Who is John19355?  I can't find anything listed on his profile about him.  I think this person should not be making the kinds of statments [sic] he does on this site without listing his name.  Chicken!  Makes you wonder who he is and what his real purpose is.

 So then you'd be happy having the stakeholders list first names of its "members"?  Same with you, John?

Just trying to figure out what the difference between you two and that website is...

Commonsense, you said it, not me. Sunshine Laws. I just found a couple of old DLN articles that refer to Bruce Chambers as a "member" of the Stakeholders and Sally Cummings as a "founding member." Without knowing who the Stakeholders are, it is a very real possibility that Chambers and Cummings are still behind the positings on their website. If this doesn't break any Sunshine Laws, it is an ethical concern.

Sammy, stop with your juvenille comments. There is a big difference between a website supporting one side of a very heated controversy quoting conservative think tanks and a bunch of people commenting on a community forum. Commonsense made the point that we don't know who you really are either.

 The bigger issue, to the extent that there is one, would be possible "back room" discussions, not postings.  One could post material but not be in violation of sunshine laws and conversely, violate sunshine laws without posting material.  As for asking Mr. Chambers whether or not he violated sunshine laws, his answer in this public forum would have to be "no".  This would actually be unfair to him, since there would be some who would not believe such a response and would demand that he prove a negative......difficult at best.  As such, I won't bother him.  More instructive might be whether or not there have been large position shifts from one meeting (public discussion) to the next, from any members, not just Mr. Chambers, who fairly or not, seems to be the "face" of the Stakeholders.   If such a shift takes or took place, it wouldn't conclusively prove much, but would lend weight to the concern.  

If none of you intend on asking Chambers if he writes for the stakeholders, then I ask with full courtesy that you all stop insinuating that the stakeholders and him have some sort of illegal or ethically questionable relationship.  Thanks.

I appreciate the topic shift to more reasonable questions.  Of course, "backroom deals" sort of hints that there really are some deals being made.  But what I don't understand is that the board members have nothing to offer each other.  Perhaps you mean "backroom discussions"?  Are you suggesting that the board members are not allowed to talk to each other except in a public meaning?  Surely that is impossible in practice to do, and I would argue not very productive on a whole.  What the important issue is whether or not "backroom decisions" are explained to the public in the public session.  If there is a "switch" in opinion, then that switch should be explained and not simply voted on.  I fully agree.

I've watched all of the meetings.  Chambers surely hasn't switched anything.  You guys must be referring to Daga?  My confusion with what you are saying is that he plainly laid out why he was voting how he was voting at the final meeting.  So what is the complaint here?  I understand you don't like the way he voted, but that's hardly an ethical lapse, that's simply a disagreement with his reasoning.

Could not agree more John19355! Glad to hear someone start talking it about it openly. It seems that for the so -called "stakeholders" transparency only applies to the 'other guys'.

 Sammy, you seem to suggest you believe that discussion did take place, but that it is permissible, even productive.  I guess I wonder if you know this to be the case.

It might be helpful if someone with experience in sunshine laws weighed in as to whether or not such a private discussion & potential position shift could constitute a violation.

I'll take that as a compliment, I must come across like I have good reasons!  I actually know nothing :)  I've only been present at one school board meeting ever, but I watch most of them online.

I do suggest discussion took place, I mean, how can it not?  Don't you guys work?  Companies?  Organizations?  Non-profits?  You have meetings, you bring up agendas and to-dos, and then to actually get things done, yes you talk about it outside of the meetings.  Then when you all come together, you discuss what you've learned, reasoned, and decided.  This isn't odd, this isn't an ethical lapse, it's a necessity of making *any sort of progress*.

So yes, I do believe discussion occurred outside the board meeting.  I think the difference between me and most of you is that this apparently is absolutely shocking to you all.  I find that very strange.

Chambers is pushing "an agenda", sure, I like the agenda.  It's the EXACT SAME ONE HE RAN ON.  So that's certainly not ethically wrong, and shouldn't surprise you.  If you want to paint other people of being "sheep" by agreeing with him, well ok, go ahead.  But unless I'm mistaken, almost all of them ran on similar budget cutting/constraint platforms. 

So whatever, paint a picture of sheep and collusion.  But it's certainly not ethically wrong.  You guys just don't agree with their decisions, so it really seems like you're grasping at straws here.

I don't think that Bruce Chambers made any secret about why he was running to be on the school board.  He thought that the school board was not being a good steward of the taxpayers' money.  Also, I imagine that Bruce Chambers is exactly the type of person that typically runs for school boards.  For instance, I would never be able to run.  I have three children that are ages 1 through 5 and I work full time.

I don't know who the stakeholders are.  I'm not sure it matters to me who someone is on the Internet as long as they're not causing any damage.  Have they done anything damaging?  Have the new board members done anything damaging to the school?  Maybe I"m not paying enough attention but it seems like a lot of, "They'll probably do xxx..."

Finally, if I was confronted with a situation where someone I disagreed with did manage to lock up the majority of the votes on the school board, I would like to think that I wouldn't antagonize them.  It seems a lot of people are angry about the results of the election.  Maybe they're right to be - I don't know.  But calling people "chickens" and some of the antagonizing behavior I've seen in the videos of school board meetings seems likely to hurt the cause of the "opposition"  rather than help it.

I don't believe it will be a priority we can live with.  Not only does commonsense paint a pretty accurate picture of education for our children but, we must also consider our housing
values. Many potential home buyers research the local school district before making a purchase.  With a school district in flux, being managed by a novice board considering some
major budget cuts that could lead to significant reductions in educational spending, housing prices will be impacted.  As commonsense states, we may save $200.00 in our taxes
but, what kind of a whack will we take if and when we consider selling our homes.  Many people come to this area BECAUSE of the school district.  Believe me, word travels fast and
negative word travels even faster.  Lonconous just came out with a letter stating that the district is still experiencing even greater revenue shortfall than previously expected.  He says
the deficit should be around 1.6 million and the preliminary budget won't be ready until April.  If the board maintains the current level of funding at 2.9%, that fails to take into consid-
eration the potential for further revenue shortfalls in years to come.  Simply stated, if we don't raise the taxes a little higher for next year, we will have to raise them even higher for the
2011 and 2012 school years.  Frank, you mentioned you have 3 children, will you be enrolling them in Great Valley?  Aren't you worried about the quality of education for them?  I have
2 and without a doubt, I am concerned.  As it's been stated, I want the same quality of education for my children that Chambers had for his children when they went through the district.