Tuesday May 31, 2016
Jump to content
I watched or should say I heard the slap on the tv. I think it was sort of a symbolic reference to American politics.
This is what the agenda said:
Executive Session for Legal Advice and to Discuss Pending Litigation Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-431.03.A.3 and Section 38-431.03.A.4.
This is what the minutes said:
A. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement with Arizona Department of Education – Mr. O’Brien
So what is this about? I don't have the foggiest but when there is a settlement with Az Dept of Education that probably means a loss in funding. My guess is that this may be about the middle school not meeting their required minutes for funding? Why the secrecy? I would hope that the Roundup would follow up on this intriguing item and so far unreported item that could be costing taxpayers money.
Federal definition for homeless students straight from the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. You know you may be on to something Pat.
The term "homeless children and youths"--
(A) means individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence (within the meaning of section 103(a)(1)); and
(i) children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional shelters; are abandoned in hospitals; or are awaiting foster care placement;
(ii) children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (within the meaning of section 103(a)(2)(C));
(iii) children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings; and
(iv) migratory children (as such term is defined in section 1309 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) who qualify as homeless for the purposes of this subtitle because the children are living in circumstances described in clauses (i) through (iii).
Ha ha, just my favorite Libertarian.
Thanks for the clarification. They might be able to afford zero once the bids become competitive for insurance. I can't seem to find the results but it appears that the cost savings was tremendous.
Glad your pre-ops went well. Always good to get a clean bill of health.
Maybe. I know that exit polls clearly showed that they didn't like the idea of a recall for any reason on a sitting governor. I also think taxpayers were quite surprised at the "sweetheart" deals that the public sector unions had in place. Most never knew of the deals until Walker went after the deals. I found one of the deals fascinating. School districts evidently could not shop for health insurance to decrease budget cost for employee coverage but had to use the one insurance company that was evidently owned by the public sector union. Who could support that?
Dan, you almost sound like John Stossel in your post. :)
I obviously haven't studied what was going on in WI as you have on certain decisions. I do agree that government intrusion to punish the "losing" side is just dumb. His victory speech did not hint of that though.
Where I disagree with you is that this election may have been fought by the extremists but it was the moderates who saved Walker's job. Clearly there are way more voters in WI who would consider themselves to be democrats then those who would consider themselves to be republicans and exit polls clearly show that Romney would not be the preferred choice in WI. I really believe that this was about public sector union's politics when it came to outrageous pension and retirement health benefit entitlements that were all funded by the taxpayer. To not have to contribute to your own pension seems like this would lead to a big resentment from the private sector workers. Especially when you consider that to get a similar pension, private sector workers would have to contribute 30% of their income to their 401k plan each and every year.
My initial point I was trying to make is that this election really wasn't about Republicans vs Democrats and the exit polls clearly state my case. The election was not won strictly on party lines at all. Thus saith this Independent thinker. :)
Paul, enjoyed your comments and glad to see you are still out there. More so then anything I believe it is a smackdown of public sector unions. In WI, since they no longer have to pay union dues in the state jobs sectors, the public sector union acknowledges that somewhere between 25 and 40% have quit paying their once mandatory dues.
Clearly the money thrown in support of Walker may have influenced some voters but not enough to impact the election. (my opinion) This time Walker won with a larger % of the vote then the first time he ran. Once again I don't think this is about Republicans winning, I think it is about Public Sector unions losing and the private sector folks in Wisconsin are unhappy with the way public sector union folks behave in the political arena.
For the record, I am not anti-union but I am anti anything that mandates that you must join to get jobs etc. Can there be a place for collective bargaining, sure but the power that some public sector unions have is incredible and stifles job creation. Current national union data shows that public sector unions now have more members nationally then private sector unions. I find that odd.
His victory speech was very good and without a teleprompter. No gloating, said the right things, and extremely articulate. It was my first time ever listening to him so I had no previous opinion of the governor.
Last login: Wednesday, October 10, 2012