--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "justifiedright"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There are several ways to read Frank's post below.
>
> One way is to say that Garrett didn't abide by some deal that was
> made against Hopson in the executive session.
>
> Even still, I don't understand how you paint Garrett poorly and
> speak glowingly of the other yes voters of Sanders, Brewington and
> Smallwood. They all voted the same way on the same guy. I don't
> get your nuanced distinction.
>
> The defense of Robert's vote is a double edged sword. One could
> argue he does not vote his conscious from what you say. I'm not
> saying that is true, but your post makes the case.
>
> Perhaps the 5 who voted for this guy just don't share your view of
> him?
>
> I still want to see the racist/homophobe proof. Serious charges
> need serious proof.
>
> i was going to respond to franks post, but you summed up my
questions or thoughts perfectly, i totally disagree with why robert
voted yes but hey that his nickel, the only thing i would add is
thank you frank for answering the questions, and when will the closed
exec. minutes become public, i dont believe it should be too long,
doesnt seem to be any litigation going on
>
>
>
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "asburycheech" <asburycheech@>
> wrote:
> >
> > -
> > > -*bd of education meetings were taped in the past, has this
> practice
> > > stopped? this started because of franks post about an
> appointment of
> > > hopson, i also do not know him, but know frank is sincere , yet
> he as
> > > been asked several times who voted for this man, he has posted
> others
> > > yet does not answer this important question, why? it is public
> > > information and will eventually come out, if frank is correct
he
> is
> > > wrong to put the blame on the vice president, it takes a
> nomination a
> > > motion to second it and then a vote of the entire bd.
> >
> >
> > You are quite right. The BOE records the public portions of
> the
> > meeting digitally on CD, which is a matter of public record. I
did
> > respond individually re the vote, but not to the whole group. So
> I'll
> > correct that now. Since there were only seven people on the board
> > rather than a full board of nine, it only took four votes to name
> > someone to the board. Garrett nominated Mr. Hopson, Mrs. Sanders
> > seconded it, and the other two votes that seated Mr. Hopson were
> Mr.
> > Brewington and the Rev. Smallwood, both (in my opinion) people of
> good
> > will and heart. The last person to get to vote because he is the
> > Board President(thank God)is Robert DiSanto. When the vote got
to
> him
> > it was, as they say, a fait accompli, so he could either register
a
> > protest vote or affirm the vote. He has to try to work with the
> > entire board, including Mr. Hopson; Robert's thankless job is
akin
> to
> > herding cats. Although I certainly cannot speak for him, I can say
> > that Robert voted yes, which at that point was the diplomatic
> thing to
> > do and in keeping with the "team spirit" admonitions in board
> policy.
> > The point that is missing here I obviously did not make very
> > clear in my initial or subsequent postings. So I'll try to make
it
> > less opaque now. After all four candidates were interviewed in
> public
> > (that's an interesting CD right there), the board went into closed
> > session, as is permitted, and did the necessary straw polling to
> > present what would hopefully be a unified board in public,
prevent
> any
> > hard feelings on the part of the candidates not chosen, and have
an
> > expeditious process. Those executive sessions are not recorded,
> > although minutes are kept as the Open Public Meetings Act
provides.
> > Suffice it to say that what then transpired in public session
> > immediately thereafter was not consistent with what had
transpired
> in
> > closed session. More than that I cannot say. Thank God, however,
> > there were over a dozen witnesses present in that executive
> session.
> > I would think the word "treachery" is not an unfair
> characterization
> > of what took place that night, and it had nothing whatever to do
> with
> > race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. I have never said that
> what
> > took place was illegal; it most certainly was not. It is a
matter
> of
> > honor and integrity. It certainly cleared up for me once and for
> all
> > who I would and wouldn't want to share a foxhole with.
> > Frank D'Alessandro
> > Sorry for being so long-winded. It's that old retired teacher
> thing.
> >
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
