Local News
Former School Director asks Ethics Commission for investigation
Former Jewell School Board Director, Lauren Jacobsen, filed a complaint with the Oregon Ethics Commission alleging possible violations of Oregon Statutes dealing with Oregon’s Open Meetings law.
According to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission’s preliminary review Jacobsen alleges that the topics and procedures followed by the board of directors may have violated the executive session provisions of Oregon Public Meetings law.
The complaint included minutes relating to 20 executive sessions that were convened between October 2006 and March 2008 and include board members Karl Meier, Oly Schockelt, Carrie Thompson, Greenwood, Ann Samuelson, Alan Foster, Cathy Rosinek and Tania Skinner. Foster and Skinner are the only two that are current board directors. Ironically, Oly Schockelt led a recall campaign against Samuelson and Meier alleging in mailers and an open letter to the Jewell community that as the “two most senior members of our school board” they “had inappropriate discussions behind closed doors.”
In another letter that Schokelt wrote, along with the complainant in this current case, Lauren Jacobsen, he accused Samuelson of taking part in executive sessions in violation of the statutes pertaining to Oregon’s open meetings laws.
After a preliminary review of the evidence presented in the complaint, the Ethics Commission made the decision on Friday, August 16, to start an investigation. According to Ethics Commission staff the commission has 180 days to complete the investigation at which time they will make a decision on the merits of the case based on what was discovered.
In a letter from Roy Pulvers, counsel for Ann Samuelson, a request was made of the current school board to authorize the district’s lawyers, administrators and current and past directors to discuss and disclose whether advice of counsel was given in regards to the executive sessions being challenged. A waiver of privilege was approved by the current board in order for the six accused former board members, and two current directors, to be able to defend themselves.
During the members time for the directors to bring updates to the board and the audience Tania Skinner stated that the charges would be proven false as the board at no time ever met illegally. She said it was a waste of time and money and that those making such charges should be ashamed of themselves. After the meeting Skinner thanked Ann Samuelson for having met with the Ethics Commission on Friday, in an attempt to state their side.
Jewell School Board members, Kristen Kuhnly, Matt Samuelson, Alan Foster, Tania Skinner, Jennifer Blanchard
Tip of the Day
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." ~Thomas Jefferson (Thanks, Auntie)
Articles Elsewhere
Recent Comments
On Nov 18, 5:48 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:Who says we …
By its all here, can't you read? from the article Rehearing of FERC's Bradwood order is granted for Limited Purpose.will be ready before 2025 to handle more than 25% …
By Nick from the article Rehearing of FERC's Bradwood order is granted for Limited Purpose.I didn’t realize getting LNG from Alaska was considered “importing”, …
By Nick from the article Rehearing of FERC's Bradwood order is granted for Limited Purpose.lol, I was saying how sad the Daily Astorian is. …
By senior citizen from the article Incumbents keep seats: Last 190 ballots result in no changes.Who says we need LNG Imports Nick?
… By Patrick McGee from the article Rehearing of FERC's Bradwood order is granted for Limited Purpose.The enviro movement is all about fundraising...these people validate their …
By Sick of bake sales... from the article Rehearing of FERC's Bradwood order is granted for Limited Purpose.I’ve visited CRK’s website as well as many of its …
By Nick from the article Rehearing of FERC's Bradwood order is granted for Limited Purpose.Good article, Carrie. To Un-Hip Reader and senior citizen: Thanks …
By Bob Goldberg from the article Incumbents keep seats: Last 190 ballots result in no changes.How sad is right! He should be fair, he tried …
By senior citizen from the article Incumbents keep seats: Last 190 ballots result in no changes.If you think the Astorian is bad, have you seen …
By Un-Hip Reader from the article Incumbents keep seats: Last 190 ballots result in no changes.
51 Comments
On Aug 20, 7:57 AM, Ann Samuelson wrote:
NCO thanks for the clear honest reporting on this, the Jewell Community has been through enough and I thank you for just stating facts.
On Aug 20, 9:20 PM, none wrote:
It is clear that Tryan and Carrie are your puppy dogs. They follow you around the county offices. They report what you want them to report.
On Aug 20, 10:24 PM, bizarre conclusion wrote:
how is this article proof of anyone being samuelson’s lapdog?
On Aug 20, 10:48 PM, why'd I vote for that recall? wrote:
I thought Schockelt told us in the Daily Astorian and on a KAST interview that it was Skinner who told him that illegal board meetings were taking place? Now Schockelt’s the one being accused of participating in the illegal meetings? What happened between him and Jacobsen?
On Aug 21, 7:12 AM, Kathy wrote:
Apparently they eat their own in Jewell...I like the simple truth in this article, too bad people out there didn’t get it before.
On Aug 21, 10:31 AM, Response wrote:
Not being a big fan of Oly is easy for me. At least when Oly is asked about the questionable practices in the past related to holding public meetings he does not shoot off with a “lier lier pants on fire” type of reaction. (like others, plural). His reaction was something along the lines of taking the lump if actions were opened against him. What has the other former and present board members been saying in the public all along in response to the volumes of questionable practices, just look at the DA’s investigation and you will clearly get what I mean by volumes.
On Aug 21, 10:33 AM, Another wrote:
Remember Oly and Lauren were not board members during the recall, 2.5 years had passed since they held position. There is no doubt both of them have put some light on their selves while taking action on issues that had not been improving but getting worse. Thats a tall order to take on when all others had failed knowing full well it had sped out of control and we need to cut off the fuel. Remember this investigation is simply about handling communication in a public forum.
On Aug 21, 12:01 PM, ridiculous wrote:
Who taught you math? Oly was on the school board in 2006. It hasn’t even BEEN two and half years as of NOW. It was BARELY one year since Oly was on the school board when he started the recall crap.
How had the conditions been “getting worse”? A school going from nil state standards being followed to a full state endorsed curriculum is “getting worse”? A board of volunteers is being bombarded by highly technical legal language that must be conveyed to them and understood by them before they can have discussions “in open meetings” and come to decisions. The only “getting worse” is a small group of people who refuse to believe that Seeley did wrong and therefore it must be the district’s lawyer and the districts school board which are wrong. Not Seeley, the man caught with his hand in the cookie jar, but pointing with his other hand for everyone to look the other way. And you did!
On Aug 21, 1:08 PM, PLEASE READ wrote:
Good correction, forgetting the overlap of the four year terms of positions with the elections held every two years does cross the math every now and then. Doest not change the fact they were not board members at the time of the recall. My take is you must hold a pretty close tie to a past or present position to be so quick with your math and fail to follow the wording of this thread directly related to topics and procedures followed by the BOARD OF DIRECTORS and the Oregon Ethics Commission opening the investigation into these matters. This is about the boards responsibilities not Seeley. Its so easy to know whats coming out of your mouth next.
On Aug 21, 1:22 PM, LEAD BY EXAMPLE wrote:
Like another said, this simply comes down to lack of handling communication correctly. Assuming there is the intent for some form of communication during the executive sessions? Maybe there was none. Communication is the key reason why we learn to read and write, seems some leaders are supporting failure in this area of education, perhaps the most important area? Most support state standards, but forget any standard you have in place if there is no will and desire to follow it. Leaders have to set the pace by there proceedings. Lead by example
On Aug 21, 1:24 PM, No doubt about it wrote:
There is a direct connection between the complainant on this and the recall group, they supported Seeleys then and they still do, hope I never drink that flavor of kool-aid!! For crying out loud this was a school board, not the board of directors of Enron, but in Jewell they struggle to think big, pretty gullible folks it seems.
On Aug 21, 1:41 PM, No Doubt ? wrote:
No Doubt you do not get it. You can connect anything if you like, Knock yourself out. The topic is proceedings related to the board of directors, Carrie wishes people not to stray too far out of bounds. Both of the Seeley’s present employment status with the past and present is a another topic that could be addressed by these fantastic past and present board members and administration. Possibly a Seeley topic also for future thread, gotta love that one.
On Aug 21, 2:11 PM, Staci wrote:
The fact that Skinner, the one that supposedly told Oly that illegal executive meetings were taking place, says publicly that none took place and then Oly himself is now being investigated for attending supposed illegal meetings means nothing to you?
How did Oly “take the lump”? He’s saving up for a $10,000 fine?
Your focus is on whether or not the school board used the wrong citation for an executive session? And that would constitute a miscommunication to a community who doesn’t even show up for work sessions on POLICY setting? Policies that a group of people have been SCREAMING about not being followed? An opportunity to actually understand the policies that schools and school board members must follow and who is sitting in the audience? Were you?
On Aug 21, 5:33 PM, Forever hoping wrote:
Wouldn’t it be terrific if the Jewell Community could focus on the school improvement plan that needs to be supported and worked on, just a thought....or are there parents out there that want their kids to learn how to manipulate agencies, people, etc. rather than focus on being responsible intelligent adults.
On Aug 21, 6:44 PM, The Public wrote:
Forever hoping we get down to some education at Jewell. Have we ever looked at the definition of the terms agencies, people, public, public agencies? When making potential accusations of exposure to manipulations what agency are you referring to? Pretty harsh words, but I do agree within this district while a board member sits they do have the power and tools to do some damage in its representation to and for the public. Possibly the finger is pointing in the wrong direction in regards to manipulation.
On Aug 21, 9:11 PM, The Public Too wrote:
Love it when people speak for others. So who is the board supposedly manipulating? Or do you even know what it is you are implying? Just trying to make ANOTHER group of board members look suspicious. Volunteering in Jewell just isn’t worth the effort. Looking at what someone like Karl puts up with, what the new board is facing, what the old board had to deal with and even with legal counsel they are blamed for everything. Where’s the credit for putting the school back on track? Where’s the credit for whole new policy book? Where’s the credit for a complete overhaul of the fiscal accountability process?
On Aug 22, 12:47 AM, Mr. Harper wrote:
“....The day my Mama socked it to the Nehalem Valley P.T.Ayyyyyyy”
On Aug 22, 9:34 AM, CLAIMS for the MONEY wrote:
The Public Too appears to state it just like it is. Admitting the school was off track is good start.
But, asking for the treats before showing the train is steady on the new tracks is possibly not a wise choice. It appears the school leaders have been robust in handing out treats everywhere in the past while saying it was all great, then some players attempted to wipe their hands clean. To exasperate the problem further the most recent leaders prior to this summer and their supporters ask for more treats before the puddings set. The sum intended to be spent per student equals how much? What performance improvements are able to be shown for this current spending? BTW, seems you are speaking for a whole list of people and groups.
On Aug 22, 9:47 AM, bewildered wrote:
What exactly are these “treats”?
On Aug 22, 7:32 PM, Humble Pie wrote:
The Carolyn Eady retirement bonus on top of pers retirement would be considered a treat by district employees. Just a sneaky trick to everybody else. Happy Halloween
On Aug 22, 11:00 PM, wondering wrote:
But that aint a treat this new board, nor even the board of 2007 initiated. It was a treat from the 2005 board, was it not? with nary a samuelson on it?
On Aug 23, 8:38 AM, Oct 06 thru Mar 08 wrote:
I did not mention it, WONDERING mentions the common factor before and after that window in 2005. Quite a history circling 2005. It seems like many are aware now. Now centering on that 2005 period I do not recall who the chairman was? Maybe we should not go there since that time frame is not within the scope of this investigation. Might it be possible in the future, if more issues are exposed ?
On Aug 23, 2:12 PM, I told ya so wrote:
What kind of person is it that has the balls to go to the ethics commission, when directly after leaving the board, is repaid for herlapdog routine during her stint as a director, with a job with the district? It may not be ethical but she would say it’s legal. For the record I voted against that as well many many other unethical and qeustionable items that came to the board during my stint. As far as the supposedly illegal meetings if they happened they were no where the first and certainly not the last in any district in any state. As I looked back on the time I spent on the board I know everything was not done to the exact letter of the law as to be able to do this everyboard member would have to almost be a lawyer which they are not, they are volunteers trying to do the best for their communities childerens education.
On Aug 23, 7:30 PM, Jewell eat their own wrote:
What kind of person is it that has the balls to threaten the person that later files the complaint with the Ethics commission. You caused your own grief and by the way, she does not have BALLS!
If the past board members had been trying to do their best for the childrens education, why the non compliant state standard for so many years?
For years it has been nothing more then GREED for the Jewell School Board members and stating it was all for the KIDS.
For years people in Seaside have said the rejects live in Jewell.
You do not need to be a lawyer to understand basic conflicts of interst and executive session rules.
The board members have no respect for the community after being elected or appointed. I hope they eat their own, great way to stop the greed.
On Aug 23, 8:54 PM, dare you to step up to the challenge wrote:
You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand executive session rules? You explain EXACTLY what you think was illegal in one of those sessions, if you are so damn smart. Put it out here, even without your name. We’ll all know you are wrong and so will you when the verdict comes back, because I guarantee you even IF the Ethics commission finds something it will be SOOOOOO technical you will say “huh?”. It has NOTHING to do with the claims that Oly made that the board was meeting in executive session to hide something or hire Jones just to keep others out of the hiring process. It has to do with how to deal with confidential and highly legal language and matters while still dealing with the needs of the school district.
So, come on, exactly what did the board do in executive session that was illegal?
On Aug 23, 10:29 PM, HUH wrote:
Dare you, what are you reading? I think you were responding to the previous comment which was all about unethical degrees of greed and not a mention of illegal actions. Ethics, conflicts of interest and following rules are measures beyond the legalities of a judicial system. The issues mentioned are what any decent human being ought to understand. I think you prove the point about little focus on educational improvement.
On Aug 24, 5:03 AM, Dare you not wrote:
The Ethics commission will determine what was illegal. Speeding 65 miles per hour in a 55 MPH zone is illegal, but only hurts in the pocket when given a speeding ticket. Ignoring the law is not the same as not understanding the law.
Hope you sleep well at night since you are so damn smart with your SOOOOOO technical crap dare you challenge.
Did you ever consider calling the Ethics commission about certain matters before it became a possible illegal matter?
Maybe the school should teach a 101 basic understanding class for school board members.
On Aug 24, 8:13 AM, Seen it all now wrote:
Educational improvement was sold to previous boards by Seeley through his inovative “guaranteed success” program....which of course there is no guarantee for. If a board member came out against the program, or questioned it’s spending (which the two that were recalled did), you were outnumbered. You can bet that Mr. Seeley would never come forward and support those in the group that supports him in Jewell, they sure work hard for him. He’s fortunate to have such loyal followers.
On Aug 24, 9:58 AM, BEEF in the budget wrote:
You have it right many were supporting the programs (GS), but far fewer than you think. There has always been a direct link to the benefits. As far as Seeley, he also has a much smaller following than you try to paint to the public. Seeley is like a myth that the former and some present board members kept alive, still on the payroll?. You mention the two that dished on the guaranteed success program, can you fill us in on how much support they gave to the use of the peoples revenues to buy the Steers at the Fair? Thats bigger than a treat. Wheres the beef? Hold on the directors will get you some. HOLY COW, I meant STEER. Good for the kid and parent perhaps, but ethical? There a whole lot of beef in the budget.
On Aug 24, 12:55 PM, what the heck? wrote:
Is it ETHICAL to support the 4-H programs? Is that what you are saying?
Call the Ethics Commission and ask them if it is “ethical” for a school board to vote to support a 4-H program.
YOU call the Ethics Commission and tell them that you are having a school board meeting and ask if you can conduct an executive session using such and such citation. First there will be dead silence and then the secretary will tell you that they cannot give you legal advice as they don’t have all of the pertinent information and that you should contact your district’s attorney. SHEEEEESH!
On Aug 24, 2:52 PM, SHEEEEESH wrote:
I think someone does not get the ethics problem associated with the volumes of past and present funding projects underlying this district. Is the ethics department needed to figure this one out? There are comments here that school directors were not in support of this and that, but they were in support of this that while accusing other directors of being opposite them. It seems they all fall into the category of pet projects that keep on giving without consistency. I love the 4-H funding by the school. It gives new meaning to the phrase “Everyone Had Their Pet Projects”. Be careful where you point the fingers, even Seeley needed some love and had his pet projects. BTW, I do not love Seeley.
On Aug 24, 3:09 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
I really don’t have a dog in this fight but, my God!, is anybody going to mention what can make education at this school the best for what this should be all about to begin with, its students and faculty?
Is this the true picture, in microcosm, of education in this state....its bureaucracy scratching and backbiting the hell out of each other to cover another’s ass?
Looks to me Seeley was only doing what he was being allowed to do and with little scrutiny by his overseers.
Am I wrong?
On Aug 24, 3:13 PM, SHEEEEESH back atcha wrote:
“It seems they all fall into the category of pet projects that keep on giving without consistency.” If they keep on giving then that’s consistency. What are you trying to say?
Personally, I would have a lot more confidence that the “public” isn’t being heard if this wasn’t a bunch of past directors jumping all over present directors. It “appears” that some past directors don’t want their misdeeds uncovered, instead wanting everyone to look in the other direction and even selling out a few of their own past friends in order to keep people from looking at them and their misdeeds. I find it repugnant that Jacobsen was paid $10,000 to update the boards policy book and then to find out that it still hadn’t been updated since 2004 and that updates are provided free from OSBA! She sat on the board and KNEW the updates were provided free yet charged the school district $10,000! And then didn’t even do the job! Yet SHE files an ethics violation. Sickening and repulsive behavior.
On Aug 24, 3:15 PM, take your dog and go home wrote:
Yeah, you are wrong.
On Aug 24, 3:26 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
On Aug 24, 3:15 PM, take your dog and go home wrote:
Yeah, you are wrong.
How so?
On Aug 24, 4:14 PM, sick of non supporters wrote:
Just want to give a thanks to those community members and leaders WHO do support our local 4-H club. The only thing the board did was make sure that the Jewell 4-H kids got a fair market price for the animals they worked their butts off for. Anybody who has attended the county fair and paid much attention in the barn would know the hard work and dedication it takes to participate in 4-H. All the beef that was so kindly purchased will be served to the kids in the cafeteria for lunch this year. Do any of you know what the four H’s stand for? HANDS HEALTH HEAD & HEART. Maybe they should put together a 4-H club for adults. Some of you may learn something. Shame on anyone who puts anybody down for supporting the local 4-H club! School district or not!!!!!
On Aug 24, 5:37 PM, No more direction wrote:
Are you the market God that determines fair market price? At least state it like it is, a privileged price would be more in line with the truth. Kids have nothing to do with that. Directors do and thats the topic on this site and nobody put them down for it. It seems a mention was made in regards to directors putting other directors down for their pet projects while not acknowledging they have some of their own. Missed the point as usual.
On Aug 25, 7:54 AM, smokin gun wrote:
Was there a pre-approved vote by the board to spend about 3 times more for 4-H beef then at a beef auction. Who was it that went to the fair and bid on the 4-H beef?
How can the Jewell school afford to pay for 4-H beef when the special prepayed $100.00 yearly lunch program is history. Who really paid for the 4-H beef? looks like meals are going to cost parents 2-3 times more now! A lot of parents can not afford school meals, so kids will go hungry.
4-H sounds like a lot of exspensive beef! Another pet project?
On Aug 25, 9:28 AM, community member wrote:
Well I am not sure where “smokin gun” got the information BUT ... Jewell School District has applied and is pretty confident that they will be part of a program that there will be NO charge to students for school lunch or breakfast. And if for some reason that doesn’t happen they will still be doing the $100 prepaid program. So I do not believe that any kids will be going hungry at Jewell School this year.
On Aug 25, 9:30 AM, community member wrote:
As far as Jewell School district purchasing 4-H beef at the fair - THANK YOU for supporting our Jewell 4-H kids! We as a small community should be thrilled that our local kids that choose to spend their time doing something as constructive and worthwhile as 4-H are getting a fair market price on their animals. These kids work so hard - they spend countless hours and lots of money to feed these animals to get them ready for fair. The price of feed for these animals has highly increased in the last year. Let’s support our local 4-H clubs and encourage kids to get involved in this wonderful program. I strongly believe that we need to SUPPORT our kids in both their educational and positive extra curricular activities (whether it be sports, 4-H, band, etc.) so that when they leave this small school they are both educated and well rounded, responsible, respectable young adults.
On Aug 25, 12:18 PM, Lunch Program wrote:
It appears community member stated some issues that validates smoking guns concerns. Even in your own words it appears the lunch program is in a pretty grey state. Was there a former free lunch program for all paid from the budget then possibly some of it if not all was removed and now you are stating it is coming back? If this is true could this be some more of that cover each others behinds when you get caught with unbalanced reasoning. Maybe this site is doing some good. Maybe the 4-H project is highlighting some unbalanced practices back home. Go 4-H. In favor and out of favor and in favor again, what a roller coaster with directors . Can anyone say for sure if all this beef is getting fed to the kids like a previous person stated? Would you believe the person that answers yes to that one right away? Wheres the beef? Wheres the proof?
On Aug 25, 12:52 PM, ridiculous subterfuge observed wrote:
I think comparing the 4-H program with its proven track record to the invented “Guaranteed Success” program of a deranged egomaniac with absolutely no record is ludicrous. The 4-H program costs the district about $5000 a year. The Guaranteed Success program cost the district $125,000+ (according to the reimbursements given to Seeley and his cohorts) a year with absolutely NO increase in the amount of children graduating or being more rounded children, plus causing the school to fall behind in all state curriculum mandates.
Trying to equate the two is beyond absurd.
On Aug 25, 2:02 PM, subterfuge ? wrote:
SUBTERFUGE : an artifice or expedient used to evade a rule, escape a consequence, hide something, etc. This 4-H program keeps giving, awesome program. Nobody is hiding anything here you are the one making the comparison and forgetting the math associated with your cost comparison. The 4-H (cost according to you) $5,000 Divided by 2 = $2,500 per person ? The Guaranteed Success program (cost according to you) $125,000 divided by 60 = $2,085 per person ? Maybe you can help more with the figures you left out when making a comparison, anyway you spin the per person cost will be very similar. As far as opinion thats different than honest math. I do not like the GS program either but I do like the 4-H. Fair reasoning usually follows directors that are better with math. Education should be encouraged to all.
On Aug 25, 6:18 PM, understanding your point wrote:
actually the cost to kid is a pretty good analogy, however the proven program part is still a no go. The school district does know, based on what was paid the previous year, what they will be paying for the 4-H program, and what the benefits of the program are. The GS program had no such model. The GS program was NOT 2000 per child since there were distinctly different trips the children went on, plus some children were told to give their receipts for personal expenditures on week long jaunts to the principle to be claimed by him as expenses and some went on local day trips which did not require such accounting. So the cost per child is not totally accurate. And we all know that $400,000+ was NOT spent on the kids in the program over 4 year period. I know your point is that certain directors have certain “pet” projects, which would be the same in ALL school districts.
On Aug 25, 6:20 PM, a bit more about my point wrote:
You get to vote for the director who most fits with how YOU see your district. You chose to recall people who you voted for. You knew when you did it that their replacements would be picked, not voted for. Of course the remaining directors are going to vote for people who will give them the least amount of grief. It is human impulse. Would you rather sit on a board with contentious people, or people you can get along with? Would you rather there were NO projects? I would think that would be a pretty dismal school atmosphere with absolutely no room for creativity and little or no reason volunteer for anything.
On Aug 25, 7:25 PM, Wondering 2 wrote:
So can you explain what the benefits of the recall, and this ethics complaint are...those of you that support it. Keep in mind this is a school.
On Aug 25, 7:58 PM, Matt wrote:
Just a quick note of thanks to “a bit more about my point”, never in my life have I been accredited with causing the least amount of grief. and smoking gun should take more trips to the supermarket if he thinks we paid 3x the price for beef. and finally, to “lunch program” who questioned if the kids got the beef, all I can say is, wanna come to my house for a BBQ?
On Aug 26, 12:52 AM, Jill wrote:
Yes, at $3.25 and $3.75 a pound you guys really soaked the school districts budget! And while you did pay “on the hoof” price, in the supermarket you’d have to pay for “organic” beef to get the same quality, which means close to $6/lb. I’d say you paid a damn good price. But then again, 4-H is a “pet” project of mine.
On Aug 26, 6:37 AM, Model Presentation wrote:
Understanding Your Point, the Guaranteed Success program from the bigger picture involved far more than 60 people and therefore it might be less than $2,000 per. Why cant that model you mentioned for the 4-H program be applied for the GS program? Just gather up the questionable receipt issues and sum that into a second figure and put the asterisks by it with your benefits opinion. Two models for the GS might help the public better understand this program that in your own words involved many children. I think you left out Faculty Members, maybe you should apply an asterisks here also in that second model as this might be a grey area also. Seems reasonable to me, who would think a Faculty Member would have anything to do with the educational value of the GS program? Is there a complete list of the directors involved with GS before and after the Seeley era? Maybe the effort and hard work was lacking in the GS program, that should will make your benefits opinion easier.
On Aug 26, 10:01 AM, THE POINT BEING ? wrote:
A bit more understanding of your point in regards to picking board members that “toe your line”. That appears to be a one voice for all attitude. No wonder we are moving in the direction of being less creative about hearing all of the public. Maybe I am mistaken, is the public getting cut off from the whole picture? Does it appear like the leadership has left much room for creativity in education when you have one voice for all attitude? MAYBE THE DOOR IS CLOSED, GO HOME.
On Aug 26, 10:26 AM, THUMBS UP wrote:
There is more than one voice in the district of Jewell that thinks the faculty and the kids have done a fantastic job over the past several years. When you factor the chaotic environment which they navigate, my thumbs up. It appears the community is figuring out where the head of the nail is. Keep your heads up FACULTY and KIDS.