So, the
Buffalo News has decided to take the six School Board member majority to task,
as does Board member Larry Quinn, for supposedly holding a “secret meeting” with our attorney. But, where was the Editorial Board of the
News in 2014 when the then Board majority, comprised of Larry Quinn, Carl
Paladino, Patti Pearce, James Sampson and Jay McCarthy, hired Donald Ogilvie as
Superintendent, without the involvement or the knowledge of the four minority
members? Mr. Ogilvie’s appointment as Superintendent
was already à fait accompli when he was brought to the first meeting of
the new Board and voted in by the 5 member majority over the objections of the
minority members. Not only did this
appointment result from secret meetings of that Board majority, Mr. Ogilvie and
a Board attorney but this unethical and illegal maneuver was never called out
or condemned by the News.
So much for
the Editor’s irate observations and sham watchdog reporting when it comes to
the ethical or legal actions of this current Board majority. Secret meetings and decision making was a
hallmark of the old Board. Yet, even
when pointed out, those Board members were not singled out, admonished for not
playing fair or for “insulting the voters” as the News does in their January 23rd.
editorial.
Contrary to
this editorial or the comments of the oppositional Board members; the meeting
was neither secret nor illegal. In fact,
Mr. Paladino knew about the meeting because one of his Board cohorts, who
attended the meeting, breached confidentiality to inform him. There was no attempt to hide the fact that a
meeting was taking place; it was held in the Board room, during the day, with
the knowledge of staff. Members met with
their attorney to receive legal advice in the matter of the petition to request
Mr. Paladino’s removal from the Board.
Following their reporter’s research, the News’ article (January 22) had
to admit that the members were following legal protocol in the conduct of this
meeting:
“When The News contacted Freeman, he said that elected boards
are allowed to meet privately to seek legal advice without publishing
notice of the meeting to the public.” (January 22, 2017)
In spite of the facts to
the contrary, a day later the News resorts to name-calling to bolster their
claims of wrong-doing by the six Board members calling us “chickenhearts” and “cowards”. Talk about being disingenuous! The Buffalo News has never been supportive of
the minority/Minority members of the Board.
This editorial is another in a series of editorials that have been
thinly veiled attacks on our accomplishments, our competence, and our
commitment to the children.
Chickenhearts! Who even uses that
word anymore? Cowards?! HARDLY!
We are six working class women, taking on men of means and choosing to seize
and maintain the “moral high ground”.
Our wealth and our strength come from the support of thousands of men,
women and children of all ages, races and backgrounds and national origins, who
are standing with us, against intolerance, against racism, against misogyny,
against homophobia, against xenophobia and against the distorted and biased editorials
of news organizations masquerading as “fair and balanced” publications.
We call ourselves, “Upstanders”, and will
continue to confront bullying whether from individuals or mega organizations
attempting to shape public opinion.
These comments are my opinion
and not made in my capacity as the Buffalo Board of Education President.
IT IS LONG PAST TIME FOR ALL CONCERNED CITIZENS TO "BOYCOTT" THE Buffalo News". THAT RAG MASCARADING AS A NEWSPAPER HAS FOR FAR TOO LONG PARTICIPATED IN REGRESSIVE, BIASED REPORTING OF THE NEWS, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT INVOLVES PEOPLE OF COLOR.THERE ARE MANY OTHER CREDIBLE RELIABLE NEWS SOURCES.REMEMBER THE Buffalo News BACKED Paladino TWICE IN HIS CAMPAIGN FOR A SEAT ON THE SCHOOL BOARD. UNBIASED? TRUTHFUL REPORTING? -NOT!!! THE Buffalo News IS A ONE HORSE RAG IN A ONE HORSE TOWN.YOU THINK TRUMP SEEKS TO RETURN THE COUNTRY BACK TO THE 1950'S ? THE Buffalo News and their editorial board mentally never left the 1950's !
ReplyDeleteThank you for the explanation. I am clear on the point that the meeting did not legally require notice to the public. I am not clear on Larry Quinn's accusation that he should have been notified about the meeting. Can you speak to that? I am not a fan of Quinn and want to see Paladino ousted. I also want to be clear on the facts surrounding this meeting. Thanks!
ReplyDelete