School board candidate Cathy Truitt is standing by her assertion that board member Ron Margiotta asked her if she would support a motion to fire Wake Supt. Del Burns.
Truitt orginally made the statements during a Thursday school board candidate forum on WPTF, prompting Margiotta to call her remarks "an outright lie." But Truitt told N&O reporter Ray Martin that she has a witness.
"I had a friend of mine right there with me," Truitt said. "He did ask if I would support trying to get the Superintendent fired. He asked during his "vetting process", but it wasn't a big secret. I had heard about it before that. There are no secrets. I'm not sure why that was part of his questioning."
Margiotta stood by his remarks that he didn't ask Truitt about firing Burns. He said he today he has his own witnesses, Joe Ciulla and Joey Stansbury.
Margiotta said Stansbury had asked at the March meeting if he could record Truitt's answers. But Margiotta says she refused.
Margiotta said he took notes and they don't show that the question about Burns was asked.
Margiotta said that if the alleged question was so offensive, why did she ask to meet with him later to ask for his support? Below is the text of two e-mail messages that Margiotta says he exchanged with Truitt in June.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Margiotta
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:20 AM
To: Cathy Truitt
Subject: Re: Cathy Truitt sends greetings and request to chat
Cathy,
Was out of town for a week + and am doing catch up, might want to do that when you are further along with your campaign.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Cathy Truitt
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 5:25 PM
To: (Margiotta)
Subject: Cathy Truitt sends greetings and request to chat
Hi Ron!
Is there a time you could meet and chat? I would like to get to know
you better, and I would like to share my campaign platform with you
for feedback.
Sincerely,
Cathy Truitt
Comments
Put them both under oath this week!
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 15:58 — g88ky07If it can be proven Cathy is lying then she's OUT! If it goes the other way, that would be dealt with at the next election! That simple! Who's got the pineapples to call them both to the courtroom? If no one does, it will be just another issue swept under the rug. Which is what I expect!
FACTS are Important...
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 11:48 — ArnieOsbornI was not there for Dr. Truitt's meeting with Ron. So, I don't know what was said. I was at a vetting meeting with Ron, when I considered my Run for the Same School Board District and Dr. Truitt had already met with Ron seeking his endorsement. I was never asked the question that Dr. Truitt claims was asked. I spent almost 2 hours in questions and not once was anything like this asked. So, in the course of the day of vetting... did Ron suddenly change the questions? I don't know. But, Dr. Truitt... Not seeking endorsements... or just can't obtain them... what is the real issue? She sought Ron's and failed She sought the WSCA and failed She sought the Wake County Teachers and failed She sought the Republican Executive Committe and failed I have been in meeting after meeting with Dr. Truitt and I am more than disappointed that a woman that puts forth a front of meekness, gentleness and fairness... has Lied, Left a room yelling a Curse Word, can't seem to remember how long she has been an educator 36, 37,38,or 40 years . . . and just seems mean and deceitful. I stepped away from this race so not to detract from others who might not have a chance if I would have remained in... thus weakening the voting pool against people who are bad for our children... people like Dr. Truitt. I am not sure what her real plan is... you see much of her story continues to change and adjust... but what I do know is... If something smells as bad as the ALL-STAR Sanitation Contract in Garner... then you move away from it so nothing gets on you.... oh wait... All Star-Star Sanitation that is the Sims Family.... That is the one endorsement Dr. Truitt did get... YIKES!
Hmm...
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 14:41 — supportwcpssI thought you dropped out because you couldn't put two coherent sentences together.
What proof do you have that she 'sought' Ron's approval. How well has Ron's approval worked for other candidates in the past.
Wrong guy
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 15:59 — g88ky07it was Augustine who couldn't "put two coherent sentences together"!
District 2
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 10:59 — DmchenryMs. Truitt's claims are true and she does have a witness to them. However as she has said, Ron, Keith Weatherly and others have stated in public meetings that what we really need is more people like Ron Margiotta, people who will follow Ron.
The emails shown by Mr. Margiotta are the ones requesting a meeting (THE meeting she is talking about) in which she wanted to discuss with him what being a school board member entailed as she was CONSIDERING whether to run for office. That is why she went. Upon getting to the meeting she found herself "being vetted" by him. When asked what his vision was for children in WCPSS, he said he guessed he had none. That is who the Alliance is looking up to as their hero. Let me say that I believe that many of them are innocently looking for him to make this BIG change they are looking for in the system.
People from this group like to get on here and go on and on and tell how they know so much and how they know what is best for all of us in Wake County. Problem is the "problem" looks and feels different in each district and one simple answer does not fill all. I encourage everyone to look at where the funds are coming from to support John Tedesco in his bid for office. Not from District 2, but from Western Wake County. All one has to do is check his campaign reports. So it is obvious in District 2 what is going on, but it is playing out in just the same way in all districts. No one is on to it. All the candidates supported by the Republicans were vetted by Ron. Those same candidates were supported by the Alliance. Therefore, they all had to take the same allegiance. Having attended many board work sessions and meetings, Ron says nothing about anything unless it has to do with bringing in poor students to schools in his area.
I would encourage everyone to do some real research in their district to be sure what you are getting for your vote. Is it good for you and your district or good for Ron and his district's agenda? Everyone here goes after Whalercane. I would challenge him to help bring out the truth in the other districts. However, I ask the papers where are they in looking at campaign contributions, backgrounds of these candidates and reporting on them? This is an important election and where are you? Build on the truth that has come out in district 2 so that all districts can know who is actually pushing the candidate and agenda for their district. We will be glad to share the data we have with anyone. Our system may need change, but change that benefits everyone, not one district and one person.
Now everyone can get on and do their usual ranting about this all you want, just like you do about Cathy. All people have to do is just check the facts. I have no interest in the back and forth rantings that go on here. Just thought it was time that someone spoke up for the truth. And not the kind of truth that is in the eye of the beholder. Actual factual truth. Anything that Cathy or I have said can be backed up with facts and witnesses.
"Problem is the "problem"
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 12:28 — SideburnsThat's what WSCA has been saying all along. You should know, Ms. Mchenry. You were at our Wake Forest and Garner meetings.
Cathy Truitt has become desperate (or always was). Her attack ad and now her lies will come back to haunt her. Parents throughout Wake County should be very concerned with her tactics. Pitting parent against parent is just more of the same.
REALLY?
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 12:18 — AngelaW"Problem is the "problem" looks and feels different in each district and one simple answer does not fill all".. "Our system may need change, but change that benefits everyone, not one district and one person"
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/wsca-sends-out-school-board-campaign-mailers
But most of the mailers also mention material specific to that individual district.
The District 1 mailer says only two of the 19 elementary and middle schools in that district performed above the county average on the state end-of-grade tests.
The District 2 mailer says only two of the 18 elementary and middle schools in that district performed above the county average on the state end-of-grade tests.
(Both District 1 and District 2 have a large chunk of the district's high poverty schools.)
The District 7 mailer talks about the cost of converting Leesville Road Middle School to a year-round calendar and the negative impact of reassignment on PTAs.
seems to me the candidates are representing the "problems" in their areas.
I believe Cathy is lying,
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 13:13 — woodstockI believe Cathy is lying, but the fact is she is not running against Margiotta and she seems to have lost sight of that...along with her focus and integrity. You seem to be following suit.
As for your comment: "Problem is the 'problem' looks and feels different in each district and one simple answer does not fill all," well, that is just naive. School board members need to be able to work together for the good of the county-wide system. One vote on an approach for a District challenge is worthless, you need agreement. Truitt demonstrated early on in her race that she cannot work with Ron and cannot handle the tough question that come her way. She goes into attack mode and that is not what we need.
"Anything that Cathy or I have said can be backed up with facts and witnesses." Really? All that I have read is hearsay and opinion.
So..
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 14:49 — supportwcpssIf Ron says it then it's fact but if Cathy says it then it's hearsay.
Your one sidedness is unbelievably obvious.
Accusations are not facts.
Thu, 10/01/2009 - 14:15 — woodstockAccusations are not facts. If you make an accusation, you better back it up; otherwise you are just flapping your gums.
My "sidedness" in this case is based on available information. My sidedness on the Wake County school issue is also based on available information...information that clearly demonstrates the low-income students are not being served well by Wake County schools and that change is needed.
RevHiD-- The current SES
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 10:11 — jenmanRevHiD--
The current SES diversity policy really isn't giving low income kids any more choice. Frankly, I don't even think that the diversity policy is about creating opportunities for minorities or low income students. Its about making sure that the middle to upper class white families ITB stay in public schools and that we have no 'failing schools' within central Raleigh.
It took reaching 70% F&R before WCPSS would do anything for Smith or Brentwood Elementary (they are now magnets). We have 18 schools over 50% F&R and most of them aren't magnets and aren't in central Raleigh. It seems that as long as the 'bad' schools aren't in central Raleigh then its ok. Barwell Road, Fox Road, or West Millbrook would never be allowed to happen in central Raleigh. They would either be made a magnet, have some major reassignments to change the demographic, or both. As it is now, low income children assigned to those schools and any other school over 40% F&R are given little choice at all. They are held hostage in higher poverty schools with little chance of getting into a magnet because the magnet system does not want any more poor people in those schools.
I personally do not have a problem with a diversity policy if it was done reasonably. 5 mile radius or 10 miles at the absolute maximum. But busing low income kids out of already healthy schools like Underwood or Joyner and busing them to Green Hope (18 miles one way) or Leesville (13 miles) is just absurd. It does nothing positive for those kids and actually takes opportunities away from them. If there are areas that would still be high poverty after a 10 mile max then lets look at ways to help those schools.
Eastern Wake County is a perfect example. Every school in Knightdale, Zebulon, & Wendell is over 40% F&R, with the majority of them being over 50% F&R. WCPSS says that those schools are too far away to do much diversity busing. Instead of coming up with ways to actually improve those schools or help them meet students' needs, WCPSS has come up with 2 solutions. 1) Wait for I-540 to bring upper income residential housing to the area. This was actually stated in the reassignment plan for 2007-08. 2) Further reduce the number of magnet seats available to students at schools over 40% F&R. That one is on the table right now. Currently only 10% of magnets seats are available in a 'true' lottery and they are considering lowering it to 5% because they don't want any more middle income kids leaving high poverty schools. They are also contemplating only allowing a set number of students out of certain schools. So these children are deemed less worthy of receiving advanced academic opportunities and are held hostage in schools that nobody would stand for in central Raleigh.
Where's the logic?
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 21:54 — TrailerParkGirlOn the one hand, they want to wait for more upper income residential housing to the area. On the other hand, they want to put policies in place that discourage upper income people from moving to or staying in an area because they will be shut out of magnet school possibilities. Does GM just bank on people not realizing how the policy works and misinformation like what Lois Nixon spouts about being able to attend any of 26 schools? I suppose they do. Or as you said, maybe they don't really care what the F&R rates outside of central Raleigh are.
They also don't seem to learn. When they pulled a similar thing before (actually lowered it to 0% by not even allowing certain nodes to apply), it backfired. The base school F&R rate went up because people left the system in protest of being treated so inequitably.
Have you ever heard Ron Margiotta speak?
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 08:36 — geogewwwIt goes something like this:
He believes that bussing does not work.
He believes that Year Round Schools Should not be manditory.
He believes whatever his Assignment By Choice group aka: Keep Blacks from attending our schools says.
He believes with Keith Weatherly that the Town of Apex should secede from Wake County to form an independent state of Far Right Dictators.
If you ask him for specifics, he will dig deep, and repeat the first 2 points, because he dosent have the answers. He never has.
The more Ron opens his mouth, the more my observations will be proven as true - just listen.
I'm confused
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 18:48 — TrailerParkGirlDoesn't Truitt keep claiming she didn't seek endorsements or does she just claim not to have sought certain ones? Her email to Ron reads like someone fishing for a possible endorsement.
She did seek WSCA endorsement
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 20:26 — SDR256Apparently whatever the conversation it didn't scare her off from seeking our support - her fantasy nemisis - parents- who she labelled and attacked in her ad.
Ms. Truitt sought the WSCA
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 21:04 — CaryCurmudgeonMs. Truitt sought the WSCA endorsement, but was rejected. I wasn't going to say anything on the matter since I don't believe in beating someone who is already down. Later, she denied seeking our endorsement, probably because she didn't get it. Same goes for her own political party, the NCAE, the homebuilders and I don't know how many other groups out there. I did not want to pile on because I think she has caused herself enough embarrassment, but she will not let this go.
My impressions of the discussion: Ms. Truitt came across as very professional. She seemed to agree that mandatory assignment to YR schools should be stopped. But when we got into the community schools issue, she did not want to take a position. I left the meeting feeling that she was not committed to community schools, and that she was just looking for a capstone to her educational career.
Since that discussion, she has continued to be evasive on the key issues. The ad she published in the Garner News is a good example. That ad specifically targeted Ron Margiotta and the people living in Western Wake. When she was asked about the ad on WPTF, she claimed that the ad was "not aimed an any one specific person." BTW, WSCA has no core objective regarding the employment status of Del Burns (who has a four-year guaranteed employment contract), so this subject was not brought up in the conversation.
After being rejected by our group, Ms. Truitt approached other candidates in District 2 and urged them not to accept our support.
Joe, Is there a
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 22:49 — WhalerCaneJoe,
Is there a difference in "Comminity Schools" and "Neighborhood Schools"? Mr. Malone doesn't seem to think so. It does seem you required a pledge to eliminate diversity as one of fifteen criteria in assignments. Can you admit that?
What is different in that then what has happened in Charlotte the past ten years? Hundreds of millions more tax dollars spent while the County is balkinized, and urban schools become high poverty failing schools?
I actully like John. Out of all of WCPSS opponents, I do believe he actually cares about ED students. In the end if he does, he will not consign them to be warehoused.
That said, you should hope he wins outright next week.
I like John too, actually.
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 03:04 — RevHiDI like John too, actually. But I'd like to see some of his ideas implemented to give low income families more choice, not limit it further. I just can't support ending SES diversity, especially if we aren't willing to spend as much per student as CMS, Forsyth, or Guilford.
Spending needs to consider student demographics
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 22:34 — TrailerParkGirlWhen comparing how much Wake spends compared to other districts in NC or state average, differences in the number of students with special need to be taken into consideration. Otherwise, you are comparing apples, oranges, pineapples and pears.
Districts receive supplemental funds for students with special needs (ED, ELL, SWD). Per schooldatadirect, the cost adjustment factors are ED-1.35, SWD-2.1, ELL-1.2. Therefore, the higher percentage of students with special needs that a district has, the more supplemental funds available for spending.
ED%: Wake - 28, CMS - 43, Guilford - 38, Forsyth - 46
Wake's special needs student % is lower than other districts and state average, and that gets reflected in the lower funding and spending per student (i.e. Wake has comparably more lower cost to educate students and fewer higher cost to educate students).
Interestingly, my higher poverty (44% ED) home district (out of state) receives less federal funding per student than Wake. All I can think of is that as they have no schools in NCLB Title I Improvement status (even the 80% F&R ES) despite the fact that all their schools are Title I, they must not get the same NCLB funding as districts that do have some failing schools like Wake.
So, even with mountains of
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 06:58 — woodstockSo, even with mountains of evidence that reassigmemnt for diversity is not helping ED students to increase achievement levels, you want to continue the policy and the related family stress, inconvenience and expense that goes with it. Okay then, what do you propose we do differently to improve education and increase graduation rates with ED students and other student subgroup populations that are failing at too high a rate?
What is it with you and
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 07:16 — user12345What is it with you and ED? How about Special Ed, LE and Indians ... they are kids too.
Actually, per status quo
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 21:21 — TrailerParkGirlIndians don't count. Remember the quote from a person who I believe was on some committee related to the policy - "the policy is about white, black and Hispanic, people need to stop hiding behind their Asian neighbors." Oh, or did you mean Native American? They're not referred to as 'Indian' any more.
Keep in mind some ED kids are also LE and/or SWD.
But, yes they are all children who deserve the best education possible.
Yes, they are indeed kids
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 13:27 — woodstockYes, they are indeed kids too. Very observant of you, and that is why I specifically said "ED students and other student subgroups." Subgroups include all the groups that make up the whole.
What is it with me and ED students? Well, let's see? Oh yeah, this entire election is about ED students. Dude, you HAVE to pay better attention here. Nearly all the reassignments, busing, mandatory year-round schools, etc. are to accommodate the distribution of ED students throughout the county.The status quo says it is to help them, but as we all know that is not the case as they are not being helped at all...they are being used as pawns and hidden in the system so that we have something called "healthy schools." And, the terrible truth is they are failing at a very unaccpetable rate...46% DO NOT GRADUATE.
Why don't you let them make
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 14:08 — user12345Why don't you let them make the choice not to go to the good schools like Davis or Green Hope instead of deciding that for them and sticking them back in their poor neighborhood school ... I don't think they voted you their leader and probably don't want your solution.
What makes Green Hope a
Thu, 10/01/2009 - 14:51 — woodstockWhat makes Green Hope a good school? It is not because it is rich or poor, it is because the resources match the needs of most students. Why did you pick Green Hope? They only graduate 60% of their economically disadvantaged (ED) students. Southeast Raleigh High graduates 75% of their's, nearly matching the county's overall rate. If I was low-income, I'd want my child to to to Southeast Raleigh High over Green Hope, they obviously have made some accommodations for low-income students. What about tony Broughton High inside the beltline? It is often viewed as a great school with a lot of middle and upper-middle class students and it even has a widely recognized IB program. Do you know what the ED graduation rate is there? It is 52.9%, making it essentially a coin-toss on whether or not a low-income kid will come out of there with a diploma. Rubbing elbows did not do a lot of good for anyone there.
It is not a question of what school you go to. The issue is are students getting access to the resources they need where they need them. After school programs and Saturday Academies, for instance, don't do a whole lot of good when they are located 20 miles away from a students home. How do they access them; how do their parents get more involved (parent training is part of the solutiuons too); how do struggling students access community resources? These are all practical questions. Proximity is a real issue.
I've said it before, but will say again that I'd support that
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 21:33 — TrailerParkGirlI would certainly support making it a parental choice. I'd support their being a choice of a community school or a GH.
I would expect most who oppose the current narrow-mindedness of the people in charge of WCPSS would expect open-mindedness in finding solutions. I think it's logical to expect those who want open minds on the BOE to have open minds.
I think that it is a good
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 14:45 — Eric_BI think that it is a good idea to allow for some kind of suburban school magnet type program that will allow for low income students to apply for spots in suburban schools like Davis Drive or Green Hope.
I would be on board with this. The default option should be to allow students a stable assignment close to their homes (neighborhood or community schools) with choices and options provided for families that desire something other than this default.
Gerald Grant mentions a successful program like this in his "Hope and Despair" book when talking about Syracause schools. Why not try something similar here and allow folks to "decide for themselves" as you put it?
Here is a link to a description of the program as implemented in Massachusetts:
http://www.massresources.org/pages.cfm?ContentID=99&pageID=32&Subpages=%27yes%27&SecondLevelDynamicID=896&DynamicID=890
exactly
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 14:39 — loriacexcept NO ONE has that choice today - you are supposed to go where you are told! Unless you leave the system, which many are doing.
I Like That Idea
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 14:21 — JanisTangoI actually like that idea. I can't believe I would agree with L'User! That means that other parents would have a choice as well right? Choice for parents...what a concept!
All School Superintendants are .....
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 18:36 — AgentPierceIts 2009 ..... EVERY school Super in America is disliked A LOT. Some are actually pretty good ..... doesn't matter. "Pretty good ones" are as despised as much as the totally incompetent ones are.
Agent P you ba****d, even
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 22:51 — WhalerCaneAgent P you ba****d, even though I disagree with on almost everything, there you go again making sense. :-)
Another parade?
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 09:29 — AgentPierceWhalerCane ..... you poor misguided spinmeister! If the Wolfpack keep up the good play I forsee another parade !!!! .... :>)
I wish, the "new" board
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 13:57 — dryeraseuserI wish, the "new" board would get that man out of office. Teachers don't care much for his leadership!
Truth alert, not alot of
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 22:52 — WhalerCaneTruth alert, not alot of confidence in Del Burns on the other side either.
We *should* fire Del Burns
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 12:45 — avg_joeIt would be a great sign to much of Wake County that we've turned the corner on the outrageous policies of the past decade.
If you, like me, are upset with the poor decision-making exhibited by the Wake County School Board over the past decade, here are two places to look for alternatives:
http://www.takewakeschoolsback.com/candidates.htm
http://www.wakesca.org
Here is the list of candidates they endorse:
* Chris Malone – District 1, Northeast Wake
* John Tedesco – District 2, Southeast Wake
* Deborah Prickett – District 7 (Northwest Raleigh and Morrisville)
* Debra Goldman – District 9 (Most of Cary)
These are the candidates to vote for if you want WCPSS to be accountable to parents rather than special interests.
GET OUT THERE AND VOTE OCTOBER 6!
Tired of students passing 10 schools they could attend on the drive to their assigned schools? Teaching half days on Wednesday? Annual mass student reassignments? Take back Wake County Schools on October 6!
Vote for change October 6!
Absolutely, fire Del and Chuck!
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 15:12 — g88ky07I say we elect all 4, Malone, Tedesco, Prickett and Goldman, they CLEARLY are the best choices you have Wake County, and give them a chance to right the ship. If in 4 years things aren't improving, or improved greatly, with all aspects of education, test scores to parental support, and all the rest of it, as far as I'm concerned THEN the Stan Norwalk bunch can have it back and I'm gone! My family will NOT be held hostage by Chuck, Del and the Wake County school board for another decade and I won't stick around to let it happen!
As for firing Del, it shouldn't take a new school board to accomplish that, or for that matter firing Chuck as well! Anyone with common sense should be foaming at the mouth to get rid of those 2 main reasons why this system is where it is at now! But, since we have only 1 person on that current board with any common sense, Ron, of course it's like growing corn in a fish tank, ain't going to happen with the current crop of seed!
Well....
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 15:38 — Bob_SconceThe problem has been that the school board has deferred to the administration's policy preferences instead of the other way around. The school board needs to set down specific family-friendly policies and instruct Burns and Delaney to follow them. If they can't do so in both letter and spirit, then that will be the time to think about canning them.
The administration serves the board, not vice-versa.
Whatever. Half the time,
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 12:14 — happy_momWhatever. Half the time, Margiotta is the only board member that acts with any sort of intelligence. He is opposed to mandatory busing and opposed to MYR. He gets my family's vote. Plus, what's wrong with wanting to replace the super? I have yet to find anything to fall in love with when it comes to Del Burns.
I hope you get that half the
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 22:59 — WhalerCaneI hope you get that half the time Margiotta doesn't buy all of what he is saying to rile you guys up. In conversations with his fellow BoE members he often expresses different thoughts than what he offers for public consumption.
...
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 06:03 — SideburnsHow are you aware of this?
That's a ridiculous statement if you ask me but I expect that from you now.
Get you guys "riled up"
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 05:26 — Dadof3As far as which board members riles me up, you got it exactly backwards.
Hmm..
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 13:14 — supportwcpssHe sure is opposed to a lot. What is he for? For that matter, what innovative ideas has Ron actually brought to the table...
Correct. Zilch. None. Nada. Nein. He is all about yelling and certainly isn't about fixing anything.
Single vote
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 20:31 — SDR256If I were in a situation where I knew I would always be outvoted by 8 - 1 I'm not sure I'd put much energy into creating new solutions to present either. Makes me think of the old adage "Pearls before swine". I think what Ron has done so admirably is hung in there and said the unpopular (with the board) thing to represent his district. He has actually mentioned and considered families and children, so I guess that's pretty radical and innovative when you consider the stance of the rest of the status quo board.
Reminder: Margiotta is not
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 13:23 — woodstockReminder: Margiotta is not up for election, making your attacks a bit premature. So, the only real question that matters now is, what does Truitt stand for other than anger and accusations?
So, Margiotta wants to get
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 12:11 — user12345So, Margiotta wants to get rid of the superintendant ... politicians are always trying to eliminate their opponents …. It is sad that he was vetting the candidates for the other districts … makes it seem like he is trying to run the show …
Huh?
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 13:48 — Dadof3There's no substance behind your claim -- a consistent aspect to your vapid contribution here. It doesn't take much at all to wind up the calumnibot, does it?
?
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 12:35 — Bob_SconceEver politician wants to vet other candidates that he's support. By your logic, Charles Meeker is also trying to run the show.
It just doesn't add up
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 12:24 — fiestamomI find it hard to believe he would ask a *candidate*if she wanted to get rid of Burns. Why not wait until she is elected? Why ask her when they only add up to 2 votes.
He asks her this the first time he meets her? It doesn't fit.
Exactly.
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 20:31 — SDR256It really doesn't make sense when you think about it.
typical he said/she
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 11:53 — AngelaWtypical he said/she said.......shouldn't her focus be on the elections ? BUT, IIRC hers was the first shot across the bow with a nasty ad/mailer....doesn't she have enough to stand on w/out resorting to slinging mud right from the get-go?