(I don’t necessarily agree with Rama that the point here is to destroy public education, but I have no doubt that at least part of the point is ultimately to bust the union. – promoted by odum)
When you’re out to destroy public education, it certainly helps to keep the annoying public out of the discussion:
The Dover School Board held an emergency meeting Monday morning to draft a letter protesting the closed-door policy of a design group named by the Department of Education.
(Dover objects to closed-door meetings, Brattleboro Reformer, 03/09/10)
The excuse by Douglas’ little boy?
Tom Evslin, chief technology officer for the state of Vermont and coordinator of the Challenges for Change efforts, said the meetings were designed to include just the team members to allow for a more free exchange of ideas.
(ibid)
Yeah, that’s where the best “let’s drown our government in the bathtub” come from … a place far from the sunlight of public oversight and participation.
Because we just know all about those wonderful ideas that should never be discussed in public.
it’s for the public good.Evslin,he’s worried about it!
Unreal!
http://www.reformer.com/localn…
And when Tom Evslin gets behind closed doors, then he parrots his right-wing handlers, and he promotes far more cuts. Cause no one cuts our schools like Tom Evslin does.
Tom and the Cutz are coming soon to a school district near you!
This is a hell of a lot more destructive to the future of Vermont than worrying about anonymous donations to higher education institutions. So where are Paul Sands, BFP and company? Word is that a class action suit is coming! The sooner the better, as this looks like a Pelham/Douglas plan to dramatically change government in Vermont. But remember Shumlin and Smith gave them the keys to the safe. C for C is a fraud – big time. Still waiting for the apology from S&S!
I must say, I’m beginning to truly detest Evslin.
Also, has anyone else seen the petitions being widely circulated by a R.Roper affiliated with EdWatch Vermont http://www.vermontersforbetter… (presumably the same Rob Roper, late of the GOP chairmanship) calling for “school choice”. It never mentions vouchers, but that’s what they are really after.
Evslin builds strawman and dissembles concept of what requires participation vs. what requires full disclosure.
From the article:
His comments are 50% irrelevant, 50% wrong and 50% deceptive. That adds up to almost 100% bullshit, even for a Republican.
The open meeting law has many components.
While there may not be a notice and participation requirement for this meeting, i.e., a specific “public meeting” trigger (1 V.S.A. fm section 312) ), there NO confidentiality provision that covers these state functions either (1 V.S.A. fm section 316).
In other words, Mr. Evlsin’s we must close-the-doors to avoid “stifl[ing] the conversation” suggests that he thinks the meetings are confidential, or that they are somehow privileged sessions to “speak without scrutiny.” They are not and his suggestion could not be further from the truth.
The Challenges to Make Excuses legislation did NOT waive any portion of the public records statute, the public meeting law or any other open government law. (& if it did, someone write me quickly, so I can look into this further, my first reading of the statute showed no change).
These groups can not make any decision involving any policy, money, or any other substantive issue at these meeting. More importantly, any documents — of any kind — notes, computer records, emails etc. that the participants generated relating to these meetings are public records that must be copied and provided to any Vermonter, person, corporation etc. that asks for them.
I am curious. Exactly what does “Challenges For Change” mean, especially in Douglas speak. Any ideas?
Thanks Mataliandy. I know that the “Challenges for Change,” was just a shield to get rid of state workers in favor of private ones. It can, of course, be used in a real constructive way too, but this is not the way that the guv means it.