What are the non-classroom teachers "teaching"?

The title is a question posted on this blog...

Here is my answer (to the best of my abilities since I am not one of them and know only what I have seen and heard from reliable sources)....

Some of the TOSAs (Teachers On Special Assignment) are "literacy coaches" who train their peers in effective reading strategies for them to use with their students.... some actually work with students as well.

Some are "peer coaches" who are supposed to watch their peers and give feedback to them.

Some are math specialists who work district wide training teachers in good math strategies.

Some work on different district programs creating staff development presentations or other trainings.

All of them are teachers who had good reputations in the classroom.

The problem is that, apparently, the trainings and staff development are a "scatter shoot" approach that many teachers resent and therefore do not benefit from them.

Also, the class size issue begs the question...yet again.... which would truly help our students more?

From what I have heard from teachers all the way from Kindergarten to the High School, there are more people who wonder what these TOSAs are doing, than those who know and value it...

The non-classroom teacher issue....

I received a comment that was concerned about the message sent by my list of teachers not in the classroom. Very specifically they spoke about Debbie Price (who is an excellent teacher) doing some teaching of their kids and the possibility that the others are teaching as well.

There are some that are "teaching" and there are others who have to create new programs and things to do in order to be viable and keep their position. More than one of the special "teacher on assignment" people on the Student Acheivement team has expressed concern at the lack of clarity in their positions as well as the need to "create a reason" for them to be doing things.

The larger concern... which is more important? Smaller class sizes district-wide by having every available person in the classroom, or having a few specialists that are used to back-up rhetoric on a failing system.

These are all good teachers...but where would they make the most impact?

The message fit me to a "tee"...

It was a pleasant surprise to run in for a few items from the Safeway this afternoon and see several people sporting messages against the recall!

Those who have been hiding in fear of retaliation and abuse are finally returning to the light.

It reminds me of the scenes in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe where Christmas is coming and then the winter is melting and the people are coming out from hibernation to celebrate the loss of power of the evil Snow Queen.

And yet, it is scary to know that there is still a small but tenacious group of people clinging to a delusion about a man whose true colors have been exposed over and over and over...

You wonder when you know that these are people who usually are quite level-headed and, pre-Jim Robinson, commanded a lot of respect in this community, how is it that they could be so deceived for so long....

It makes me wonder.... what is the magic ingredient in Mr. Robinson's Kool-Aid?

Other local politics....

It is hard not to notice that the large "yes" on the recall sign out on Denny School Rd. and Hwy 34 is accompanied by a sign in support of Sherrie Sprenger...

This should not surprise anyone.

As we vote for a representative this year, I am encouraging all of my fellow constituents to vote for anyone but Ms. Sprenger for some very specific and logical reasons...see if you agree....

1. Ms. Sprenger was NOT elected to her position, she was appointed (so don't think of her as an "incumbent").

2. I believe that she sought endorsement from the teacher's union when she ran for school board...and boy didn't that turn out great for them?

3. She has received money from one of those small special interest groups that are in collusion on the recall.

4. When a board member, she was easily seduced by the charasmatic Mr. Robinson and shut out parents, teachers, and community members.

5. She allowed our schools to deteriorate to the level of "public embarassment across the state".

Do we really want someone like that "representing" us at the state level?

More facts....

For those of you who don't peruse the comments, I am repeating a reecent comment here in this post. My goal has always been to provide proof for people to research.


Thank you for the comments!


"To check out who owns certain properties in Linn County, go to www.co.linn.or.us. Click under Depts/Services and then choose Assessor. You can then search by anyone's name or specific address under account detail. This gives details on every property in Linn County. It has some great info!"

What is up with the district office?

There is apparently a lot of nervous activity at the district office recently...the question is, where all the nervousness is coming from.

Some people think it is just relative to the people who are afraid that new leadership might 1. decrease the number of people working outside of the classroom, and 2. realign staffing for more financial efficiency to free up more money for the schools. While this is almost a given (as soon as a logical person) has control over the district, there might be other reasons for district employee nerves...

Some people have suspected for years that there might be money issues that are difficult to explain...

Others think that maybe the potential Special Ed violations have finally caught up with someone...

And some also believe that the rumor of funny numbers for testing may finally have reached high-up ears...

Whatever it is, it sure has caused a ripple.....and considering the great job that Mr. Robinson has done of insulating himself with human shields, the only question left is, "Who will take the fall?"

Rumor and Rationale #3

Rumor has it that Linda Darling is the owner of the piece of land on the corner of Hwy 34 and Denny School Road that is currently sporting a sign supporting the recall.

Why would she be in support of the recall?

Oh yes, Ms. Darling is one of the people this blogger noted earlier that has benefitted from being a staunch Jim Robinson supporter.

I know many people wish they could land a job as a Director of finances in a multi-million dollar budget enterprise with a simple Bachelors Degree. It just goes to show, it's not what you know, but who.

The bigger they are...

We are all familiar with the concept, "the bigger they are the harder they fall."

Well brace yourselves.... The concept of Mr. Robinson is much bigger than the role that he plays.

For years this community has been held hostage by a controlling interloper who was able to schmooze his way into the hearts and minds of some of the pivitol community leaders.

Make no mistake, Mr. Robinson is a very smart man. He probably did his homework to such an extent that he would know which church to attend, which insurance agent to choose, which clubs to attend, which stores to shop in and which neighborhood to inhabit in order to meet the people he would need to win over in order to provide a buffer for himself and his unorthodox leadership style that he had tried to implement and failed in two prior communities.

When he goes, the ripple effect and the aftershocks will be intense and painful...but the alternative is much more dangerous.

So, as I said, brace yourselves....

What's your "sign"?

Hopefully you have all noticed a few new things to look at as you drive around Lebanon....

After the discouragement I expressed in my last posting.... I decided to drag myself out for some errands and my mood lifted significantly!

All I can say is....

Thank you, thank you, thank you!...to whoever took the time and energy to demonstrate that Mr. Wineteer and Mr. Alexander are not alone!

For a while people have been trying to convince us that this community is divided, but that image is faulty in that it implies equal division....

I think the closer to accurate view of this as a community is that it has a gaping wound, but the majority of the body is healthy and well and just waiting to get rid of the infection and heal the sore spot.

Let's keep the brave healers and allow them to do what is needed to cure this community!

What a shame...

I find it discouraging to know that so many people have bought in to the long standing presupposition that Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wineteer being on the board is a problem just because Jim Robinson has painted them in a negative light....

Truly, what have they done to deserve to be removed unceremoniously from the board....

They have questioned administrative decisions.
They have complained about administrative actions.
They have refused to back down to bullying and harassment.
They have tried valiantly for years to remove Jim Robinson from the almost unlimited power he was given by prior board members.
They have tried to stop the sale of Lebanon school buildings.
They have tried to reinstate alternative education in Lebanon.
They have tried to meet with teachers and parents to see what they can do to help.
They have answered phone calls and met with anyone who has asked them to discuss concerns.

In short, they have done everything they can to not be yes-men who bow down to the intimidation tactics of a tyrannical leader.

I think they deserve the opportunity to finish what they started.

About enrollment at LHS...

There was a comment made about making sure my numbers for enrollment at LHS were accurate...

Let me put it this way...

According to high school sources there are two kinds of Freshmen:

1. Those who have finished 8th grade and are ready to move up to the high school, these are called incoming freshmen.

2. Those who did not pass enough classes to have enough credits to move up to sophomore level, these are called repeaters and are not really freshmen.

Unfortunately, these same classifications occur for every grade and therefore no "enrollment" numbers are ever very clear.

What is a fact is that there were less than 300 "incoming freshmen" this year at LHS.

The 450 number was found by counting the number of highlighted students in a graduation requirements spreadsheet created by the district office in June of 2007. The highlighted students represented students who had been enrolled at LHS and no longer attended. According to the district office spreadsheet that number was over 450.

What matters...

There have been a few comments about whether identity should be revealed...

Here are my thoughts...

The identity matters less than the content.

This blogger has tried diligently to check facts before posting, spoken to multiple sources, researched web pages and clarified points as necessary.

The content on this page can be verified and determined by individuals who choose to look.

No one has been named who is not directly linked to actions or activities without sufficient evidence to the concept.

If you find my information faulty... let me know, I will recheck my facts, and if I am wrong, I will offer retractions.

So far, I believe my content withstands argument, therefore my identity is irrelevant.

Disinformation continued...

Mr. Sweeney went on to describe those who intentionally try to mislead the public...
He called them Disinformationalists...

http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentatorbecome argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

Here is the first paragraph of the introduction to Mr. Sweeney's (at the time of the article) unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth. It seems appropriate.

"Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world."

Disinformation in Lebanon

Back in the 1990s a writer came up with a theory about how people got away with covering up the truth... It turned into the piece,"Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney"
which can be found at http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

It is interesting how many of the 25 activities delineated in this piece can be found in the situation in Lebanon from all sides of the issues.

What is more interesting is the alarming percentage has been coming from the District Office and the CARES group as a team.

Let's take a look at the steps...

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

25. Vanish.

So the question is, which of these actions have you experienced?

So which ones are not connected to CARES?

A comment on one of the DH Articles stated that this blogger should check his facts about who is involved with CARES.

Please believe me. I checked BEFORE I wrote.

But let me clarify for those who skim rather than read...

"So..... who CARES???? and who else is involved in all this PAC activity?" are the two questions that were asked in an earlier blog (see Theory #2 - Smoke and Mirrors)

"Who CARES?" is related to the members and supporters of the CARES group.

"Who else in involved in all this PAC activity?" relates to those who are directly connected to any one of the seven PACs.

Here is the rationale for those who have been named on this blog as either CARES or other PAC contributors, supporters (or received anything positive from those groups) that appear to be coordinating efforts and funds:

1. Michael Farnsworth is a treasurer of several of the PACS
2. Dave Benneth is a treasurer of several PACs and has spoken at board meetings as a representative for CARES.
3. Catherine Watts has spoken at board meetings as a representative for CARES
4. Jennifer Walter has spoken at board meetings as a representative for CARES and contributed money to the PAC.
5. Connie Schmidt and her company contributed money to the PAC.
6. Warren Beeson has made public statements of support and written letters relative to the CARES group and its work.
7. Dr. William Barish contributed money to the PAC.
8. Carol Chevernak is the director of a PAC
9. Lou and Kim Masog's family business and Mr. Masog personally contributed to PACs.
10. Sherrie Sprenger received funds from PACs and her recall effort was thwarted by a PAC.
11. Steve and Leigh Kelley have hosted CARES meetings and Ms. Kelley and her son recieved monies from the PACs for signiture gathering.
12. Joyce Weatherly has spoken at board meetings and publicly as a supporter and contributed money to the PAC.
13. John (Tre) Kennedy is the CARES PAC creator
14. Chris Fisher's recall effort was thwarted by a PAC.
15. Tom McHill's recall effort was thwarted by a PAC.

And I must reiterate my concern that such a small group has been able to dismantle the public forum that used to exist for dialog and debate with its fear and retaliation tactics.

But I digress...

Boy is it hard to stay focused on providing "proof" because there is so much inuendo and fodder for rumors in this situation... But I thought I might add a few links for people to be able to look at things for themselves.

Don't believe this blog just because you like or agree with the content.

Let's all be responsible and do some research so we can all say...
"I know for a fact."

1.Here is the district phone directory....see for yourself how many teachers, administrators, District Office personnel etc. that there are in our district.
http://www.lebanon.k12.or.us/telephone/telephone_2007-08.htm

2. The district rhetoric on the SAS and the other "priorities" here in Lebanon:
http://lebanon.or.schoolwebpages.com/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=5541

3. Oregon Department of Education 2007-08 Test Results for Reading, Writing, Math and Science article with links below to results.
You can also look around on this page to find older documents for comparison over the years.
http://www.ode.state.or.us/news/releases/default.aspx?yr=0000&kw=&rid=660#top

4. Where you can find the lawsuit results from the Employment Relations Board:
Scroll down to UP 033-04 for the Classified illegal bargaining case. and
Scroll down to UP 004-06 for the Certified free speech case.
http://www.oregon.gov/ERB/bdordlst.shtml

5. I could not find the asbetos complaint ruling from when they stripped the asbestos tiles with kids in the building on the OSHA webpage. If any of you come across it, I would love to post it. There was a fine imposed.

Let me know if there are other things you would like facts on.

Irreconciable differences...

The Albany Democrat Herald posted an article about the Board Meeting at 9:35 last night:
http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2008/09/16/news/local/6loc01_resign.txt

It seems to be a clear and concise piece of information that gives a lot of evidence to the current status of the situation:

The DH reports, "According to the statement, board members want the superintendent's resignation because 'the current working relationship is irreparable" between them and members are concerned about further harm to district and community morale.According to the statement, board members want the superintendent's resignation because "the current working relationship is irreparable' between them and members are concerned about further harm to district and community morale."

Later in the article Mr. Robinson is quoted as saying, ""I'm always prepared to work on my relationship with folks," he said. "I never consider any relationship to be irreparable."

This all reminds me of episodes on Divorce Court.

Couples arrive before the judge, they cite irreconcilable differences and then the battle begins...

Husbands and wives swear up and down that they are the ones who are willing to try to work it out after having pushed their spouse to the limit of human endurance. At some point, both sides give up all pretense...they stary filing restraining orders and lawsuits...

The insults fly, the accusations are hurled, backs are stabbed and at the end you have a bloody mess with parents who hate each other even more trying to work out visitation schedules and alimony.

The only difference here is that eventually Mr. Robinson will have to give up his rights to the children.

He will retire one day... he has talked about the fact that he is eligible now.

The question remains, is it about what is best for the kids?

If so, Mr. Robinson needs to acknowledge that a change to whatever "custody" in store is better for them than to remain in a contentious, legally tenuous situation.

The community wants custody of their kids back...

Will he go gracefully? Theories abound...

Well...

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink....

What will Jim Robinson's next move be? In the conversations that were to be had after the eventful one-item meeting this evening, theories were running rampant, but three themes kept reoccuring....

Theory A: Jim will resign with dignity accepting the unanimous vote as a sign that his time is up and he and the district need to part ways.

Theory B: Jim will put off meeting about it until the recall vote to see how the community really feels and then decide.

Theory C: Jim likes to win and he believes that the community would rather keep him than pay for a long protracted lawsuit. So he will push this to the end.

Any other theories out there?

Are you in the know?

If you did not receive phone calls or text messages this evening, you may not be in the know...

The Lebanon School Board apparently voted this evening in a unanimous 5 to 0 vote to bargain a resignation with the superintendent.

Why fight the recall? ...A recap

1. Every other board member (aside from the new member) has been supported by or financially benefitted from the 7 PACs run by the small group trying to hijack the community.

2. They are not: yes-men, rubber stamps, puppets nor pawns.

3. They listen to anyone who wants to speak to them.

4. They are willing to engage in dialog and debate on any topic that is important to the community.

5. They have served tirelessly as defensive shields for the students, parents and staff of Lebanon schools to the best of their abilities. (For no compensation and admidst slanderous attacks.)

6. They stand up to Jim Robinson and district staff and ask for truth and honest data. (Although more often than not, the information is incomplete, not forthcoming, and in some cases, blatantly misleading.)

7. No one in their right mind would stay in there for this long under the barage of attacks unless they were not convinced that they were doing the right thing.


8. AND Finally - They represent the majority of the community, not a vocal, abusive minority.