|
Post by plainedgewatcher on May 2, 2006 15:38:11 GMT -5
ogden22,
desperate people do desperate things....
I guess they think only eastplain people vote for the candidates. You would think that word has gotten back to CFL about The community urging them to be more vocal, get their ideas out... If they don't hear us now... they won't hear us if elected.
Pass the budget for the kids and our community !!!!
|
|
|
Post by plainedge13 on May 2, 2006 16:25:38 GMT -5
Yes, fliers supporting Capone, Fox and Lasserman have been handed out at Eastplain to parents bringing their children to school. From your post, can I assume that this is not kosher?
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on May 2, 2006 18:21:28 GMT -5
To all Plainedge residents; The handing out of flyers advocating a voting position, either YES or NO to the Budget, or for the election of particular persons to the Board, is expressly forbidden on school property.
This is amply covered in The Commissioner of Education's Decision 14,102 and in the rulings of the Stern vs Karamarsky case.The District Administrators are aware of this, it is one of the complaints in my Appeal I filed last year. That appeal was based on the proof that a School District was used for the preparation of the now famous "$2.5 Million Cuts" flyer handed out on the Eastplain property. That action, as well as using a School District PC to prepare the document, is strictly prohibited. The Commissioner's Decision on prohibited Advocacy actions also prohibits the handing of flyers to parents as they drop off children at the School site. That violation is known as "Targeting" an audience.
So, plainedge13 - not only is the action not "kosher" - it is not legal ~ twice over!Properties paid for with public funds shall not be used to advocate a position. Also, the District is tasked to not even lend the appearance of support for a particular position. One Superintendent was reprimanded for writing "Unfortunately, if the Budget is not passed..." The Commisioner decried the use of the word "unfortunately" as inducing a negative effect if the reader's vote was not YES! That is why the Library Trustees, well aware of this fact and having stated it in a Policy of Public Bulletin Board use, spent time and effort last year to keep vote YES and vote NO signs off the Board. Many people, concerned only with their own views, violated this policy. Because many advocates of a particular position do not hesitate to disregard the Advocacy laws as well as Library Policy - the Trustees have removed the Bulletin Boards this year until the elections are over.All concerned residents should protest the breaking of the Advocacy law directly to the Board of Education and to the District Administrator. Cite Commissioner's Decision 14,102 and Stern vs Karamarsky. Also note that it violates the "Targeting Law". Ed. Because you do something with good intentions - does not mean it is OK to do!
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on May 2, 2006 18:29:17 GMT -5
Ed;
You forgot to mention who was guilty of distributing those fliers last year.
It must be an Eastplain PTA mentality.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on May 2, 2006 18:56:11 GMT -5
Goplainedge!No, I didn't forget. She, an ernest member of the Plainedge PTA, got a sterling letter of suppport from Richman saying "the Flyers did not say vote YES!" "He'll defend to the death her right of free speech." This, despite the fact that Advocacy laws forbid certain statements on School District Property which are OK off School Propertry. Of course it was Richman, in a few minutes after reading my e-mail to him about the breech of the Advocacy laws that I became aware of from complaints by neighbors - who e-mailed me the $2.5 Million Cuts" flyer. His instant access to the electronic form of the document was ~ ~ ~ nothing short of amazing!( ) And, in usual incompetancy, the electronic version of the Document he sent still contained the Message Source information showing it was prepared on a Plainedge Union Free School District computer! A distinctly prohibited act! However, the person he defended did say to each as she handed them the flyer to "Vote YES for the Budget" while on School Property (Eastplain Fields) thus nullifying Richman's glorious defense! She also was overheard to say, to a woman protesting the increases since "she could not afford them - and had to drive a 10 year old car" "Well, if you have to drive a 10 year old car, then you don't belong in this District!"The person handing out the flyers and defended by Richman was elected to the Board last year.Who do you think that person is? Come on goplainedge (or anyone else)! - take a guess! Ed. On to the primary business at hand - paving the way to getting more of the Budget dollars to the Children!
|
|
|
Post by ogden22 on May 2, 2006 20:40:54 GMT -5
Ed - Could it be Loretta Giardina??? Or is it Pat Zinke??
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on May 2, 2006 20:42:21 GMT -5
For those that are interested - here's but a few parts of the Commissioner's Decision 14,102:
***********************************************
PART 1 "Petitioners allege that respondents permitted the school district to use an automatic telephone device to send pre-recorded messages to parents and guardians of students urging them to vote at the September 10, 1997 special district meeting. Petitioners contend that such activity is improper and a misuse of district property and personnel because respondents have targeted parents and guardians as a select group who are more likely to vote for the propositions.
Respondents deny "urging" the public to vote in either a general or specific manner, but admit that on September 8, 1997 respondent superintendent made telephone calls to district residents, using the district's automatic calling system, to inform them of the upcoming vote on the three propositions. Respondents further admit that the telephone numbers logged into the automated phone system included only those residents of the school district who have children registered in the school system.
It is unclear from the record whether the pre-recorded messages advocated in favor of the propositions. However, regardless of whether a partisan message or neutral information on the time, date, place and subject of the vote was conveyed, it is improper for respondents to make telephone calls using a selective list of district voters, such as a list of residents of the district with children enrolled in public schools, who are likely to support the adoption of the propositions because such activity affords the appearance of impermissible partisan activity (Appeal of The San Remo Civic Association, Inc., 28 Ed Dept Rep 175; Matter of Canham, 19 id. 254).
Accordingly, respondents are directed to refrain from such activity in future elections.
***********************************************
PART 2 Nevertheless, the use of specialized mailings or distributions to parents of students or other selected groups may in some instances suggest the appearance of partisan activity (Appeal of Sowinski, 34 Ed Dept Rep 184; Appeal of Bayly and Rogers, 30 id. 442), and I remind respondents of the prohibition against targeting and I advise respondents that it is their responsibility to inform all district residents, not only parents of students, of upcoming elections and votes.
***********************************************
PART 3 In respondent superintendent's August 15, 1997 letter to private and parochial school parents, he describes the purposes of the propositions and concludes with the sentence: "Unfortunately, with a school budget defeat and the adoption of an austerity budget, we are not able to make these purchases or provide the services as stated above without voter authorization [emphasis added]". The use of "unfortunately", in the context of the letter, could be construed as improper advocacy on behalf of the propositions and the use of such term or similar language should be avoided.
The Woodlands High School principal's August 27, 1997 letter included the following paragraph: On September 10, 1997, your parents and all voting members of the school district will have the opportunity to vote on three budget propositions to support our school and district. These proposals, if passed, will allow us to conduct our sports program, extra-curricular activities, run late buses, purchase new computers and purchase three new buses. If the proposals are not approved, none of these will happen. I encourage you to speak to your parents and other adult members of our community to vote on September 10th.
I find that this paragraph, albeit in an indirect, subtle manner, goes beyond providing content-neutral information and constitutes improper advocacy in favor of adoption of the propositions, particularly in its use of the phrase "support our school and district".
***********************************************
PART4 The PTA flyer contains language that improperly advocates in favor of one of the propositions, in that it states an opinion that repairs and renovations to the Highland playground are "necessary" and that new school buses are "badly needed". The PTSA flyer also impermissibly advocates in favor of the propositions as follows: "Sports, after-school activities, and school trips are an essential part of a good middle school program...The loss of these programs will have a negative effect on the education of our middle school children. We urge you to support these programs..."
Therefore, I find that respondent's facilitation of the distribution of these partisan materials constitutes an impermissible use of established district channels of communication to parents (Stern v. Kramarsky, supra; Appeal of Saba, supra; Appeal of Allen, supra; Appeal of Davis, et al., 30 Ed Dept Rep 366).[/i
***********************************************
What say you? Have the recent papers we've seen been "context neutral"? Have they used "established channels of communication to parents in an impermissable way"?
Ed.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on May 2, 2006 20:46:47 GMT -5
Ed - Could it be Loretta Giardina??? Or is it Pat Zinke?? You get one more try!
|
|
|
Post by ogden22 on May 2, 2006 20:49:00 GMT -5
Justfacts - According to Pedge13 they are flyers supporting CFL....This would not be considered context nuetral. Correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on May 2, 2006 21:06:07 GMT -5
ogden22
A) Richman's e-mail to me did not mention Loretta or Pat!
B) For the District to aid or abet in any way the distribution of flyers, which do not list ALL the Candidates in a totally Context Neutral way, provides active assistance to a particular partisan view and such support is forbidden under the Advocacy Rulings.
Personally, I would attempt to have the District, in order to rectify the potential for harm done to one group, support the distribution of flyers from the other group in the same manner as it allowed the first group to distribute their flyers![/b]
From that point on - ensure that no further breech of the Advocacy Rules can occur by either group.
Ed.
|
|
|
Post by patriot2415 on May 3, 2006 1:35:15 GMT -5
Let's chalk this up to a mistake. It serves no purpose to list names of people who may / may not have done this.
We all are aware that there is support for CPR and CFL. Let's not be divided but embrace this, show our children that even if we disagree, we all still have a common goal and that is to see Plainedge become a leader among school districts. I believe we are well on our way with PPAC , PTRA and the involvement of so many in the community.
FOCUS.... GET THE BUDGET PASSED !!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ogden22 on May 3, 2006 6:00:35 GMT -5
Patriot -- I know that you are a very well respected individual in this community....How could this possibly be a mistake if Mr. Facts says that this same person was involved in this same issue last year? Isn't this the same person who has been receiving someone elses e-mails "Accidentally" for an extended period of time without notifying someone? Doesn't that tell you alot about that person? This community needs to know who is representing them on the BOE and the activities they are conducting....Don't kid yourself into thinking that the Administration is not completely aware of these activities and haven't given their blessing...
Mr Facts - If they allowed C_P_R_ to distribute flyers on Eastplain property to correct the situation regarding the ILLEGAL campaigning....Don't you think it might get a little volatile?
To all, please don't misconstrue my concerns that proper campaign practices are taking place; for me assisting the anti-budget contingent. I am 100% behind this budget and will do all I can to assist the VOTE YES team. However, trust me on this one.....If C_P_R_ had participated in these illegal campaign activities, the Eastplain PTA would have been in Dr Richman's offfice THAT DAY requesting that Presuto and Raymond resign.
PS: Does anyone have any extra Vote Yes lawn signs???
|
|
|
Post by gopybl on May 3, 2006 6:11:23 GMT -5
Ogden - I am a firm believer that people need to worry about their own backyard's and not worry about others or what they are doing. If CFL is campaigning on school property....whatever, at least they have started campaigning. The C_P_R contingent will just need to increase there campaigning efforts and get their message out to the community. Is it Illegal....I don't know, I am not an expert....But if the candidates take care of their own backyard's the correct people will win.
I think Patriot is eluding to the fact that some of your recent posts could be viewed as divisive and threaten the real agenda which is to PASS THIS BUDGET....Quite honestly, passing this budget is far more important that who wins this election....IMHO.
Lets take some deep breaths....and push the VOTE YES now for our budget. We need to make sure the VOTE YES train steam rolls down Hicksville Road....
Sincerely, Joe Amalfitano
PS: We have about 250 Lawn Signs purchased by PYBL and another 250 from Plainedge Soccer coming this afternoon...Drop me a personal note and I can coordinate getting you a lawn sign....Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by patriot2415 on May 3, 2006 6:46:48 GMT -5
Ogden22,
I have no idea who handed out the fliers for CPL. I do know that the vote yes team wanted to put vote yes signs in the schools and we were told we could not unless vote no signs were also allowed. So we did not try to put VOTE YES signs up in the schools, based on these rules (we used budget awareness). If someone handed out fliers for the candidates they want elected on school ground without knowing they would need to allow the same information handed out for the other candidates, I consider that a mistake. If they KNEW and still did it, that goes a long way in showing their moral character.
I gave the benefit of the doubt in my previous email !!!!
P.S. - I applaud your directness and honesty in your postings....!!!There are MANY issues to be addressed after the budget is passed, and I look forward to working with you.
|
|
|
Post by gopybl on May 3, 2006 10:23:06 GMT -5
I just would like to reiterate for the record.....Any opinions posted under the GOPYBL login are the personal opinions of Joe Amalfitano and do not reflect the opinions of any organization in the Plainedge Community. If anyone would require additional clarification they can email Joe Amalfitano at joeips@optonline.net....Thank you.
|
|