The Observation Deck

Woody Calleri has written a well reasoned article in the latest issue of the Lakewood Observer about the subject:

http://media.lakewoodobserver.com/issue ... sue_04.pdf

I've been told that the State of Ohio has encouraged the Board to establish an outside audit committee.

Bill Call wrote:Woody Calleri has written a well reasoned article in the latest issue of the Lakewood Observer about the subject:

http://media.lakewoodobserver.com/issue ... sue_04.pdf

I've been told that the State of Ohio has encouraged the Board to establish an outside audit committee.

Bill

While I agree with the idea of the outside audit committee, and that if citizens such as you
and Woodie believe in the need for it, then I say do it and stop talking about it. Every levy
you and I have the same discussion.

My point and yours are always the same. Yours they are spending too much, mine, do not
hurt the education of the kids. As I told Woodie two weeks ago. The day after the levy
passes, start your oversight and report back on everything. But do not stop the levy from
passing. I have heard it described as the chicken and the egg. But it is not, it is completely
different.

To lob shells months, weeks, days before a levy in an effort to derail a needed levy, is in
my opinion a cheap shot. While I appreciate your attempt though very minimal at running
for the School Board, I think you and Woody would be far better served, and would serve
the city and residents far better at putting the oversight committee together instead of
lobbing stones from outside every time a levy is announced.

Let's be honest, you have never seen a tax raise or a contract for someone else that you
did not loathe at the mere mention of. You see no reason to raise any funds from the
public ever. I, on the other hand, like the idea of educated kids living next door to me. I
love the fact that Lakewood is dedicated to education, through schools and libraries, and
I believe it has served this city well in attracting new and younger residents, businesses,
and hopefully good quality teachers for the betterment of tomorrow.

While I agree that public oversight is a good thing for all public entities, the need for it is
not a reason to not support this levy.

I would support the "OAC" to commence the day after the levy passes.

But hey, that is just my opinion.

Support the Levy!

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Bill Call wrote:Woody Calleri has written a well reasoned article in the latest issue of the Lakewood Observer about the subject:

http://media.lakewoodobserver.com/issue ... sue_04.pdf

I've been told that the State of Ohio has encouraged the Board to establish an outside audit committee.

Bill

While I agree with the idea of the outside audit committee, and that if citizens such as you
and Woodie believe in the need for it, then I say do it and stop talking about it. Every levy
you and I have the same discussion.

My point and yours are always the same. Yours they are spending too much, mine, do not
hurt the education of the kids. As I told Woodie two weeks ago. The day after the levy
passes, start your oversight and report back on everything. But do not stop the levy from
passing. I have heard it described as the chicken and the egg. But it is not, it is completely
different.

To lob shells months, weeks, days before a levy in an effort to derail a needed levy, is in
my opinion a cheap shot. While I appreciate your attempt though very minimal at running
for the School Board, I think you and Woody would be far better served, and would serve
the city and residents far better at putting the oversight committee together instead of
lobbing stones from outside every time a levy is announced.

Let's be honest, you have never seen a tax raise or a contract for someone else that you
did not loathe at the mere mention of. You see no reason to raise any funds from the
public ever. Me on the other hand like the idea of educated kids living next door to me. I
love the fact that Lakewood is dedicated to education, through schools and libraries, and
I believe it has served this city well in attracting new and younger residents, businesses,
and hopefully good quality teachers for the betterment of tomorrow.

While I agree that public oversight is a good thing for all public entities, the need for it is
not a reason to not support this levy.

I would support the "OAC" to commence the day after the levy passes.

But hey, that is just my opinion.

Support the Levy!

.

Jim,

Any idea why The Lakewood Observer would allow such an article in its paper?



Scott Meeson

Scott Meeson wrote:
Jim,

Any idea why The Lakewood Observer would allow such an article in its paper?



Scott Meeson

Scott

Why wouldn't we?

.

Scott Meeson wrote:
Any idea why The Lakewood Observer would allow such an article in its paper?

Scott Meeson

Scott -

Not speaking for Jim, but I refer you to something posted in the Observer F.A.Q. section:

Q: CAN I WRITE ABOUT ANYTHING I WANT?

A: Almost. We want people to feel free to voice their opinions, but we ask writers to refrain from the following:
- Abusive, disrespectful, slanderous or vulgar language
- False, unsupported or frivolous accusations
- Explicit promotion of a product or service
So basically, if you keep it clean, respectful and relevant to at least some members of our community, it's fit to print.


(http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/observer-f-a-q/)

What a concept

Jim,

Couldn't you have waited until the levy passes?

Scott

Scott Meeson wrote:Jim,

Couldn't you have waited until the levy passes?

Scott

Wouldn't have been fair to Woody or the project.

If you want gate keepers, try one of the other sites which feature one person in control
of what goes in or goes out. This is a community project, with much higher goals. The LO
does not answer to higher ups, corporate accounting, a single person's idea of what
should be in or out, or even what Jim O'Bryan thinks.

For the record, I would have held it, but it is not what the Observer is about. This is a put
up or shut up project, and Woody, and for that matter Bill Call and over 5,000 people since
we started, including you, have put up.


.

Jim said

My point and yours are always the same. Yours they are spending too much, mine, do not
hurt the education of the kids. As I told Woodie two weeks ago. The day after the levy
passes, start your oversight and report back on everything. But do not stop the levy from
passing. I have heard it described as the chicken and the egg. But it is not, it is completely
different.

First of all, Woody didn't say anything about stopping the levy from passing. Are you saying that if the electorate is well-informed, there is NO WAY the levy would pass?

Why is the time to pay attention to how the District spends money after a levy passes?

What taxpayer, when asked for more money, doesn't want to know whether the money that is already in use is being well-spent?

Woody has been on this financial oversight thing for a long time and it isn't just lobbing words, it's sitting down and studying and doing a lot of hard, valuable work. He's not just talking. He is bringing his considerable skill to the School District, as a parent, a taxpayer and a citizen.

The point of his article was that a citizens audit committee should do it together, and he was very interested in forming it, not just talking about it. He doesn't want to keep doing it by himself, and has been actively looking for others that could help, as their civic duty, especially when budgets are so tight.

There seems to be an idea that before a levy you can't say anything negative about the District and the way they spend money, "Shhhhhh," as if it's okay for it to seem like the District is getting away with something if the levy gets passed.

From what I have seen of the District, especially under the new management of Jeff Patterson and his team, they are perfectly capable of standing up and answering any question that is "lobbed at" them about anything that the District does, including how it spends money.

Which they proved last night, when the Board and the Administration had a special meeting to discuss.... An Outside Audit Committee! (See the other thread on the Deck called School Board Considers Audit Committee at Feb 19th meeting. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11646)


They are listening. They seem pleased to prove that they are responsive and competent. Why do we need to wait til after the levy to discuss how they spend the money they get?

They would do better to answer now, and put all questions to rest, and inspire the admiration and confidence of the voters, BEFORE the levy. More people will vote for it that way.

Betsy Voinovich

Betsy Voinovich wrote:From what I have seen of the District, especially under the new management of Jeff Patterson and his team, they are perfectly capable of standing up and answering any question that is "lobbed at" them about anything that the District does, including how it spends money.

Jim,

I agree with Betsy's above quote and I'm not sure I get your point.

Jeff Patterson, Tim Penton, Ed Favre, Linda Beebe, Betsy Shaughnessy, Tom Einhouse, and Emma Petrie Barcelona know their stuff.

I don't see anyone flustering any of these educational leaders!

And, as the levy committee co-chairs, Mayor Mike Summers and Christina McCallum know this levy campaign inside and out.

You may recall that Bill Call supported the last school levy.

Support the School Levy!

Matt

Scott Meeson wrote:Jim,

Couldn't you have waited until the levy passes?

Scott

I agree with Betsy that this isn't about the levy passing or not passing, it is about making an informed decision you are comfortable with.

And maybe not everyone agrees that the levy should pass. It isn't fair to only represent the opinion you want in a newspaper for everyone.

Thealexa Becker wrote:

Scott Meeson wrote:Jim,

Couldn't you have waited until the levy passes?

Scott

I agree with Betsy that this isn't about the levy passing or not passing, it is about making an informed decision you are comfortable with.

And maybe not everyone agrees that the levy should pass. It isn't fair to only represent the opinion you want in a newspaper for everyone.

Thealexa

You of all people should know I do not work that way. You have written stories I do not
agree with for politicians I did not want to see win. But I always made sure they got fair
treatment. I have been at odds with many of the stories in the Lakewood Observer and
they made their way to above the fold page one, or other fair spot.

For awhile when Bet Callentine would always attack Congressman Kucinich I even went
out of my way to not read the paper until after printing, which is true to this day. Just so
my opinion never influenced the project.

However most other papers and news sources are heavily controlled and monitored to get
across a single point of view or to influence elections or projects. Why not take your rant
to every other blog in the city that is controlled by one person, they are all easily
influenced by their own opinions and answer to no one. Not this one. The others would
have deleted this message and never even bothered to answer you.

You of all people should know this.

.

Jim,

Admittedly, I got so caught up in Law Director Kevin Butler's Tree Task Force Leadership and Public Business Protocols, that I simply can't see the forest for the trees in this thread.

Bill Call thinks it is a good idea to have an outside audit committee.

Woody Calleri thinks it is a good idea to have an outside audit committee.

It appears that the Lakewood City Schools also thinks it is a good idea to have an outside audit committee. See http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11646.

What's the debate again?

Support the School Levy!

Matt

Thealexa Becker wrote:

Scott Meeson wrote:Jim,

Couldn't you have waited until the levy passes?

Scott

I agree with Betsy that this isn't about the levy passing or not passing, it is about making an informed decision you are comfortable with.

And maybe not everyone agrees that the levy should pass. It isn't fair to only represent the opinion you want in a newspaper for everyone.

Hi Thealexa,

This is a pretty interesting thread. It actually has Jim split into two parts, Resident Jim who very much wants to see the levy pass and who doesn't think the time to start analyzing in great detail what the District does is right before the levy-- and Publisher Jim,one of the founders and the publisher of the Lakewood Observer-- which as you so accurately put it, is "a newspaper for everyone."

If you read further in the thread above this post, you will see Publisher Jim answer a question further along from Scott Meeson:


Jim,
Any idea why The Lakewood Observer would allow such an article in its paper?

Scott


Publisher Jim replies:

Scott
Why wouldn't we?

When Scott pushes further in the thread asking why not just wait til after the levy, Jim responds:

Jim said:
Wouldn't have been fair to Woody or the project.

If you want gate keepers, try one of the other sites which feature one person in control
of what goes in or goes out. This is a community project, with much higher goals. The LO
does not answer to higher ups, corporate accounting, a single person's idea of what
should be in or out, or even what Jim O'Bryan thinks.

For the record, I would have held it, but it is not what the Observer is about. This is a put
up or shut up project, and Woody, and for that matter Bill Call and over 5,000 people since
we started, including you, have put up.


If you can "put up," you can be in the paper with your real name, and on the Deck, with your real name, in a place where it is your right and maybe your civic duty to voice your real opinion and respectfully venture into a debate if necessary with your neighbors if it's important enough to you.

Situations like this make the Lakewood Observer stand out in great relief next to any of the other newspapers and online projects which can only offer readers a passing chance at maybe getting their Letter to the Editor published--or not-- depending on whether it fits the whim of the editor who puts that page together. Of course readers of most online sites are now "allowed" to comment AFTER a article, where it's hard to tell whether real names are being used or not. Unless the person's name is Spiderman Detroit. I mean I guess I'd like to meet him. Okay maybe not.

Anyway, SO GLAD to see you describe the paper so simply and perfectly as "a newspaper for everyone." Good to see you here.

Betsy Voinovich

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Thealexa Becker wrote:

Scott Meeson wrote:Jim,

Couldn't you have waited until the levy passes?

Scott

I agree with Betsy that this isn't about the levy passing or not passing, it is about making an informed decision you are comfortable with.

And maybe not everyone agrees that the levy should pass. It isn't fair to only represent the opinion you want in a newspaper for everyone.

Thealexa

You of all people should know I do not work that way. You have written stories I do not
agree with for politicians I did not want to see win. But I always made sure they got fair
treatment. I have been at odds with many of the stories in the Lakewood Observer and
they made their way to above the fold page one, or other fair spot.

For awhile when Bet Callentine would always attack Congressman Kucinich I even went
out of my way to not read the paper until after printing, which is true to this day. Just so
my opinion never influenced the project.

However most other papers and news sources are heavily controlled and monitored to get
across a single point of view or to influence elections or projects. Why not take your rant
to every other blog in the city that is controlled by one person, they are all easily
influenced by their own opinions and answer to no one. Not this one. The others would
have deleted this message and never even bothered to answer you.

You of all people should know this.

.

Jim,

Why so hostile with me? I was attempting to say ALL stories should be run. Clearly you just misunderstood me or misread my post in context.

As someone who frequently writes unclear posts yourself, I'm sure you don't enjoy having people jump to incorrect conclusions and then fire off a response. This was especially unwarranted since I had no intention of turning this into a debate, I was merely trying to agree with you and Betsy. You went overboard on me unnecessarily.

I'm kind of disappointed, Jim.

Besty,

I was agreeing with you and Jim about running the story, why are you disagreeing with me?

In the future, if my post was unclear, ask and I will gladly clarify to avoid further miscommunications and kerfuffles.

But just for clarity's sake: I think all factual stories should be run, even if the opinions are unpopular.