|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/7/2009
Posts: 18
|
Ellen Behrle filed a right to know request for all emails to the new Board president. He's only been there for 2 months and is already being harassed. Ellen Behrle gave a 5 minute speech back in November about how people were abusing right to know requests...she even gave numbers complaining that it was wasting money. That was when her viewpoint was in the majority on the board. Now that she's in the minority, she's doing exactly what she preached against.
How long now before someone counter-files for all emails from Susanne Carr and Scott Oswald? Kozik? Why not the entire board? I mean, honestly, where does it end? Let them do their jobs.
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/16/2009
Posts: 25
Location: Malvern
|
Well, it is indeed Ms. Behrle’s right to file the request. It may seem hypocritical, but I’m sure she has her reasons.
Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt. I’m sure the emails that can be handed over will. I’m wondering if this is round two of “email gate……
The drama of GVSD continues....
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/19/2010
Posts: 28
Location: Willistown
|
In a recent meeting, Ms. Berhle indicated her willingness to work with the board. However, their decisive move to the right with their vote on the tax increase
indicated they were unwilling to listen to the public. In addition, many have questions regarding the stakeholder's website, those School Directors supported
by the website, and the Pennsylvania Sunshine Laws. Specifically, were there discussions that took place outside the sunshine laws, that occured between the two
sanctioned board meetings. And, was the purpose of these meetings to rein in Barratt and Daga in order to ensure a majority vote of 6-2 vote that held the tax increase
to the 2.9% ceiling? Taxpayers have a right to know what they are dealing with and I support Ms. Berhle's efforts in order to get to the bottom.
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/20/2009
Posts: 24
|
Willster, could you please share with us the following:
(1) How you know who filed the right to know? Please provide us with the website in which you found this information.
(2) Since you have stated the request was for all emails to the new Board president, can you please share with us the reason for the right to know filing? Is the right to know for the board presidents Great Valley email, or his personal email?
(3) Did you post an acusation of harasment toward the "Stakeholder" members, Chambers, Audrey Van Loan, the two Kantrowitz's, Kelly Gieger, etc. when they were filing right to know requests? I can't seem to find anything of that nature on your previous postings, so I am sure that I am just missing something. Could you please direct us to those postings on the forum?
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/13/2009
Posts: 20
Location: E. Whiteland
|
GVSD Right to Know Requests have been posted on the district website for some time now. Use this link: http://www.gvsd.org/18851055112633260/lib/18851055112633260/Right-to-Know_Tracking_Form.pdf?18851055112633260Nav=|1713|&NodeID=1716
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Administration
Joined: 5/17/2008
Posts: 115
Location: Charlestown
|
Wow. I have to admit that on the surface, this seems incredibly hypocritical after the emotional speeches against Right-To-Know requests.
Hopefully it is for a legitimate reason and not just a tit-for-tat.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/19/2010
Posts: 28
Location: Willistown
|
Way to go Nicki! Of course Willster didn't post an accusation of harassment. It's okay when the stakeholders harangue and harass but,
it's not okay for anyone else to seek the truth. They only want transparency from others, they don't want to deal in transparency. There are those
that suggest folks that post to this forum are actually hiding behind the forum. Look at the blogs that were written damaging others credibility
by those that hid behind the stakeholders.
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/7/2009
Posts: 18
|
nicki wrote:Willster, could you please share with us the following:
(1) How you know who filed the right to know? Please provide us with the website in which you found this information.
(2) Since you have stated the request was for all emails to the new Board president, can you please share with us the reason for the right to know filing? Is the right to know for the board presidents Great Valley email, or his personal email?
Hi nicki. I was actually reading the other thread and saw that you made a post about someone doing this. So I went to the GVSD website where they post all right to know requests.
http://www.gvsd.org/18851055112633260/lib/18851055112633260/Right-to-Know_Tracking_Form.pdf?18851055112633260Nav=|1713|&NodeID=1716
If you go there you will find the following entry:
Ellen Behrle: 11 Moses Way, Phoenixville, PA.
"Incoming and outgoing email from bchambers since its inception to the present."
Quote: (3) Did you post an acusation of harasment toward the "Stakeholder" members, Chambers, Audrey Van Loan, the two Kantrowitz's, Kelly Gieger, etc. when they were filing right to know requests? I can't seem to find anything of that nature on your previous postings, so I am sure that I am just missing something. Could you please direct us to those postings on the forum?
I don't understand why you are upset with me. You can see I just got this off of the GVSD website... I do consider it harassment to request people's emails after 2 months of being in a position with no actual reason. If you notice, the request doesn't provide a reason for providing the emails. I agree with others who have said it is Ellen's right to request things. I'm just saying this sounds like a really bad idea. I'm sure Ellen has people on the board she agrees with ... but she's now opening the door for her opponents to request their emails as well. Does she want that?
Let them do their jobs.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 59
Location: Malvern
|
Ellen Behrle campaigned with Steve Wicke. Wicke lost to Barratt and Chambers. It doesn't take a wizard to figure out why Behrle filed the request for their emails....jealousy and revenge are as old as time. Judging by her recent public denouncements of right to know requests, it also seems a bit hypocritical.
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/20/2009
Posts: 24
|
Seriously Sammy? So from here on out anyone that may have not supported any of the five new board members could never possibly have a legitimate reason for questioning any of those people who are making decisions about our children's education and decisions about how our property tax dollars will or will not be spent?
As I said in another thread it seems to me that if someone spoke passionately about the amount of money being spent on right to know, it seems that they would only file a right to know if there was a serious concern.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 59
Location: Malvern
|
nicki wrote:As I said in another thread it seems to me that if someone spoke passionately about the amount of money being spent on right to know, it seems that they would only file a right to know if there was a serious concern.
Please let us know what the "serious concern" is. And before you respond, take a minute and make sure it's a concern that is illegal, unethical, or improper. Disagreeing with someone's opinion is not a reason.
If Ellen Behrle finds nothing, will she apologize and admit that everything is fine?
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/20/2009
Posts: 24
|
Don't have any idea what the concern is. Will this Ellen person apologize if nothing is found? Did any of the "stakeholders" apologize when they filed right to know's and nothing was found? I haven't found any retractions on their website or public apologies at board meetings.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/2/2008
Posts: 36
Location: Charlestown
|
Quote:If Ellen Behrle finds nothing, will she apologize and admit that everything is fine?
More importantly, will she reimburse the taxpayers for the amount of money they had to pay to comply with her request?
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/25/2010
Posts: 10
|
johnc,
Did Chambers, Van Loan, Kantrowicz or any of the other Stakeholders repay the district for any of their requests that turned up nothing. Don't be a hypocrite.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/19/2010
Posts: 28
Location: Willistown
|
Wow, now that's a good one. Sammy claims that disagreeing with someone's opinion is not a reason to file a right to know request. The Great Valley Stakeholders spent years disagreeing
with the school board's opinion. They engaged in continuous harassment. And obviously, somewhere along the line they felt the need to turn up the dial on the harassment and began filing
right to know requests against teacher's emails. There argument was found to have no merit. So, Why was it alright for them to file right to know requests and not Ellen Berhle? I don't think it
has anything to do with jealousy or revenge. I believe she has a genuine concern for the future of the school district as do most of the people writing into this forum.
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/7/2009
Posts: 18
|
John19355 wrote:Did Chambers, Van Loan, Kantrowicz or any of the other Stakeholders repay the district for any of their requests that turned up nothing. Don't be a hypocrite.
The people you just listed never said right to know requests were a waste of money. Ellen Behrle did. And now she filed one 3 months later.
John19355 wrote:The Great Valley Stakeholders spent years disagreeing with the school board's opinion.
The right to know requests that they filed never requested emails of Board members. The right to know requests uncovered real lapses such as the land purchase fiasco...uncovering how the Board used a land appraisal from the brother of the real estate agent that promised them they were getting a good deal. These were real cases involving millions of dollars of improper behavior.
My point here is that even with all of those requests, nobody has taken the step of requesting emails of Board members. Even with all of our differences of opinion, nobody has ever crossed that line of seeking Board communications. Ellen Behrle has now done that. Regardless of who you support here, don't you think that's a line we shouldn't cross? Do you really want others requesting the emails of Susanne Carr, for instance? Put another way: John19355 or fx3254, if either of you ever ran for the Board and was elected ... there is now community precedent of people requesting every email you will ever send.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/19/2010
Posts: 28
Location: Willistown
|
Will, you fail to point out to John that some of the Right to Know involved requests for every email sent by teachers throughout the school district. The result of the request was that the
emails were deemed personal and not subject to right to know.
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/7/2009
Posts: 18
|
fx3254 wrote:Will, you fail to point out to John that some of the Right to Know involved requests for every email sent by teachers throughout the school district. The result of the request was that the
emails were deemed personal and not subject to right to know.
Yes, someone did request a couple teachers' emails last fall. However, teachers are paid employees of the district that the Board is supposed to oversee. District business (which includes employees) and how they conduct it is under the tent of sunshine laws. Maybe you disagree, but now requesting emails from Board members kicks it up a notch!
And regardless of where you stand on this, the fact that an actual court ruled that the emails were personal and not subject to right to know makes this all the more strange, don't you think? Ellen Behrle railed against using right to knows on teachers. She was against it. The court ruled they were personal, which she praised highly. Now she is filing her own request. Whether you support Ellen's cause or not, I don't know how this doesn't appear strange and hypocritical.
So I'll say it again ... the fact that Ellen and Wicke campaigned together against Chambers (and lost) ... makes this appear very very petty.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/19/2010
Posts: 28
Location: Willistown
|
willster wrote:fx3254 wrote:Will, you fail to point out to John that some of the Right to Know involved requests for every email sent by teachers throughout the school district. The result of the request was that the
emails were deemed personal and not subject to right to know.
Yes, someone did request a couple teachers' emails last fall. However, teachers are paid employees of the district that the Board is supposed to oversee. District business (which includes employees) and how they conduct it is under the tent of sunshine laws. Maybe you disagree, but now requesting emails from Board members kicks it up a notch!
And regardless of where you stand on this, the fact that an actual court ruled that the emails were personal and not subject to right to know makes this all the more strange, don't you think? Ellen Behrle railed against using right to knows on teachers. She was against it. The court ruled they were personal, which she praised highly. Now she is filing her own request. Whether you support Ellen's cause or not, I don't know how this doesn't appear strange and hypocritical.
So I'll say it again ... the fact that Ellen and Wicke campaigned together against Chambers (and lost) ... makes this appear very very petty.
To be more precise, the Right to Know request was for approximately 400 emails. And why is whether or not Berhle campaigned for Wicke a factor in this debate?
I don't see the two as related to Berhle's right to know request.
|
|
|
Guest |
