The original complaint was filed by Dr. Jones acting on behalf of a levy committee in July 2009. Why didn’t the board take action until February 2010 to become a participant in this complaint? Was this to “LEGITIMIZE” our tax dollars being spent on legal fee’s amounting to $20,496.00? Legal expenditures over the last three months were not available as of March 25th by the district. Perhaps the information will come forth without repeated inquiries to the treasurer.

The superintendent and board president Karen Wright made statements that they are “pleased with the agreement and we stand firm that information given to the public is accurate” and they “respect First Amendment rights of citizens but state law permits us to fight false statements about district operations and employees.” In her scripted response Karen Wright states “as board members, we have a responsibility to maintain the districts reputation and performance of excellence in education.”

NEVER HAS THERE BEEN ANYTHING FROM THE SCRG ON THEIR STOWIDIOCRACY WEBSITE THAT EVEN REMOTELY DENIGRATES THE REPUTATION OF THE EDUCATION RECEIVED IN THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT OR ITS EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION RANKING ON THE STATE REPORT CARD.

If the districts sincere intent is to make information available let us challenge them to put on their website in it’s ENTIRETY:
The initial complaint filed by the superintendent and sworn to the Notary Public last July. This would include what has been dismissed by the Ohio Elections Commission and the districts “rationale” why they decided not only to “drop” claims made against the SCRG but also provide documentation to the public that substantiates their claims, proving this wasn’t a frivolous action by the district.

The day district personnel received the determination their press release was put on the districts website and sent to the newspaper, which shows that when motivated they can indeed move swiftly.

I was very disappointed to find the board, supt. and treasurer felt this was some sort of victory when in fact it is an attempt to squelch those who have perspectives different than theirs. This attitude seems to be spreading not only from our district but becoming more prevalent within our city leadership and even some leaders of reputable organizations within our community. The mind set appears to be that they will attempt at any cost to eliminate the ability of people who have a diverse opinion. The board, Dr. Jones and Mrs. Bulgrin apparently believe they have the right to incur such costly expenses.

The bottom line is the SCRG from the beginning, readily admitted their guilt about book keeping errors and one part of a statement made that had been clarified. The SCRG was honest about their mistakes, our elected officials should follow their example and do the same.

Full disclosure by our district regarding how money was spent may demonstrate to everyone (whose input was purely monetary) that the legal action taken was truly in the best interest of all in the community.

In regards to the high school newspaper issue, it appears that the principal acted as she was directed by the superintendent, which has been common in the past. It does not appear that she was cowtowing to a group of parents – at least I haven’t heard of any parents complaints that the paper would publish the student’s photo. It seems more logical that they wanted to keep the issue out of the public eye inspite of its importance to general health and welfare.

Why are people continuing to use generalized statements and loaded language to solve two important problems here that go hand-in-hand: the problem of school district financial responsibiliby and responsible leadership of the distsrict? JJ didn’t take me up on the challenge to discuss details. How can this community improve fiscal responsibility with arguments like the ones from you all?

The superintendent’s complaint that this website falsely stated the district lost $200,000 on snow days was upheld because this site went on to say that if the day had to be made up, employees were paid twice.

The superintendent’s complaint that this website falsely stated the levy was permanent was upheld.

The other two complaints upheld involved the status of this group and had nothing to do with the school district.

So 4 complaints out of 19. Why did the superintendent make 15 unneccesary complaints that cost our district $20,000+ dollars? I guess he succeeded in convincing people who don’t delve into the facts that this website is the bad guy. Enough slinging of loaded language. Stick to the details.

1. God has been unceremoniously thrown out of the government schools not because, as you wrote, a small group of parent feel “threatened” by the word or mention of God and make a stink.

Oh no. The fact is God has been banned from the public schools because our political system failed by allowing nine judges to play the role of philosopher-kings and distort the U.S. constitution to suit the whims of the secularists in two separate court cases in 1962 and 1963, prompted by that obscene atheist, Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

The political failure, by the way, was not in impeaching the judicial fools who made up the law to ban God and prayer from the government schools.

2. It is a shame that, the accuracy criteria you apply to SCRG, you don’t also apply to Jones, the BOE, and the edu-establishment. Furthermore, it seems to me that a far bigger problem than some Mickey Mouse inaccuracies on the part of SCRG is the refusal of Jones and his minions to be forthcoming with information the public request. This refusal borders on the criminal, no?

Then I would suggest irresponsible people like yourself stop making baseless statements and claims, when you’re unable to support them. Stop whining like a little baby, too. Face it: you were irresponsible with some of the stuff posted PUBLICLY and you got spanked for it. Stop acting like a bunch immature elementary school students with your constant whining about. It doesn’t matter how many claims were made and that ONLY 4 out of whatever were found to have merit. The LEGAL FACT remains, you got spanked on 4 of them (or you did a really bad job defending the statements). Get over it and move on AND STOP WASTING MONEY over this garbage. I agree members of this board need to be tossed, but please stop this already,

“And as an aside, I find it ironic where it’s darn near a high crime to mention God or sing a Christmas carol in today’s public schools, but our always on-the-ball BOE brings in a group named after a great Catholic saint to help it out.”

I agree, but take it up with the parents of those who feel “threatened” by the word or mention of God who make the stink. Sort of like when the Principal of the high school decided to not upset a small group of parents in the fall over the whole printing a student’s picture in the paper-fiasco. There was a small group that would’ve considered it a “crime” to put a picture of a student in the paper who took their own life for whatever horrendous reason. But the principal makes up a BS excuse — and that’s what it is, an excuse — NOT a reason. But I’m sure the kid’s picture will appear in the yearbook, with some sort of rememberance.

Employees: With the district squandering money at break-neck speed, how much do you think will be left when negotiations roll around?

And speaking of squandering, does anybody know whatever happen to that St. Rita’s consulting group that our always frugal BOE brought on board to help with its public relations effort? Some guy named Paul Pendleton was getting paid for that. I wonder how much money he took out of Stow-Munroe Falls on that gig?

And as an aside, I find it ironic where it’s darn near a high crime to mention God or sing a Christmas carol in today’s public schools, but our always on-the-ball BOE brings in a group named after a great Catholic saint to help it out. Consciously or subconsciously, maybe the BOE was pitching for some divine intervention to get its tax-hiking levies passed.