As we have received several letters on this subject, we have decided to group them together
September 5, 2009 - Subject: Bilboa's Anti-Obama Prejudice
I find it a blatant slap in the face of President Obama
that the Middletown School district will not be broadcasting his back to school
speech to our children.
Superintendent Bilbao's reasons for not doing so are lame.
This is prejudice in the rawest form. Can this organization voice its opinion to
such a silly turn of events? Our President takes time to encourage our school
children to study hard and stay in school and they will not see it. I am so
tired of dealing with this level or ignorance!
JoAnn Hickman
Middletown
September 8, 2009 - Subject: Censoring our president
I am extremely disappointed and that our Superintendent of Schools has decided not to show our President's speech to our students. While we will sit down with our children tonight and watch it as a family, they will miss the powerful shared experience of watching this inspiring message on the importance of education and hard work with their classmates and teachers. Are we really censoring our own President?
Kelly Baldwin
Middletown
September 8, 2009 - Subject: Middletown School Superintendent Teaches Partisan Politics
The 10,200 students who attend the Middletown school
system will not be able to see or hear live, President Obama's Address to
Students later today.
It seems that school system superintendent Karen Bilbao, has
decided to play politics with the President's address and will not broadcast the
event live during the school day according to a report that was published Friday
in the Asbury Park Press. When first contacted by the Asbury Park Press on
Thursday Bilbao explained that it was kind of late notice and schools may not
have broadcasting equipment in place for the President's broadcast.
Now, if that was truly the real reason for not allowing the
students of the Middletown school system to participate in this historic
broadcast I could understand, but when parents contacted the Board of Education
to inquire about the broadcast they were told something completely different.
Parents were told that the real reason why the president's
address would not be heard by the students of the district was because of
community outcry.
Community outcry? Give me a break!
This is nothing more than partisan politics at it's worse
and a total disregard for the office of the President of the United States.
I would like to know exactly who and how many people called
the BOE to voice a complaint against the president's address being broadcasted
to Middletown students. It's outrageous to allow a few partisan, misinformed
people spoil such an important message as telling your kids how important it is
to stay in school and get a quality education. But I suppose that telling kids
to stay in school in order to receive a quality education is not as important to
Superintendent Bilbao as a few right-wing district parents are.
As a concession, Bilbao stated that the president's broadcast
will be available tomorrow on the districts website for anyone who wished to see
it, and if teachers wished, they could incorporate the address into classroom
curriculums but that students would not be required to participate in the
lessons.
Unbelievable.
Michael Morris
Middletown
Anonymous responded
Middletown BOE is crazy ... and 2 recent events have boggled my mind:
(1) This decision not to have the President's address aired. I am a Republican & did not vote for Obama ... nor do I approve of his performance thus far (even though I was/am pulling for him to be the leader most of the country hopes he can be). He is our President, though, and OF COURSE it is a good thing for him to address our country's students.
(2) The board's decision to not allow discussion of any item that is not on the agenda before a meeting starts. Where is open government?? How can Pat Walsh speak out of both sides of her mouth regarding "open" government? Even the split township committee is better than this. Upon request from Mr. Short, didn't the mayor re-open an item for discussion after a vote ... and allow a re-vote so that Mr. Short could change his "yes" vote to an "abstain". At least they allow discussion about items. BOE should reconsider this point!!
Mike responded
Anonymous,
Thanks for the reply.
I generally try to stay out of BOE politics because when all said and done they usually have the best interests of the children in mind.
I agree with you about BOE discussion items. Tthere should be open discussions about of all items on or not on an agenda if people have real concerns about and issue. To stifle discussion until a later date when BOE members are better prepared to answer questions is not right.
But Republicans really need to get off of Pat Walsh's back.
She is a hard worker and only has what's best for the kids in mind. If she were truly responsible for half of the things that she is accused of by republicans in this town it would be a travesty.
Pat Walsh is 1 member of the board; there are 6 others that have jus as much, if not more, influence over proceedings as she has. It's time to get off her back!
Patrick Short is a good man and an excellent committeeman. He will listen to your concerns and act on them when given a chance. He deserves your support in November.
September 9, 2009 - Anonymous responded
Thank you for the response and dialogue, Mike.
My take is that everyone needs to get off of everyone's back ... on both sides of the aisle. I was not accusing Pat Walsh of doing anything egregious or malicious ... and she is certainly not at fault for all of the things that are not right with the BOE. I was not trying to be "on her back" ... just use an example.
I guess my point is that people see things though the lens of their party. As an example, Pat Walsh is very quick to "lecture" the township committee about open government ... yet she votes "yes" to this provision. If the TC enacted such a measure ... I am sure she would have publicly expressed "outrage" over the decision and accused them of wanting to control things behind closed doors.
It seems like everything is used to frame a position for one side's perceived political advantage. Again, just as an example, it is disingenuous to say that someone like Pat Walsh "only has the best interest of the kids in mind" ... or a Pat Short only has best interest of all Middletown residents in mind in all of his decisions ... while those same people, at the same time, are saying that EVERYTHING the republicans do is about self interest / corruption / power / etc.
One side is not all benevolent ... while the other is all power hungry and corrupt. Either way you see it ... or whatever lenses you are looking through, it is unfair to say your side is all good while the other is all bad. There are agreeable ... and disagreeable decisions and actions by individuals representing both sides of the aisle.
Keep the dialogue going, Mike ... Civil debate and discussion are a good thing ... and it is OK to disagree and/or have different political positions on an issue ... just as long as the lens you are looking through is not narrowed by partisan blinders.
Mike responded
Anonymous,
You are absolutely correct and I agree with what you have written.
I am not here to defend Pat Walsh or her voting record but neither one of us were involved in discussions about limiting the discussion of items not on the agenda. There are usually many reasons before hand that would lead to such a decision and I wouldn't assume here that I would know or agree with them. Be that as it may, I believe that there was only 1 dissenting vote against it.
With Patrick Short, I have seen first hand the games that the republicans play against him and Sean Byrnes. It is really a disgrace.
When 1 party has been in total control for over 20 years, there are always abuses of power and misjudgment. The Middletown Republican Party is no exception. They do most things out of self-preservation and they have no new ideas of their own to make things better.
Time and time again they take Short's or Brynes's ideas and recommendation and present them as their own.
Very often (though you wouldn't know it) Short and Byrnes have reached out to the Republicans on the committee only to be rebuffed by the leader of partisan politics himself, Gerry Scharfenberger.
Partisan politics need to end on all levels of government for the good of residents and dialogue like this helps the process.
Thanks