Mr. Sutton's question? He specifically asked why the resolution was not mentioned during the COW meeting prior to the Board meeting and not one of the Gang of Five gave him an answer.
That was underhanded and just plain nasty. First, they didn't have the decency to mention it would be introduced and then the cowards didn't answer his question.
Can't wait to hear your defense of this behavior. Let me go get some popcorn so I can watch this fiction.
Wasn't that the 3rd attempt
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 22:52 — changewcpssWasn't that the 3rd attempt at passing that resolution? Did you honestly not know that they hadn't just let it die?
Do you
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 23:13 — supportwcpsshonestly live in reality or your own personal distorted version of the world?
You really are out of touch
Mon, 01/18/2010 - 20:14 — changewcpssYou really are out of touch if you were shocked by that resolution.
Mr. Hui
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 15:10 — g88ky07will you print what we call the other four???
I am not sure it would pass
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 18:09 — woodstockI am not sure it would pass N&O censorship.
I will when someone comes up
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 15:38 — KeungHui (author)I will when someone comes up with a name for them. Maybe John Hood will come up with something catchy. (I was in the process of blogging about Hood's recent column when I got some phone calls. I'll have that post up later this afternoon.)
How about: "The Foolish
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 16:32 — shearertwHow about:
"The Foolish Four"?
or
"The Four Bussers"
I'll be up all night thinking about this one....