Since the self-styled RPO Community Supporters group censors any poster to its website who dares to suggest that supporting the RPO does not necessitate supporting Remmereit, or who asks embarrassing questions, perhaps you can supply a verifiable headcount of Supporters so that the public can determine for itself whether that membership is large or small.
On the topic of "representative democracy", we know that the RPO board was elected by a majority of the ballots cast by eligible voters to represent the competing interests of their constituency, i.e. all RPO members. As someone once said, “that’s how representative democracy works".
What we do NOT know is just what constituency elected the RPO Community Supporters to represent them and how that election took place. Again, any information you can provide that sheds light on the validity of the RPO Community Supporters’ claim to represent anyone other than themselves will be most welcome.
You are correct about the pro-Remmereit, or rather the anti-board bias of the D&C.
For example the fact that no rational person would contend that "to some extent the B(uffalo) P(hilharmonic) O(rchestra) is gaining enviable momentum at the expense of the embattled Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra" did not prevent the D&C from making such an asinine statement, as if the two orchestras were competing for the same patron base or the same dollars.
Although this rambling and obviously slapped together editorial correctly states that Owens and Rice, "made a strong case for dismissing Remmereit during a recent meeting with the Editorial Board", the paper still managed to do a quick 180 and somehow argue that, "But in so doing, it was never clearer that RPO management must make radical changes or further risk the prized community institution going the route of the Syracuse orchestra." The only way to reconcile these two statements is to assume that what they meant is that is the original selection of Remmereit was a mistake, a not-altogether incorrect assumption.
The D&C then goes on to contend that, "Rice and Owens must begin to immediately change this toxic environment" as if they and they alone are responsible for the current divisiveness. Kind of like telling the fire department that they’re somehow responsible for the activities of pyromaniacs.
And while the inclusion of board members with diverse backgrounds would probably be of long term value to the RPO, what in god’s name does this have to do with the current board’s termination of Remmereit? Is somebody at the D&C trying to imply that the Remmereit termination was driven by a lack of racial or ethnic sensitivity? Or that more blacks or more Hispanics or more Vietnamese board members would have somehow altered the decision on what was at the end of the day merely a glorified HR matter?
The illogic of the D&C's position reminds me of the line from Orwell's 1984 when Winston Smith contends that, "How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.", and receives the response, "Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. "
Liane Curtis -
Ms. Buholtz states..
"Late in the afternoon of January 31, Justice Fisher questioned my subpoenas duces tecum and proposed affidavits,"
" On Feb. 4, Justice Fisher vehemently disapproved of my subpoenas duces tecum and ruled that I cannot use the documents that I had requested from the witnesses. "
" Also on Feb. 4, Justice Fisher denied my requests brought on in my pre-meeting suit and told me to proceed on a post-meeting basis."
Sounds more like a train wreck then a process likly to result in truth, justice and the American way.
Clint - So by your logic property and school taxes , being based in the assessed valuation of a home, are designed to balance municipal and school budgets on the back of the affluent since they pay higher taxes on their homes then the poor do on theirs. As a matter of fact, given that a large percentage of the poor rent rather then own their homes, then I guess we can conclude that such taxes in general are designed to benefit renters at the expense of property owners. Agreed?
And let's take this to the next level of conspiracy. Undoubtedly a sizable percentage of property owners in any given school district no longer have, or never had, children attending the schools. So isn't this the ultimate balancing of a budget on the back of one group by imposing a tax on someone who receives NO VALUE for their money?
Oh , and by the way, if one obeys red light traffic signals then I submit they need not fear that ANY budget is being balanced on their back.
One of my friends held a picnic last summer to celebrate his son's bar mitzvah. I can report that a poll of hot dog eaters determined that over 99% chose red hots over white hots.
Clint - Out of curiosity, why do you believe that red light cameras constitute a conspiracy to "help balance the budget on the backs of the poor"? Is there some socio-economic principle which dictates that the poor are more likely to run red lights than those in higher income brackets?
“It’s not my business,” he said. “I probably only added another level of drama that doesn’t need to be added.”
Agreed Bob, So why did you bother commenting in the first place.? A cynic might suggest that you believe you have a vested political interest in keeping your hand-picked successor as mayor in power.
All Comments »
Website powered by Foundation