NorthCoastOregon.com

On May 4, 7:43 PM, Rich wrote:

Oly Schockelt and Ginger Kaczenski have repeatedly expressed disdain for state of Oregon Education standards, seriously. They treat the Jewell School District as if it were their private parochial school answerable only to the paying constituents of the district. That aint true, sweets, and it doesn’t matter whether or not “Thats not how we do things here” WAS the modus operandi, you can’t do that with state funds to a public school. State laws MUST BE FOLLOWED and recalling the two school board members that constantly bucked against the three that were allowing the school’s finances to go helter-skelter is not a reason to recall them, unless you happen to want it to go back to the way it used to be.  OH YEAH, that is exactly what Oly wants, that is exactly what Ginger wants.  They want the days of unaccountable spending and reimbursement. Of no written curriculums, of made up programs of excellence that only Jewell recognizes but no other school in the state acknowledges or makes use of.  The days where palms were being greased to look the other way, people were being paid $5,000 a year to update policies that every other school district was getting for free!
Samuelson and Meier putting up with that crap? Not on your life. They voted against it. They reported it. And Oly hates them for getting ESD involved. Oly hates the educational service district. Who in their right mind hates a service created to help school districts excel at providing services to their students?  People that HATE being held accountable, HATE being made to follow rules, HATE having to account for state money that was spent and HATE having to explain to parents what happened to their special education program!

If Kaczenski had any proof that Tiedeman and Meier were shredding documents then she would have taken that to the proper authorities when it happened. The fact that she brings it up here as gossip is seriously deranged. For what benefit would Tiedeman do such a thing? What good would it do to shred written curriculums? From the real game of life, Ginger is a liar.

On May 4, 9:45 PM, Ginger wrote:

Rich has some pretty harsh false accusations, but mostly a bunch of hot air. I understand the Oregon Education Standards. I appreciate them and encourage the update of them at Jewell or any other school in the State. “That’s how we do things here” is what we are trying to get away from...that good ol’ boy way of decision making is going to be a thing of the past. I agree, State LAWS MUST BE FOLLOWED, hence the Recall. So it was only the three that were allowing the school’s finances to go helter skelter? Please don’t insult the readers intelligence. And please don’t say what I want...you have no idea. Who are you to speak for me...? If it’s accountable spending and reimbursement that you want to know about, please come to the budget meeting tomorrow (Monday) night at the Jewell school @ 7pm. All are welcome to come, see, and hear for themselves without having people like Rich give “his version” of the truth. The “made up program” you speak of was the same program Dave Samuelson approved, and went on at least one of those trips. EVERYTHING you say I/we hate, is the exact opposite. Again, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the future of the Jewell school, please come to the budget meeting tomorrow (Monday) night at 7pm. Rich, do YOU know what happened to the special education program (grant money)? I do. You can too if you come to the budget meeting. Tiedeman QUIT his position because the entire board would not support his suggestion to immediately fire Patty Drew from her position of Clerk due to accusations that were unfounded and later dropped. She is definately what I would consider to be a “sacrificial lamb”. Last but not least, and think about THIS, Tiedeman is related to Ann...go figure she is getting all of her relatives out of the timber to start writing letters just before the ballots are due.

On May 4, 10:30 PM, Matt wrote:

Mr. Tiedeman resigned at a board meeting where there was supposed to be discussion on contract matters and the merits of the G.S. trip but ended up with former boardmembers and co-recallers, Carrie and Oly telling him he had to allow a boardmembers son to wear a “Hooters” T-shirt to school. Imagine, a man with his experience and intellect being publicly rideculed for carrying out a teachers request and enforcing the dress code.

And by the way, he’s not related. Where the heck did you pull that one out of?

On May 5, 5:31 AM, Ann Samuelson wrote:

Ginger,
I am not related to Mike Tiedeman.  I have been a school board member since January 2006, Dave resigned his position a number of months prior due to his concerns regarding financial issues. I was elected and another community member was appointed to carry out business on the board in the interim, which is not how it is ordinarily done. As one board member Dave had no decision making power.  I am just suggesting you get facts regarding what you are saying here. I am looking forward to the day when the black and white facts of what took place are able to be shared with the public.

On May 5, 7:59 AM, Country Boy wrote:

And Ginger it seems like you have the wrong impression on a lot of things.  Why do you support things that are not up to mandated state standards?  Why not support the people that are not only willing to rock the boat but if necessary turn it over to benfit our kids

On May 5, 10:48 AM, Rich wrote:

I’ll be there like you were at the policy work session, Ginger. You tell us that Tiedeman is related to Ann, that Matt’s wife left him and that Tiedeman and Meier shredded documents. All lies and yet, you are not a liar just misinformed. If you are not a liar you are a virulent gossip, someone who goes around spreading rumors without substantiating them. Like a malignate cancer it is the root cause of the polarization of our community. I for one think its disgusting that you have been appointed to a committee of the Board so that you can continue to spread dissension. You are a disease.
The value of this site is that it exposes the lies that those for the recall are telling.

On May 5, 12:59 PM, Ginger wrote:

To correct “rich” I never said or wrote that Matt’s wife left him. I just didn’t know she had just taken him back. Apparently that was a new development...like within a month or two prior, roughly. (sorry matt and faith, I didn’t think I would need to speak of this again..but “rich” needed clarification.

As for Ron,
Meier and Jones DID almost allow the board member to vote on the extension of her sisters contract for the principal position, but the sister (board member) DID speak up and asked if it was okay for her to vote on that item, given it might be a conflict of interest...that is when the Chair and Interim looked at each other and then looked at her and told the board member that “yes, you can vote on that...I don’t see why not..?”. Then the attorney for the school district spoke up...you should have seen the look on her face...she informed the Chair and Interim that “No, no you can’t do that, that is a conflict of interest”. Wow...thank god she was there to catch that one!

Anyway, I AM sorry for the “lie” when I thought Ann and Tiedeman were related SOME HOW.

I will leave the “shredder” discussion up to those who witnessed it.

Country Boy,
What is it that I support that is not up to mandated state standards? If it is the “made up program” then yes, I saw benefits on a daily basis w/ daily accountability on the students behalf to get their work done so they didn’t have to stay after. I know my kids had to stay after to get their work done and they have benefited from the reinforcement that the program implemented. It reiterated what my husband and I have tried to teach them about having a good work ethic and get your work done on time. From that aspect, I think there might be a few students who will possibly fall through the cracks in the future, not living up to their potential.

On May 5, 2:20 PM, Ron wrote:

Carrie
Thank you and I will be sending an e-mail soon.

When did you receive a notice of the meeting tonight at the Jewell school? When did the Daily Astorian print the meeting notice. The first time I have seen the notice was 5-5-08. Ginger was also nice to mention the meeting.

Governing bodies wishing to provide adequate notice should strive to provide as much notice as possible to ensure that those wishing to attend have ample opportunity. A week to 10 days for example.

On May 5, 6:10 PM, Matt wrote:

Ginger,
apology NOT excepted because you would do it again in a heartbeat. You chose to bring my personal life into debate on whats good for our school. You did this because you are a loud mouth gossiper, who loves to hear herself talk, (or see herself in print). thankfully, your comments on this website have proven to the whole county what most already knew. You know nothing about me or my family or all that we have done for this community in the past 120 years.

On May 5, 6:45 PM, Jon wrote:

RON, just did a search for --jewell school district-- first page up was budget meeting tonite, better add to your favorites

On May 5, 7:43 PM, Public wrote:

Jon, you think you are pretty clever also, but in this situation it deals with the public and not a search engine.  have a clue.  Holy crap public, look at these comments, no wonder

On May 5, 9:47 PM, Jon wrote:

Ron /Public,
Sorry was just trying to help wasn’t looking to offend anybody. So I imagine that Ron went to the budget meeting, anything to report? Bad news / Good news?

On May 6, 7:47 AM, Ron wrote:

Update on the budget meeting at Jewell School on 5-5-08.

Budget committee members all felt like the budget for next year needed to be reduced. Timber revenue is declining, increase in maintaining the buildings. The budget members stated we need to start saving and investing instead of spending.

The school board sat there and appeared to be listening to the budget members, but all 5 voted to approve a 4.8 million dollar budget for next year. Why have an appointed budget committee when the school board disregards their concerns. Talk about Karl and Ann rocking the boat. The way these two are voting there won’t be a boat to rock. Money spent per student for next year will be about $25,000.00 dollars based on 190 students.

Dave Samuelson stated the money saved over all the past years was saved to spend on a new school.
Ann stated that she felt like if we don’t spend the money, we will lose it because a new law will come out in Salem. Money saved for a rainy day if taken away from the Jewell School would also be taken away from all school districts in the state of Oregon. Every school district should save for a rainy day or emergencies.
IT LOOKS LIKE OUR BOAT IS SINKING ALREADY

On May 6, 8:51 AM, 3 to 2 wrote:

So much for the former ESD representatives three to two version of the two (Ann and Karl) being on their own trying to correct issues.  Next up Jim Mabbott article is a good one if you read into it deep where you see Ann also sits on the ESD board for the north west region. Starting to get a better picture of whats going on ?  Remember those board members are the bosses of the public entities.  Mike was a former long time ESD emplyee and of course Jim states his position with ESD.  General rule of thumb, “Dont bite the hand that feeds you”.

On May 6, 10:02 AM, Ginger wrote:

I felt that the decision to vote on the budget could have waited until we had more information (actual spending). Some/most of those who asked questions or in some way contributed to the conversations seemed to agree that we did NOT have all the information required to make an informed decision...it was a “wait and see” kind of conversation, but w/ an approved budget and no written plan presented to the budget committee on spending for non essentials (the $600k for facilities acquisition & construction, but nothing to tell/show me exactly what it is going to be used for, not that it will all be used...hopefully). When I asked for a general idea Alan Foster (meeting chairperson) looks at me and told me that I don’t need to know that kind of information (amazing, I thought that’s what the budget meetings are for?). Mr. Jones told us a short list (fencing, shed, baseball field..things like that). I just think that two meetings were not enough, and if another meeting and more information were available (being that this is the first time for me on a school budget committee), maybe I would feel more comfortable w/ the outcome. On a positive note, it does sound like this budget was presented in a more user/reader friendly format than in years past. Well everyone, I am just going to cross my fingers and hope their decision works out.

On May 6, 10:57 AM, Broken Record wrote:

Michelle you are not fooling anyone that has seen this action live.  Karl and Ann standing alone is cherry picking at its best.  They are guilty as the rest. The only difference was a little mid term rush on their part greeting the ESD to stear some focus away from their selves. If they did their job ESD would not have been needed and there is also another hard fact.

On May 6, 6:57 PM, Hey Rich wrote:

They all voted yeah yeah during the Seeley reign, the investigation was during the Seeley era.  ESD was after the fact, and all the crap dealing with Ann and Karl trying to save their arses after Seeley was gone was about their selves and saving some.  A lot of us are no dummies.  Shockie is way too Loonie but the community didnt see him attended a panting party at the Jewell bridge expressing their love for Seeley. Oh wow whats that?

On May 6, 9:20 PM, Marsha Tisdale wrote:

There are several comments in the main article “First Up: Mike Tiedeman” that I wish to address. Just as background on why I feel qualified to speak to these issues, I began working at Jewell School in 1992 and continued until June of 2007 when I retired from teaching and changed career paths.  I worked with on a daily basis with students, educators, administrators and parents and community members throughout my time at Jewell.  I worked on several curricular and other support committees including the site-based committe throughout my stay at Jewell.

According to the article the following issues were attributed to Mike Tiedeman:

1.  “Test scores were staying at the same level or declining when state levels were raising the standards.” Let’s take a look at some of the history of the state testing scores at Jewell.  In 1999 there was a poor showing for Jewell students, particularly in the 10th grade with none of that class passing or exceeding in Reading, Math and Math problem solving, although they were strong in writing with 83% passing or exceeding.  State levels at the time were Reding 52%, Math 36% and Math problem solving at 50%.  Where did the scores go from there?  If you look up all the scores from the years 2000 through 2006 you will find increases in scores, not a decline as was indicated.  Although there are fluctuations as is expected when you have small class sizes (percentages can be deceiving in a small sample), you can see an overall climb.  For example. in 2000 in the 10th grade, Reading increased to 50% (state level was at 52%); math was at 25% (state 40%); and writing was at 89% (state was 73%).

By the 2004-2005 school year, overall scores were 71% to the state’s 56% and math was at 86% to the state’s 49%.  Writing was listed as “above 96%”.

Jewell’s state report card throughout many years was listed as “strong”.  The time that we did not meet the federal standard for the “No Child Left Behind” requirements was due to one class not receiving the math test.  So the low score was due to lack of participation by a class rather than by low scores on the tests.  The extenuating situation at the time was that our regular math teacher had been deployed to Iraq and with temporary math teachers filling in, a class got missed.  By 2006, the school overall again was rated strong and the scores were comparable or exceeded the state averages.

2. “Teachers didn’t have written curriculum to look at to base their lesson plans on for the group of children coming into their grade and they were unable to adequately prepare their students for the standardized testing.” I was there.  I had a curriculum.  For starters, each year the Oregon Department of Education produces a multi-page newspaper that contains the content area guides for each grade level and each of the core subject areas including English, Math, Social Science, Science, and Vocational subjects.  I was a member of the site-base committee (several times the chairperson, and for most years the secretary).  The Math and English teachers were also on that committee as were members of the grade school staff.  We worked hard on developing goals to integrate the curriculum and education program so that students could move from one level to the next with the optimum chance of being successful.  Also, we were a small school with a close-knit faculty.  We often worked together to correlate between subject areas and help students use skills accross the curriculum.  I say that I had a curriculum, because each year I would correlate the plans for the subjects I taught with the state curriculum guides.  I also personally saw to it that the other teachers (both in elementary and secondary grades) received copies of that same state guide.

In addition, we implimented the requirements for the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) starting as early as 1995 and continued to match the requirements with the changes at the state level.  In fact, our requirements were higher than that of the state.  I correlated the program we implemented to help students to showcase a sampling of their knowledge and developed skills. In addition, I as well as other teachers, attended state-sponsored seminars on state requirements, curriculum, and state-wide testing.  On several occasions I, as well as other teachers at Jewell, helped score state tests in writing and math. So when the above referenced article says that “Jewell School District was not taking part in the satewide curriculum updating system” I have to disagree.

3. The statement that “students transferring outside the school district could not be guaranteed that they would be entering a grade with the skills necessary to succeed” seems misleading at best.  First of all, no one has a “guarantee”; hopefully we teach students to problem solve and apply skills learned in one area to other areas or subject matter.  I will say that I have had teachers from other school districts that have received students from Jewell tell me that they were impressed with the skills and abilities of those students.  Now that could be a misleading statement as well...since it does depend a great deal on the student that transfers and whether they have applied themselves.  But if a student applied him/herself while at Jewell, he/she will not be at a disadvantage when transferring to another school.

4. “There were no scholastic area in which Jewell was in state compliance”.  I cannot stress enough how much a disservice this statement does to the educational program at Jewell. During the time I was there, what I saw were dedicated, hard-working teachers, meeting the needs of their students under the guidelines as outlined by the state.  The above article appears to be saying that the teachers had no guidelines and were groping clueless as to how to teach their students.  Nothing could be farther from the truth. 

Students came, they learned, we taught, and we taught by the standards that the state had approved.  We did not “teach to the test”, but we taught the skills necessary to enable students to be able to achieve.  We saw improvement overall.  We encouraged, and cheered and helped students to engage and to become motivated to be life-long learners. I believe we had much success.  Education is a continual process, not a destination.

On May 6, 10:01 PM, T T T wrote:

This article was about an education system.  Administrators do not teach so this article certainly was about teachers.  I think this teacher speaking out is two steps ahead of the average.  Teachers are the pulse, the heart beat and everything about the curriculum and that my friends is the top priority of a district.  I remember Miss T dealing with the board as the district union rep when a whole lot of crazy stuff was going on and parents were trying to get improvements.  She was there for the contracts and that may have been her only flaw when far more serious issues were going on.  I forgive her, she was just doing her job as a rep.  One thing is for sure about MRS Tisdale, she is very thorough.  Thank You T for speaking out.

On May 6, 10:37 PM, Target wrote:

Mike needs some shooting practice before he draws next time.

On May 7, 5:12 AM, Elusive wrote:

“If following this is all that was needed, then why the statement of assurance that the school has its own written curriculum” How do you think written curriculum’s come about?  Magic?  I think the version the Oregon Department of Education has would be quite adequate ( possibly not the best), and if you elect to use that you have one in place.  Pretty simple and not misleading to me.  This is also an electronic world we also live in.  If the staff elected to use the States curriculum it was available at any computer that was online.  Hey public ask around at a variety of schools and a range of teacher on staff.  I’ll bet you its not right there and certainly not as black and white as the ESD boys are trying to portray.  Its quite simple every school in Oregon has easy access to a curriculum with todays technology.  Now practice of using it is a completely different game and I for one will really get a laugh if anyone judges that one.  That would be very difficult for any one individual let alone a team of them.
As for the grants I remember reading in the Daily it was about accounting of where the expenditures were going.  Seems pretty obvious thats a different department aside from teachers that are responsible for that one.
As for the comments on the Jewell School web site.  My message is its about time.  Possibly all the extra resources that went into having 2 do one job produced .  Not very efficient with the peoples resources.  And also proves the point that Jewell at the very least had a curriculum in place available online from the Oregon Department of Education site, and access to that is much faster than any human.  As for the Jewell version at the web site online, good for them to have one there also.
Way to go Mrs Tisdale.  You are far from perfect like all of us humans but as always you delivered.

On May 7, 7:06 AM, Ron wrote:

What about the employment of Bill Allen at the Jewell School, wasn’t he from ESD. Mr. Allen was a SASE Coordinator for ESD and was not endorsed with an Administrative license issued by TSPC.
Mr. Seeley recommended to the school board to hire his wife and I sent a letter stating an actual conflict of interest and the evaluation would not be ethical because of Mr. Seeley’s position. Mr. Seeley decided that Bill Allen would evaluate Mrs. Seeley. Did the school board approve everything put in front of them without reading and asking questions?

I have been directly targeted as a troublemaker for trying to demand some accountability from our elected board members. Maybe if other community members had spoken or went against the grain, we would not be in the situation that we are in now.
Now we all have to pick up the pieces and figure out how to continue.

I went to the budget meeting on May 5th. There was a disadvantaged 5 board members against 4 budget members. If the budget members are to advise the board, why was the budget not itemized so everyone could understand the costs? Do we buy a new car for $30,000.00 dollars without test driving and looking at the list of options to see if the figures are reasonable? I was shocked, when a budget member requested a list of itemization of a cleaning service, only to be told that she didn’t need to know.

Mr. Jones apparently prepared the budget with codes that were not known or understood by the budget committee. A chart prepared by the budget members was passed around to the board members and audience. One board member immaturely turned her nose up at the chart, as if it was a virus.
It appeared that the 5 board members had unanimously taken a position to approve the proposed budget by Mr. Jones before the budget meeting started. The school board did not support the evidence/concerns of the budget committee and disregarded there input.

On May 7, 8:34 AM, Ann Samuelson wrote:

Humble Pie,
I think what he means is that he thought 5 voted for the budget and 4 against.  The actual vote was 6 voted for the budget and 3 voted against adopting the budget.  The budget included contingency and a fund to finish a new water system and other things to be done around the school.  It is a very well done and complete budget.  It is a good format to set forth for the new superintendent when we are ready to hire that person.  The codes in the budget were explained in detail by Mr. Jones to the entire budget committee, in two separate 2 1/2 hour meetings and I understand he met separately with another member of the budget committee for a couple of hours in addition to that explaining it in detail.  The chart he refers to was drawn by one budget committee member and not presented by the entire budget committee to the audience.  It had not been shared with Mr. Jones or any other members of the budget committee prior.  Input was not disregarded, it was encouraged by the Chair, and listened to by all.  Public comment was taken as well, and was not limited to certain number of minutes as you’ll find in most other public meetings.

On May 7, 2:27 PM, Ann Samuelson wrote:

Hard reading,
A vote is a vote, the budget committee is a body on it’s own.

On May 7, 9:56 PM, what's in the water in Jewell? wrote:

Some of you people are acting as if Jewell were a private, parochial school where you can make up the rules as you go along because, “thats the way we do things around here, and the kids seem happy and appear to be getting a good enough education.” The statement of assurances doesn’t say, “Are you using the state’s curriculum?” It doesn’t say, “Are you piece mealing a curriculum together from internet downloads?” It says, “DOES YOUR SCHOOL HAVE A WRITTEN CURRICULUM?” It doesn’t ask if you are taking short cuts. Tiedeman said, highly qualified teachers were doing the best they could with what they had, but the FACT OF THE MATTER, was that the superintendent of the school had abdicated his obligation and then lied about it.  These same people are fighting ESD as if it were the enemy and sound deranged.

The administrator of a scholarship’s own daughter being a recipient of the scholarship? A scholarship worth thousands of dollars? And someone says, “no big deal?” Over a HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars being spent to reimburse someone for THREE trips as a reward for DOING HOMEWORK???  And someone else says, “HALLELUJAH! THE MAN’S A SAVIOR, HE SAVED US thousands OF DOLLARS! Someone slam the barn door, all the cows are out!”

And then you let these same loons tell you who to recall?

On May 8, 6:05 AM, Drinking Some wrote:

Whats in the water, i think you might be drinking some. Every time you you guide any finger to click on print using the phenomenal technology from downloads you get an almost perfect copy, only limited by your printer quality and any half modern low end model today is impressive.
In reality there is almost no such thing as a true written curriculum, that would have to be the original which is almost always pieced, slashed, noted, sliced, diced, i think you get the picture.  Then someone goes to the keyboard and inputs (I think very few are using typewriters today), then you can do anything you like with the output technology we have today.  As far as using the term written, that in it self is a spin.  Only in rare circumstance would you see such a thing of in a classroom( especially in document form).  If society was going only by written format we would have to throw all the classroom books out, state approved or not.  GET IT?  These backward folks are running the school

On May 8, 8:13 AM, guest wrote:

Two things I’m looking forward to are, this recall election being over, and that KAST stops running adds for that concert they are having tomorrow.

On May 10, 8:13 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

OMG...who cares!  Six degrees of separation can apply to almost anyone.

On May 11, 7:15 AM, Ann did not vote wrote:

Ann Samuelson said,” I am not related to Mike Tiedeman”.
Matt Samuelson said, “by the way, he’s not related. Where the heck did you pull that one out of?”
Ginger apologizes to Ann and Matt,
I am sorry; I was under the distinct impression that Tiedeman was in SOME WAY related to your family. I apologize about the misunderstanding.
Matt said, “apology NOT excepted because you would do it again in a heartbeat. You did this because you are a loud mouth gossiper”
Looks like Samuelson’s need to apologize to Ginger!

Dave resigned from the Jewell School chairperson position because Seeley cut his flow to the trees that spin gold.

Was Clatsop county ever polled in regards to LNG or is this the fate of a few commissioners that continue to say, “I have never stated an opinion on LNG. I wasn’t voting on the industry, I was making a land use decision.”

Ann saying she did not vote on LNG is ludicrous.  That’s exactly what she did.
Ann also said she agreed with the Jewell school board on there vote over Jerry Jones contract even though she was not present at that meeting. She said it was all about Jerry Jones. But she continues to say she did not vote or this is a hate campaign.
Ann has all kinds of excuses about the recall.

Was the Jewell community ever polled about the new school? There was one public meeting letter stating a public meeting with information only will be held. Four options were addressed at the meeting and the census of the board members was to build the ultimate new school for 12 million. The school board did not listen to the community!

This has been Dave and Ann Samuelson’s personal agenda. SPEND, SPEND, SPEND and NEVER LISTEN.

On May 11, 9:34 AM, sick of recalls wrote:

Your hatred is apparent. Ann wasn’t even on the board that voted for the school but you are recalling her because you are mad at her husband? Yeah, that makes sense? Or are you recalling her from the school board because of the way she voted on as a county commissioner? Or, are you voting to recall her because someone pulled out a sixth degree relation card that very well could tie ANYONE in clatsop county to ANYONE else who has lived here longer than four generations?

Yeah, those are reeeeeaaaallll good reasons to recall someone. 

Samuelsons SPEND?  Some dumbass spends close to $500,000 on a house and over $200,000 on rewards for doing HOMEWORK but the Samuelson’s like to spend?  And the board members who allowed this to happen are leading the recall but its the Samuelson’s who like to spend? Talk about diverting attention!

If the community didn’t like “Samuelsons” supposed agenda, why was he constantly re-elected?

Idiot, its hang your head in shame, not face. And the only “arse” that is burning is yours, with all of the acidic vile that is pouring out of it. The only time your mouth is closed is when you sit down.

On May 11, 10:34 AM, Humble Pie wrote:

So Seeley was really the boss of bosses?

On May 11, 3:46 PM, Ann Samuelson wrote:

Many of these comments have become extreme, just want to clarify that when I owned my plumbing company we did no plumbing on the new house, it was another local company that performed that work and provided the materials.  To constantly accuse us of somehow making money of this volunteer work as school board members is in error, and yet another untruth.

On May 11, 5:27 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

“Many of these comments have become extreme, just want to clarify that when I owned my plumbing company we did no plumbing on the new house, it was another local company that performed that work and provided the materials.  To constantly accuse us of somehow making money of this volunteer work as school board members is in error, and yet another untruth.”

You know Ann, you have dug your hole so deep in your little self-vindication campaign in trying to try your case to what you deem is a caring public in your interest that no recovery is possible from this point on, in my view.

On May 11, 6:07 PM, Flee from McGee wrote:

McGee,
What are you doing here?  Planning on moving to Jewell?  Seems odd that you would post on this article at all, don’t understand what your interest is other than slamming Samuelson which we’ve all seen you do on other boards, nothing new.

On May 11, 7:56 PM, Thank You wrote:

I am very glad Patrick McGee is speaking in on this.  Some investigations in the past did not catch enough light.  This sight is small, but look around at others, the newspapers, and sum them together and finally about time.  Just ready Ann’s own words.  A commenter was referring to a figure on building the sups house and a figure dealing potential plumbing coasts.  Not a single word stated that the other expenditure was for plumbing on the sups house, yet look at Ann’s comment and her supporters comment. Astoria plumbing was all over the districts property doing plumbing during the Samuelson heavy chumming with Seeley era. Conclusion, MISCELANOEOUS plumbing is a much closer Match than Ann’s.  HEE HEE HEE THANK YOU PATRICK

On May 11, 8:30 PM, Shelby wrote:

“Disgrace” maybe your opinion of Ann is what you see in your mirror. I find Ann Samuelson to be a caring, compassionate person who listens well to people at dozens of meetings. 

To say she refuses to listen to the voices that elect her is ridiculous. She listens, she just can’t satisfy EVERYONE ALL OF THE TIME. When someone says NO does that mean they aren’t listening to you?

Samuelson virtually quit working so she could commit herself to serving her community. Personally, I am in awe of her and the other volunteers who devote so many hours each week for free or paltry amounts of money. She is on the school board and on Northwest Regional ESD board.  She is a County Commissioner. She is the liaison for the county board on the Commission on Children and Families and Health and Human Services Advisory Committee. She is the alternate on the Council of Forest trust Lands when Commissioner Roberts can’t make it. She also attends Association of Oregon County meetings as a Commissioner.

She does this free of charge as both a member of the Jewell School Board and the NWR ESD. Both of those take up a minimum of 2 meetings a month if not four depending on what is happening. This does not count the hours spent reading and preparing for meetings, nor driving to and from the meetings.

The Commissioner meetings take a minimum of two meetings a month. Since the issue of Bradwood, LLC, variances came up we have all read how the commissioners have held hearings as well as numerous “special” meetings.

All for a petty little $800 a month

Everyone sitting on their fat butts and doing nothing but bitch about what all of these people are doing FOR the rest of us should hang your heads in shame.  Even Schockelt, Thompson and Eady were at least serving the community, even when they were giving in to Seeley at every turn. They weren’t doing it because they are evil. They were doing it because they thought it was okay to trust a certified, licensed superintendent.

To be painting horns on all of these people is sickening and pathetic. Especially by people who’s biggest contribution has maybe been a five hours volunteering once a year. BIG WHOOP!!!

These recalls are degrading to people, divisive to communities and a waste of time & money.  There should be recall reform NOW. Reforms should NEVER BE ALLOWED on volunteers, or ONLY allowed on those indicted of a crime.

I am sickened by what this has done to our communities. Our smaller ones, like Jewell and our larger county wide one. Never, ever have I seen so many people HATING one another in this county. Never, ever have I seen so many who once considered one another friends cross streets to get away from one another. It is heart wrenching.

On May 11, 8:40 PM, quit wondering its obvious wrote:

Apparently Ann is being recalled because she is related to everyone in Jewell and since she is related to everyone she is to be blamed for everything that has gone wrong, ever. It can only be solved if she is recalled. Isn’t that obvious? The jewel god requires a blood sacrifice of someones head. Once Ann’s is offered, all good will return to jewell.

On May 12, 5:59 AM, Moving forward wrote:

April 7th 2008

Samuelson has pledged $1000 of her own money to help pay for the costs of the recall election.  “ I am offering in good faith to pay my part in the interest of moving forward.”

Ann, could you please post a copy of your check for $1000.00 dollars to the Jewell School. We ask in good faith in moving forward.

On May 12, 6:50 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Mr. McGee,
“Just to clarify, I’m not looking for recovery, nor am I looking for self vindication, and this is hardly a campaign.  I am also not trying my case, as I am not on trial here.  This is a schoolboard volunteer position of which I have devoted many hours to, as have others. If parents of this school district want their school board controlled by those that are recalling Karl Meier and I, then that is a choice they make when they vote, but I have three other fellow board members that are not in favor of this recall effort as well. I’m not sure why you feel the need to be what appears to be mean spirited in your posts, but then they are yours.”

But, you have been and are Ann and it goes way beyond this school board issue and you know that.

Mean spirited?

Not at all.

You have simply lost the trust of those you were elected to serve and that is certainly no creation of mine.

On May 12, 1:34 PM, Ginger wrote:

Just in case this does not make it in to the paper on time...If you question the facts, just check the budget and get out your calculator.

Yes on Recall: Numbers don’t lie

As a member of the Jewell School District’s Budget Committee, I question recent statements by Tiedeman about efforts by Meier and Samuelson to “rein in spending” at Jewell School (“Say No to Recall”, 5/6/08) and the recent editorial about “large amounts of money dispensed” by former Superintendent Seeley (“Follow the Money”, 5/8/08) I think the facts point to different conclusions.

Consider that audited expenditures during Seeley’s last three years (04-05 to 06-07) rose from $2,663 million to $2.842 million (excluding new school construction costs), an average increase of about 2.2% per year. This year (07-08) the budget (excluding construction costs and contingency) rose to $3.418 million, a 20% increase. 

For 08-09, the Budget Committee was presented with a $4.850 million budget (excluding contingency), a 42% increase over this year!  Even assuming it might cost another $100,000 to $200,000 per year to maintain and clean the new school, I and two other community members questioned how the District could justify a 70% increase in proposed expenditures since Seeley left in 2006. 

At our second and last meeting on May 5th, we asked for a listing of year-to-date expenditures and we were told we could get it at the next Board meeting.  When we asked for more detail about specific items that seemed excessive, Chair Alan Foster told us “You don’t need to know that kind of information.” When one community member pointed out that for the first time the District would need to spend part of its reserve fund to operate the school and that with this level of spending, our reserves would be gone in four to six years, Samuelson commented that if Jewell School does not use its reserve, Salem may decide to take it away. I thought that the legislature settled that issue three years ago, so why such a threat from a School Board Member? When we asked Interim Superintendent Jones what would happen if the District spent all of its reserve, he stated we would have to rely primarily on basic State school support. We could save by combining grades at elementary and middle school levels (something we have tried to get away from); we could have only five high school teachers(not something I would suggest); we could begin having students pay to play sports; and/or we could eliminate the subsidy for the food program.

As a Budget Committee Member I voted against the proposed budget. As a parent, I am very concerned about the long-term implications that the level of spending under Meier and Samuelson will have on the quality of education as well as other programs for the students. ”Reining in Spending?” I don’t think so.  It is time for a change in leadership on the Jewell School Board. Vote yes on the recall, the numbers don’t lie.

On May 12, 4:52 PM, Ginger wrote:

Reining,
You can categorize the money all you want for future spending. As all have been able to read above, this is minus the contingencies. You seem have more information than the budget committee. Why is that? Do you have the written plan for the $600,000. for the acquisition and construction? I don’t, the budget committee doesn’t, nor does anyone else who was at the last budget meeting. And when we ask for that information, we are told WE DON’T NEED TO KNOW THAT KIND OF INFORMATION. How do you explain that? I would also like to point out that past budgets have been approved taking 3 or 4 meetings with changes. This budget was approved at the end of the second meeting with limited information and WITHOUT ANY changes. Try taking a look at the bigger picture...what is going to happen to the school when/if the reserve is gone? When/if we cross over from the black to the red and have to rely on State funding? I am not comfortable getting that close to the line with a “wait and see” kind of attitude.

On May 12, 6:30 PM, Lose Change wrote:

Clear as cockroaches scurrying in the night there is some big amounts of lose money in that budget.  I agree nothing has changed under Ann and Karl’s guidance, seems Karl was just loosening up during the Seeley era and that exercise got him ready for some bigger spending. And of course straight from Ann’s mouth better spend it before someone takes it, insulting to minds. I hear from a lot of folks disappointed in Mike. He had a little going in turning some stuff over to others to take care of but sure blew it on accountability of the present board and especially Ann and Karl.

On May 13, 7:27 AM, Ron wrote:

Shelby must be Ann’s twin sister and the recall is now about something that Foster said. The statements are asinine and you change your story every other minute. I am sure you bit your tongue when Ginger was appointed to the budget committee. Ginger was appointed to the budget committee because no one else wanted to be manipulated by the school board members. On the second budget meeting the school board decides to basically approve the budget presented by Jerry Jones. What happened to the budget committee’s advisory status?

Shelby said, “The ones who allowed Seeley the free reign are gone and Seeley is gone. We now have REAL policies in place to make sure that sort of spending doesn’t happen again”.
The budget numbers do not lie and now we have REAL policies in place to spend even more money.
The school board members will legally be able to spend all the money because the policies and budget will be approved!

On May 13, 10:30 AM, tired of sitting in silence wrote:

Um Ron, it was Ginger who said the thing about Foster. Shelby was quoting Ginger. Budget numbers do not lie and neither do the line item reasons for the budget numbers. You can not back out of signed contracts w/o legal expenses especially when you do owe it.

Some people, like Ginger, wanted an audited version of this school year.  Whether they realize it or not they wanted to pay for an audit before the school year was over and then we would have to pay for another when it was over in July so she could set the budget for next year.  She wanted to see exactly what was in the account at the moment instead of the projections of the next year.

No denying people were frustrated with Ginger. When the same person tells you that everything that Seeley did, buying $20,000 worth of tools and losing them for instance, is no big deal because the school can afford it and the kids learned a lot from building the house what’s $20,000, is barking that they can’t make a budget based on projections but has to know what is in the account right now it is aggravating. Especially since it isn’t true. It isn’t the budget committee’s job to analyze the current state of the budget. It is the budget committee’s job to look at the projection of the income and the projection of the needs of the school district and reconcile the two.

Being on the budget committee doesn’t give you a right to treat other volunteers like dirt. Nor does it give you the right to demand documents that have nothing to do with the task you volunteered for and refuse to work on the budget until you get it. The budget committee works on a specific task with specific tools.

On May 13, 4:55 PM, Ginger wrote:

I have no idea what “sitting in silence” is saying…

Backing out of contracts w/o legal expenses???
No idea what you’re talking about. I don’t recall anyone making that suggestion...bizarre.

I wanted to see what is in the account now, not projections for the next year??? Actually, I wanted to see year to date spending (monthly financial reports) and the projections for next year. I want to see itemized explanations and/or a written plan for line items w/ large amounts of money ie. “cleaning services” @ $36,000 a year and “acquisition and construction” @ $600,000. What if you were told “you don’t need to know that kind of information!”? 

I actually have no idea about the $20,000. worth of missing tools. That’s a new one to me.

I wasn’t asking for an audit for this year, earlier than regularly scheduled. I think you could/should look at monthly financial reports (which have not been available at board meetings for quite some time due to a conversion process) to figure out spending (possible, since we have 10 months in the new school), then you can project for the next year. All I have is the actuals from last year 06/07, most of which was in the old school.

Who feels like they are being treated like dirt??? Is this because of the recall? The recall is a separate issue, haven’t you been reading? The finances/budget just happened to pop up at the same time. It’s the attitude of a few of the board members towards the community that I’m concerned about.

Who is refusing to work on the budget until they get what they want?
Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about.

I don’t feel we had enough information and discussion to approve the budget. Period. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with requesting more information to make such an important decision.
So fine, be frustrated w/ me. I’m going to keep asking the questions.

Shelby, I too have questions re: the use of personal credit cards for such LARGE purchases/expenditures. Why wouldn’t the school issue a credit card in it’s name/credit to be used for school business. I know they have them now. I’m not saying you can’t use a personal credit card and be reimbursed, but you should/could fill out an expense report so the charges can be documented and tracked appropriately (for monthly financial reports, maybe to stay within your budget.) But who’s to say the issue DIDN’T come up back then, and the board chose to NOT get a school issued credit card for such expenses...? That would be a good question for the board chair at the time.

On May 13, 7:02 PM, Ron wrote:

Shelby;
Hope you did not get to excited over kissing cousins?
I thought Oly was a dentist and I have rotten teeth, so I do not think Oly will be kissing me. I am also not impressed with Oly’s actions in the past.
I have retaliated the last 8 years because things have been very wrong at the Jewell school district. I am proud of taking some action even though many disagreed with me in the past and tried to prove that I was a troublemaker. It would appear that I was right about Mr. Seeley and the past board members.

“If Drew and the board, back then, saw that using a debit/credit card saved time and money how come one wasn’t issued tied to the district’s account?” This is a great question, one person that should be forced to answer this is Dave Samuelson.

Why was it in never brought to the attention of the community? The jewell school board failed to closely monitor the expenses on a monthly basis. They approved financial reports without a detailed review of expenses and did this approval without a formal vote.

Being appointed to the budget committee doesn’t give the school board the right to treat volunteers like dirt, nor does it give the school board the right to disregard a request for public documents that have great value to do with the advisory budget decisions. The budget committee works on many task with written document tools. The budget committee tools include all requested documents pertaining to the budget.If you only give specific documents to the budget committee then the school board is controlling the budget committee.
This is starting to look like a puppet show.
PS.
Please do not tell Ann that we have been talking, she might get pissed!

On May 14, 6:02 AM, delusional rambling wrote:

Ron your like a dog chasing his tail. Your nonsensical. Only if your an elected volunteer can you be treated like dirt? Now the budget committee should have more power than the board seems to be your want. How about a special vote to abolish the board and the community can meet at your house to decide eveything. This is how it was in the old days. Everybody would meet at the school and decide how to spend their tax dollars, then a fight would break out and nothing would get done. So the community decided to elect a board from the community leaders. So be mad at yourself for not being a leader in your community and getting elected to the board. And here you are a bunch of spoiled brats fighting over money that doesn’t even come out of your own pocket.

On May 14, 6:35 AM, You Are wrote:

Your ( you are ) possibly speaking for yourself?  You commented, “So the community decided to elect a board from the community leaders”. Who did you say was delusional?  One thing is very clear in Jewell, there is no leadership yet.

On May 14, 12:04 PM, Delusional wrote:

Which You are You referring to in reference to voting them in? You know a whole lot of people did not vote them in, records speak for that.  I also love reading the comments by the non recall supporters commenting on the recall supporters being out of bounds addressing issues outside the issue on the petition. Read the articles on this site, particularly this one dealing with people that support the ones being recalled.  They are all over field on issues in supporting them not just how they run meetings.  OK for them but not for others?  And they spoke first.  Pretty much sums up their way of thinking and actions and its not on the way up

On May 14, 1:26 PM, Humble Pie wrote:

Stop the madness