Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's probably half a dozen school officials.
The members of the public present can be in the dozens at such meetings. Even at 2 minutes each, if there's 40 members of the public present, you're talking about nearly an hour and half for them all to speak.
TWO MINUTES is PLENTY of time.
Ken
To me that makes no sense.
What was the purpose of the meeting? Was it NOT to discuss the book? 2 minutes is not enough time for EACH parent who wants to speak.
If the amount of peolle who wanted to speak would take more time then the allotted time for the meeting maybe the school "authorities should have seen this, they are smart enough to teach our kids and it should have been obvious, and made a decision to have a second meetimg so that EVERYONE could be heard.
I have attended these types of meetings and I came away with the school does NOT want parents to be involved. They want TOTAL control with no obstruction in doing what THEY want.
Meetings like this are just "feel good" show time to make the parents "feel" like their input and opinions are wanted.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 05-07-2014 at 06:28 PM..
I agree that to imply it was a liberal school board acting like a police state was an overreach.
To say it isn't established that liberal posters in C-D back such things is a ridiculous premise. Don't over play your hand.
He isn't a ranting and raving fool, in fact he seems quite rational under the circumstances. I can empathize having put a daughter through school. The officer threatened to arrest him at the behest of the board member, and he said "Then do it" probably believing they wouldn't.
-----------------
Parents had met with the school to express their anger that they had not been notified that the book contained sexually explicit material or been given the option to opt out of it.
The book contains a description of rough sex between two teenagers including the words: 'She could feel his erection, hot against her stomach'. (this is require to a thirteen year old, why?)
Mr Baer expressed his outrage that his daughter had been assigned the reading material and when he asked to read the concerning passage aloud, the school board refused.
'Sir, would you please be respectful of the other people?' a school board member asked.
He replied: 'Like you’re respectful of my daughter, right? And my children?'
Mr Baer, an attorney, was seen on camera arguing heatedly with school authorities and a parent who supported the book for several minutes before a police officer approached him in the audience.
And this from another source:
Baer said there were two standards being applied, one for teachers requiring students to read such material and a separate standard for the public. “If I stood outside the school and started handing out copies of page 313 of that book, I am confident I could be arrested for the distribution of pornographic material to minors,” Baer said. “I don’t understand why it’s OK for the high school to require our 9th grade children have to read such material, but I get arrested because I want to object to it. Something here is very wrong.”
Gilford police released a statement that Baer was arrested for continuing to speak after Allen told him to stop. “Baer refused to stop and told Leach to arrest him,” the police statement continued. “Baer was removed from the meeting and arrested.” Baer was held for a couple hours before being released on $700 personal recognizance bail.
The board wouldn't allow him to read the page aloud, yet force their children to. Such material has no place in precollege schools. If it had been my children I would have been just as upset.
Well, right there in your response is the nugget of reason by which rational and reasonable people go about convincing each other of a an error in judgment. You agree with part of my submission but advise not to overplay my hand. I accept your caution as being reasonable.
Now; onto the characterization of ranting and raving, I would agree may be an emotive overstatement but "Mr. Baer was seen on camera arguing heatedly with school authorities and a parent who supported the book for several minutes before a police officer approached him in the audience" would also lend itself to his behaviour being of far more than simply registering his objection to be noted in the minutes of the meeting.
Mr. Baer is making some good and debatable points for consideration but the forum exists in the very structure of every public meeting of any officialdom to get it into the minutes and in the new business section of the meeting put forth a motion to call for a special meeting for the purpose of discussing this issue alone with the suspension of regular rules of order to do so. That motion would have had no problem succeeding with a seconder and those in attendance voting to accept the motion.
Mr. Baer, I would assume, as a reasonably intelligent guy should know that then requires the posting of the special meeting notice in advance with the stipulated agenda plain as day for all to read and go: "WTF! I didn't know they were feeding this crap to our kids; Martha, make sure you're free for that meeting 'cause WE'RE SURE AS HELL GOING TO BE THERE".
You see the benefits to the orderly and organized method of fostering discussion at a published agenda meeting is that Mr. Baer gets an audience of 100 or more instead of the usual minimum Quorum meeting attendees who may only attend to hear their own voices making inane repetitive comments over and over again and who are usually those who rubber stamp whatever the executive body puts forth.
Had he kept his cool there would have been no need for his ouster and no need for acrimony and strife. That behaviour merely causes people to pick a side and dig a trench from which to lob grenades to and fro.
When your mouth gets run by your temper only your ass gets listened to.
From the article, it sounds like he was given opportunity to avoid arrest and chose to continue to disrupt the meeting. At that point, he made his choice. This man escalated it to being arrested. He could have avoided it.
So the choices were be quiet or be arrested? Why wasn't it be quiet or get tossed out? Because its a law means its okay for the police to do it? No matter how unjust that law is?
I saw a clip where it said he was given a choice to leave but didn't. The vid I saw didn't show that although I couldn't hear what the cop said to him.
So the choices were be quiet or be arrested? Why wasn't it be quiet or get tossed out? Because its a law means its okay for the police to do it? No matter how unjust that law is?
I saw a clip where it said he was given a choice to leave but didn't. The vid I saw didn't show that although I couldn't hear what the cop said to him.
I was under the impression, based on the articles, was that he had the choice to leave and to stop disrupting the meeting. He chose not to. The police aren't bouncers. If someone is causing a disturbance and continues to do so even when warned, they run the risk of arrest. This man had every opportunity to not get arrested. His choices led to the result.
So the choices were be quiet or be arrested? Why wasn't it be quiet or get tossed out? Because its a law means its okay for the police to do it? No matter how unjust that law is?
I saw a clip where it said he was given a choice to leave but didn't. The vid I saw didn't show that although I couldn't hear what the cop said to him.
Um...yes...because of law, police arrest people. That was a no-brainer.
What was the purpose of the meeting? Was it NOT to discuss the book? 2 minutes is not enough time for EACH parent who wants to speak.
If the amount of peolle who wanted to speak would take more time then the allotted time for the meeting maybe the school "authorities should have seen this, they are smart enough to teach our kids and it should have been obvious, and made a decision to have a second meetimg so that EVERYONE could be heard.
I have attended these types of meetings and I came away with the school does NOT want parents to be involved. They want TOTAL control with no obstruction in doing what THEY want.
Meetings like this are just "feel good" show time to make the parents "feel" like their input and opinions are wanted.
Wrong on all counts!
Here's my advice to all who are reading this thread; do yourselves a favour and sign out or buy a copy of
Robert Rules of Order for general meetings.
It makes for dry reading but gleaning even the basics from that book guarantees you will never be run roughshod by an executive body ever again! You are given tools by which you can demand your rights to be heard under those rules and knowing them sends a caution bell to those sitting behind the executive table that they had better observe accepted protocols or suffer the consequences of being in violation and subject to censure
The discussion of this particular item may or may not have been part of the published agenda under old business.
Mr. Baer was perfectly at liberty to bring the matter forth under new business and two minutes is more than adequate to state his objections as they were all stated in the few posts above which took me far less than two minutes to read.
Tid-bits: How many of you know that a motion to adjourn can be put forth right after the meeting is brought to order. How many of you know that a motion to adjourn does not require a seconder? How many of you would then realize that a motion to adjourn requires the chairman to move that motion to an immediate vote to test the house?
How many of you know that if a topic coming forth, it could be assumed, will require a more than usual amount of discussion, a motion to suspend the regular rules of order so as to move directly to new business can be put forth, seconded, voted upon and if it carries, you then move right to talking about a book you think should not be used.
How many of you know that you can object to the chair not entertaining a motion through a motion to test the house which requires the chairman in effect to ask those in attendance if they agree with his decision of not entertaining a motion. "Mr. Chairman; I rise to demand a test of the house regarding the chairs decision............"
If you know these, and some other rules such as amendments to motions etc., I guarantee you will never leave a meeting feeling like you've been railroaded and further, any executive body who were summarily treated to someone using those rules to their full effect, would never again think of themselves as omnipotent rulers of a fiefdom.
Well, right there in your response is the nugget of reason by which rational and reasonable people go about convincing each other of a an error in judgment. You agree with part of my submission but advise not to overplay my hand. I accept your caution as being reasonable.
Now; onto the characterization of ranting and raving, I would agree may be an emotive overstatement but "Mr. Baer was seen on camera arguing heatedly with school authorities and a parent who supported the book for several minutes before a police officer approached him in the audience" would also lend itself to his behaviour being of far more than simply registering his objection to be noted in the minutes of the meeting.
Mr. Baer is making some good and debatable points for consideration but the forum exists in the very structure of every public meeting of any officialdom to get it into the minutes and in the new business section of the meeting put forth a motion to call for a special meeting for the purpose of discussing this issue alone with the suspension of regular rules of order to do so. That motion would have had no problem succeeding with a seconder and those in attendance voting to accept the motion.
Mr. Baer, I would assume, as a reasonably intelligent guy should know that then requires the posting of the special meeting notice in advance with the stipulated agenda plain as day for all to read and go: "WTF! I didn't know they were feeding this crap to our kids; Martha, make sure you're free for that meeting 'cause WE'RE SURE AS HELL GOING TO BE THERE".
You see the benefits to the orderly and organized method of fostering discussion at a published agenda meeting is that Mr. Baer gets an audience of 100 or more instead of the usual minimum Quorum meeting attendees who may only attend to hear their own voices making inane repetitive comments over and over again and who are usually those who rubber stamp whatever the executive body puts forth.
Had he kept his cool there would have been no need for his ouster and no need for acrimony and strife. That behaviour merely causes people to pick a side and dig a trench from which to lob grenades to and fro.
When your mouth gets run by your temper only your ass gets listened to.
All of this rationalism is great for someone looking in from the outside. It was a bad move to arrest this guy, and he won't go away no matter how many of the posters in here feel he should. I'm worn out on this particular subject because it's turning into a nitpick fest, as if our thoughts will make a difference anyway.
The one thing I do know is that most people in here do not bother to actually "think" about the opposing views. It's sad to see so many deaf people arguing back and forth.
All of this rationalism is great for someone looking in from the outside. It was a bad move to arrest this guy, and he won't go away no matter how many of the posters in here feel he should. I'm worn out on this particular subject because it's turning into a nitpick fest, as if our thoughts will make a difference anyway.
The one thing I do know is that most people in here do not bother to actually "think" about the opposing views. It's sad to see so many deaf people arguing back and forth.
Steven; that's not correct as you got me thinking and I acceded to two of your points.
The only thing I'm debating with you is not the reason or source of his outrage being in any way legitimate or not, but rather the manner in which he chose to tie everyones hands from responding in any other manner but the extreme.
Newton's law of applied force. You provide force (in this case) to an issue to get it stirred up; it will require an equal or even greater force to damper it. Newton would take umbrage with me for tampering with his equation, but it's nevertheless an appropriate analogy.
His cause may have been just, but his approach sucked big time.
This is a guy who would not make a good trial defense lawyer as he'd pizz off a judge and alienate a jury before the prosecution even commenced opening arguments.
What he said was right though. If he was outside the school an started handing out pages from the book that were explicit, he'd be in trouble.
Sad that there are parents who actually want their kids to read that sort of stuff. No wonder there is so much evidence of lack of to horrible parenting today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
