- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/15/18 at 7:36 am to Cowboyfan89
quote:You're the moron, and a complete one at that. She was using teacher's pay as her basis for the SI to not get a raise. Let me ask you, would you want to be judged in your profession for a possible pay increase based upon your performance, or what someone in a complete different job is making?
Couple of morons right here.
Teachers pay taxes too, idiot. So she isn't entitled to her opinion because she's a teacher, but Joe Citizen is because he's not a teacher?
Posted on 1/15/18 at 7:42 am to GeauxLSUBengalTigers
quote:
She was using teacher's pay as her basis for the SI to not get a raise.
No, she was making a point that has been made by the other 3 board members who also opposed the raise, genius. Why are they giving the SI a raise when teachers haven't had a raise in 10 years? It's an issue that Fontana has continually ignored, because it didn't fit his agenda of control.
quote:
Let me ask you, would you want to be judged in your profession for a possible pay increase based upon your performance, or what someone in a complete different job is making?
Considering the raise was based on performance that can be more directly tied to teachers than the SI, I'd say this point is irrelevant. Did you even listen to her complaints?
This post was edited on 1/15/18 at 7:54 am
Posted on 1/15/18 at 7:53 am to GeauxLSUBengalTigers
For the 1,000th time...main issue isnt the teachers not getting a raise.
The main issue is how the board went about getting the raise. They have tried to pass it multiple times, but it was locked at a 4-4 vote. Board member died and Fontana appointed (not elected) a person of his liking to swing the vote to 5-3, thus allowing him to pass the vote.
The teacher mentioned this at the very beginning of her talk. People are keying in on the wrong thing.
But yet again, it will be ignored by the people who want to stand up to a liberal agenda, and make this into something it is not.
The main issue is how the board went about getting the raise. They have tried to pass it multiple times, but it was locked at a 4-4 vote. Board member died and Fontana appointed (not elected) a person of his liking to swing the vote to 5-3, thus allowing him to pass the vote.
The teacher mentioned this at the very beginning of her talk. People are keying in on the wrong thing.
But yet again, it will be ignored by the people who want to stand up to a liberal agenda, and make this into something it is not.
Posted on 1/15/18 at 7:55 am to Hold That Tiger 10
quote:
The teacher mentioned this at the very beginning of her talk. People are keying in on the wrong thing.
People hear what they want to hear.
Pretty sure we are just dealing with a bunch of Fontana's cronies here.
Posted on 1/15/18 at 8:00 am to Cowboyfan89
quote:
People hear what they want to hear
Well to be fair, the news is taking it from the teacher pay raise angle. So, its understandable for someone who only has that as a reference to think that way.
However, in here, just about everything has been covered. But people still come with an agenda, and either aren't reading or choose to ignore all of the facts.
quote:
Pretty sure we are just dealing with a bunch of Fontana's cronies here
I bet a few are this though.
This post was edited on 1/15/18 at 8:01 am
Posted on 1/15/18 at 8:07 am to Cowboyfan89
It really doesn't matter what the teacher said as long is it related to the raise.
Open meeting laws and Supreme Court rulings are clear, once someone is recognized to speak, if they say anything relating to the topic, they can't be threatened or penalized.
Open meeting laws and Supreme Court rulings are clear, once someone is recognized to speak, if they say anything relating to the topic, they can't be threatened or penalized.
Posted on 1/15/18 at 8:10 am to Cowboyfan89
Was the raise based on the improved performance or was it to bring the SI closer in line with other SI's?
Posted on 1/15/18 at 8:11 am to Shaun176
quote:
Open meeting laws and Supreme Court rulings are clear, once someone is recognized to speak, if they say anything relating to the topic, they can't be threatened or penalized
Is there rules, or laws, pertaining to this? Its been a question I had since day one.
Its a fact that she was recognized both times. Its a fact that they were discussing the contract (which involved a pay raise for the SI). Given those facts, is there a law protecting the person from being removed?
Posted on 1/15/18 at 8:13 am to GeauxLSUBengalTigers
quote:
Was the raise based on the improved performance or was it to bring the SI closer in line with other SI's
IRRELEVANT....READ
Posted on 1/15/18 at 8:16 am to Hold That Tiger 10
quote:The main issue was whether or not he was getting a raise. That's what was being voted on!
For the 1,000th time...main issue isnt the teachers not getting a raise.
The main issue is how the board went about getting the raise. They have tried to pass it multiple times, but it was locked at a 4-4 vote. Board member died and Fontana appointed (not elected) a person of his liking to swing the vote to 5-3, thus allowing him to pass the vote.
The teacher mentioned this at the very beginning of her talk. People are keying in on the wrong thing.
But yet again, it will be ignored by the people who want to stand up to a liberal agenda, and make this into something it is not.
Deisha was speaking against him getting a raise, and her main point of contention was the teachers did all the work to bring scores in the parish up, so why should he get a raise and teachers not.
Posted on 1/15/18 at 8:18 am to Cowboyfan89
Never heard of Fontana before this and while I live in LA have no dealings within Vermillion parish. So you can scratch "good instincts" off of as a quality you believe you posses.
Posted on 1/15/18 at 8:20 am to Hold That Tiger 10
Yes, the law protects the speaker if recognized and speaking within time limit and relating to topic. There are Louisiana laws and tons of federal case law.
Posted on 1/15/18 at 8:22 am to GeauxLSUBengalTigers
quote:
The main issue was whether or not he was getting a raise.
Wrong
Posted on 1/15/18 at 8:24 am to Shaun176
quote:
Yes, the law protects the speaker if recognized and speaking within time limit and relating to topic. There are Louisiana laws and tons of federal case law
So I guess the question becomes, did she exceed the 3 minutes. And is it 3 minutes per discussion, or 3 minutes total. She was recognized twice, for two different public comment periods. The 3 minute thing was not brought up until after the fact. Nobody said during the meeting, "You have spoken for your three minutes, time to move on."
Posted on 1/15/18 at 8:25 am to GeauxLSUBengalTigers
It’s a clear civil rights violation. There will be a settlement and a non-discloser agreement. At some point she will stop talking and start driving a new BMW. That’s the way it’s done in government.
Posted on 1/15/18 at 8:28 am to Hold That Tiger 10
quote:That's what they were voting on! It can't get anymore main than that.
Wrong
Posted on 1/15/18 at 8:31 am to GeauxLSUBengalTigers
quote:
That's what they were voting on! It can't get anymore main than that
So the main issue wouldn't be certain board members using the death of a man to gain full control of the vote, in order to pass said contract?
Just because the media has put the spin on it that its about the raise, doesn't mean its about the raise and nothing else. The teacher didn't even raise concerns over JUST the raise.
Posted on 1/15/18 at 8:37 am to Hold That Tiger 10
quote:No, they were there to vote on the SI getting or not getting a raise based on his position.
So the main issue wouldn't be certain board members using the death of a man to gain full control of the vote, in order to pass said contract?
I'm speaking of what I heard in watching the video. You should too. You need to get this media stuff out of your head. It's clouding your vision.
Posted on 1/15/18 at 8:47 am to GeauxLSUBengalTigers
quote:
I'm speaking of what I heard in watching the video. You should too. You need to get this media stuff out of your head. It's clouding your vision
Nothing about what I'm saying has even been reported in the media.
Page 54 of 57
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News