Honestly...we don't get it. If he wants so badly to sue the board..or do "something", why isn't HE doing it. Or perhaps getting his two new board buddies in line?
Monte...round 1
In which Monte suggests that we sue the entire school board because Whalen took action which Couch believes to violate policy. Note that we agree Whalen over-stepped his authority. But he and the board violate policy all the time. What makes this instance any different. And does anyone really think that a judge is going to care about the animal cracker antics of our school board? This supposed lawsuit is a dog and that dog don't hunt. Besides...who has that kinda of disposable income other than the $100K club?
Monte Couch to SP-EYE
10-10-2011 1:55pm
School District Policies have been upheld by court decisions, that is considered to have the force of law. Instead of continued wailing about Whalen's Actions on the China Trips, get a few bucks together and take [sic] ther board to court.
Reference: [sic] Poliocy BAAR\A\2:
" Board members will govern only when meeting as the Board in legal session. Individually, Board members cannot make commitments for the Board on pending or outstanding issues.."
monte couch
In which Mr. Couch schools us on legal authority.
Monte Couch to SP-EYE
10-11-2011 10:30AM
Why sue the school board instead of Whalen about the china trip? Because the board members have evidently allowed Whalen to usurp their responsibility and authority and there is a state statute and case law on that subject. So it seems to me there are 2 legal [sic] basis for forcing a change, that is forcing the board to follow the rules. . To sue because we don't like a decision made, ( ie going to china ) I do not think would fly. Forcing the Board to follow the rules, could result in canceling Whalen's actions and forcing board action which might end up with the board turning down the whole deal.
monte couch
....bringing Editor Chris Mertes and school board members Jim McCourt into the fray.
 |
| "Always two there are... a master and an apprentice." |
Caps lock is now on. He's e-YELLING now.
He apparently didn't like our suggestion that he sue the board if he was so inclined. OK...there might have been a little more than that. :-) The bear has most definitely been poked. Monte calling us out. Labeling us "weak". Oooooh.
Monte Couch to SP-EYE, James [McCourt], Editor[ Mertes], Terry [Shimek]
10-12-2011 7:25PM
AS TO YOUR SUGGESTION, I DID "get a few bucks together" SEVERAL YEARS AGO, SPENT ABOUT $18,000.00 TO GAIN ACCESS TO SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL RECORDS IN COMPUTER FORMAT. THAT ACTION BENEFITED NOT ONLY SOME IN DANE COUNTRY BUT A SURPRISING NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE..
WHAT YOU TERM MY "LEGAL ANALYSIS" IS DEAD WRONG.I DID NOT OFFER ANY LEGAL ANALYSIS, SIMPLY RESPONDED TO YOUR CONTINUED "CONCERN"? ABOUT SPENDING MONEY ON TIMOTHY'S CHINA EXPEDITION.
MY FIRST MESSAGE TO YOU WAS ABOUT FORCING THE BOARD AND WHALEN TO FOLLOW THE DISTRICT POLICIES AS THEY RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT NO SINGLE BOARD MEMBER CAN MAKE AND ACT ON HIS OR HER PERSONAL DECISIONS, IT TAKES A VOTE BY THE BOARD.
THERE ARE ALWAYS READILY AVAILABLE REASONS FOR NOT TAKING action but to keep on "talking" AND PUBLISHING, showing "concern" about taxpayers picking up defense fees SEEMS WEAK TO ME. I ask you, when do you stop just "talking" and bring about some specific needed changes?
School Boards exist only because of legal actions. They were created starting with the State Constitution. People should know that, and realize their ability to bring about real change as opposed to talking about it, is not limited to the election process.
And your stand is that the only acceptable reason not to study, understand and make sure the statutes guarding and guiding school board responsibilities are being followed is: "it might cost money?". IT ALSO TAKES A LOT OF TIME AND STUDY, AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLY PUBLISHING COMMENTS, OPINIONS ABOUT SOME SITUATION.
I HAVE BELIEVED FOR YEARS IF SCHOOL BOARDS FOLLOW POLICIES AND STATUES, TAXPAYER COSTS WOULD BRING BETTER BANG FOR THE BUCK.
monte couch
Monte...round 4
Hey...we need editorial review! Wanna guess who's looking for the job?
What Mr. Couch doesn't get is that we DO pay for any legal defense for board members. Who exactly do you think pays those premiums, Monte? And there are always "clauses" that exempt claims. We think we'd rather invest our money with Bernie Madoff. May we suggest that you exercise caution when using broad statements (or any statements) which cannot be supported by facts?
Monte to SP-EYE, Editor, Jim[McCourt], Terry [Shimek]
10-14-2011 7:40am
...One problem I have had with your publications has been the lack of careful use of broad statements which can not be supported by the facts. Such statements make what you write sound authentic and impressive but when checked out fall short of supporting what you write.
For example, you wrote "After all, we'd be suing the taxpayers, who would be picking up the tab for any defense fees." Fact is, the district taxpayers pay each year, an insurance premium for insurance to cover defense fees among other expenses covered by the policy. Starting a suit to force the board to follow the rules, would not increase costs to the taxpayers for fees to defend, we already pay each year, insurance premiums to that end. Having been on the finance committee I would have thought you would know that is part of the annual budget..
As I have said before, you have an ability to dig out interesting info and some details, but you need the kind of help editorial review could offer before you hit the "print" button.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
pressing "PRINT" now...
Posts
