People who know me and like me, and that is most people, know I am the least prejudice of anyone they know. I only fear ignorance and smoke and mirrors.. you know, like people robbing us blind while telling us it’s for our own good? Now that’s prejudice!

Intellectualism is never snobbery and never means being of touch. For example, the single most important factor to students’ successes are a cohesive family life. In order to have that life their parents must be secure in their ability to provide. Better that the kids not have some thing in school (that is likely not needed anyway) but are able to go home to a stable family life with parents not distressed by the fact they can’t provide, is more important to the well being and learning of a child than fancy buildings and elitists programs like IB.

I know this, as I’ve seen it.

The moderator, in close votes, required hand votes. We had bracelets to ensure that only registered votes would be counted. The town went through practical and reasonable to give adequate enfranchisement. This also seems like a reasonable option in the absence of any alternative given. I am unsure of how this isn’t fair. The moderator is not a mind reader. If people want a different form of voting they must take the initiative. Passive democracy is never as encompassing as a more vibrant democracy.

And, no, I’ve no idea what a “Paulie” is either. I suppose I’m out of the loop.

Teacher,

Another fine personal attack, sir. Kudos to you, kudos. You never cease to both lower the bar of intelligent dialogue on this site and surprise all with your frank anti-intellectualism. Your septic fear and prejudice for those different than yourself is a philosophy I pray doesn’t bleed into your classroom.

Anyone who doesn’t know what a schoolie is, must surely BE one. ;-O

You, by the same token, have not answered all of my questions.

How would you suggest the means by which the votes are taken when the
audience is filled with non-taxpayers? This is the crux of my entire debate.
You tell me how it should be done without using hindsight. Try and be FAIR.
And, please, use common sense and not your legal background.

I answered all of your questions is as thoughtful and reasonable manner as seemed prudent. I’m saddened to see that you are unwilling or incapable of doing this same.

WOW. You just don’t get it. Except for your last sentence, that is.

As to your first paragraph, I had acknowledged in my post that Robert’s Rules are varied. As to your comment that the moderator knew the auditorium was “loaded” with “schoolies,” I wasn’t aware of the moderator’s omniscience, but at the same time, I’m not really sure what a “schoolie” is either.

As to this point, you could have made a motion to amend the rules. You place all duties for the conducting of the meeting on the moderator, but you have just as much power to alter its structure as does he. To complaint about the format of the meeting when you have the power to make modifications is sour grapes. You are empowered to suggest modifications; however, the onus is on you, and not the moderator. As to the second point: would you prefer that non-voters be prohibited from attendance at the meeting?

If you want to sue, you must have an injury, otherwise you have no grounds for suit. A suit based on a general sense of unfairness isn’t a cognizable injury, unless you think you can apply a 14th amendment argument. Are you advocating that you received unequal protection of the law, or were deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law? I am simply asking what that injury is. As to the implicit inquiry that I am a lawyer: thank you, but I am not.

As to your final comment about how I feel about non-taxpayers attending the meeting: I think that in addition to money being at stake, there were jobs, livelihood, and our collective future at stake. A non-resident Bow teacher has an interest in the annual school budget. While this doesn’t give them a right to vote, I would abhor the thought that they would not be allowed to, at the very least, view the proceedings.

FYI: The school moderator does NOT use Robert’s Rules. As a matter of fact, neither does the town moderator. Both use variations, naturally, but the moderator knew the audience was “loaded” by the schoolies and should have conducted the meeting FAIRLY.

So, if I had asked for a secret ballot, how would a voice response of either “yes” or “no” been fair with non-taxpayers in the audience? This is exactly my point. The only fair way to have voted that evening would have been by secret ballot unless, of course, non-taxpayers were banned. It’s important for the youngsters to see the democratic process in action so they should be encouraged to attend. But how do any of us know that they did or did not orally vote? How many teachers who are not Bow residents were in attendance? One entire balcony section consisted of non-registered Bow voters. How many adults from outside of Bow were in the audience? The moderator should not have taken one vote by oral means! Do you see my point?

I don’t believe that I mentioned the word “injury” when talking about suing. But that would be the first word out of a lawyer’s mouth, wouldn’t it?
My suit would merely be to question the open unfairness of the voting process as I mentioned above. It’s all about a level playing field which did not exist that evening. If you think that it was, then that’s your view, and you’re entitled to it. My view is different but is shared by many with whom I have spoken.

You didn’t mention how you really feel about non-taxpayers attending this meeting where $24M was at stake. Instead of looking at it from a lawyer’s viewpoint, look at it from logical and fair one.

Robert’s Rules allows for voice voting. In particular, the rules state: “A vote by voice is the regular method of voting on any motion that does not require more than a majority vote for its adoption. In taking a voice vote, the chair puts the question by saying, “The question is on the adoption of the motion to [or "that"] … [repeating or clearly identifying the motion]. Those in favor of the motion, say aye. [Pausing for response,] Those opposed, say no.”

If you wanted, you could have moved to take the vote by secret ballot by going up to the microphone and simply stating “I move we take this vote by secret ballot.” If it was seconded and affirmed by a majority of voters, the vote could have been conducted as a secret ballot.

Robert’s Rules of Order of order were first published in 1876, and have been used, often in varied form, since then.

As to suing the moderator: for what? I’m not sure that you would have any cause of action to sue on. And what injury could you claim? Please clarify.

Maybe we can take a public speaking class together? On second thought no!!!!