Only once again, Mr. Carrel says to listen to his facts, not those in "some blog". It was a moving opinion piece. Too bad he got it all wrong (again).
Carrel cites state statute (or law). We only hope he doesn't read critical school board materials like he reads statutes, because he got it all wrong. In fact, the section of statutes he quoted has nothing to do with school boards! He apparently was so driven to find some way to substantiate his $42 steak dinner (and threaten ability to charge more) that he didn't read the introduction to the section he quoted. When he found these sections he surely must have had one helluva case of premature elation.
Here's what the statute language immediately PRIOR to his citations clarifies:
19.59(1)(g)1. In this paragraph:
19.59(1)(g)1.a. "District" means a local professional baseball park district created under subch. III of ch. 229 or a local professional football stadium district created under subch. IV of ch. 229.
19.59(1)(g)1.b. "District board member" means a member of the district board of a district.
Sorry, Jim...but you're a school district board member...not a Pro baseball or football park district board member. Your facts are in error, and you have no right to threaten that you COULD charge "$2,000 or 3,000" to the taxpayers.
But see for yourself. Don't blindly listen to anyone. Instead, opt to find a source of information and then practice the fine art of "trust, but verify". Read for yourself the sections of state statute he quoted. Several of us are pretty well versed in reading statute and administrative code. It doesn't appear that Mr. Carrel is.
Ch. 19, WI Statutes
Strike 2, Mr. Carrel.
Your 2nd error was your interpretation of the statutes related to reimbursement of school board members' expenses. The statute says:
120.10 Powers of annual meeting. The annual meeting of a common or union high
school district may:120.10(4) Authorize the payment of actual and necessary expenses of a school
board member when traveling in the performance of
duties and the reimbursement of a school board member for actual
loss of earnings when duties require the school board member to be absent from
regular employment.
A. The statute offers an option: "may". That means the electors MAY choose to authorize a reimbursement. If it were a "shall", then it would be something that ONLY the electors can do. But it doesn't address setting a policy for maximum reimbursement. The BOARD does that. Wait. The Board SHOULD do that...since they did for teachers and Local 60 members.
B. It is arguable at best that attending an OPTIONAL conference represents "traveling in the performance of duties". We're pretty sure the duties of a school board member do not say "must attend conferences".
STRIKE 3; YOU'RE OUT!
Carrel stated,
"Some of the blogs are written by individuals or groups full of bitterness and rage and offer nothing more than hatred." and [Chris Mertes] accurately quoted from a local blog which is filled with hatred for the School Board."
For an elected official, Mr. Carrel sure operates off of a lot of supposition. Does that make for a good board member? Mr. Carrel has no idea what emotions drive this blog. In fact he claims he doesn't even read it. When looking for the requisite qualities in a school board member we must have missed the part where it says, "a good board member will subjectively label things of which s/he has no knowledge or without even reading them."
Is SP-EYE frustrated with actions of our school board? Sure. But according to the election results, SP-EYE is not alone in that emotion. What does drive SP-EYE is a profound lack respect for those that cannot simply take responsibility for a bad action on their part. Rather than saying, "You know what? Maybe that $42 steak dinner was a bad idea.", Carrel and others are on a never ending quest to somehow justify what they do. In fact, in this recent editorial, Carrel even (incorrectly) suggested that they COULD charge us for lost wages!
Here's hoping Jill Camber-Davidson and Terry Shimek bring a different approach to these issues.
I guess this constitutes another finger pointing. Wonder which one?
Posts
