Our recommendation: Springboro voters should say 'yes' the first time to school levies

Feb 5, 2008 Full story: Dayton Daily News 31,519

Recommended local sites More... UD sports info, pictures and discussions Are you a UD sports fan? Whether you like basketball, volleyball, soccer, men's or women's teams -- Doesn't matter -- this site is for ... via Dayton Daily News

Full Story
truth to power

Girard, OH

#27661 Oct 2, 2013
care to wrote:
<quoted text>
What are the conflicts of interest for Malone, Stuckey and Anderson?
May your Higher Power have pity on your soul if you're not able (or, possibly willing) to see Malone's and Stuckey's blatant conflicts of interest in running for school board.
On To Victory

Akron, OH

#27662 Oct 2, 2013
The time has now come to take the spotlight of attention off the failed practices of status quo business as usual
union school board candidates.
Let the Light Shine on the Strengths of the next two BOE representatives, Charles Bitner and
Kolton Vaughn!
Charles Bitner and Kolton Vaughn are the ONLY two school board candidates who are PARENTS REPRESENTING PARENTS, and the ONLY two school board candidates who are already on board with our current boards winning agenda of Students First/Responsible Budgeting!
These two young men are like a breath of fresh, cool Autumn air blowing away the heated, rude discourse that has been swirling around town against our current board members throughout the long hot summer of explosive bullying attacks and distortions of truth, played out in front of the TV camera and news media for sure. Enough is Enough!
We all need to get on the phone, walk our neighborhoods, and email everyone we know to introduce them to David Bitner and Kolton Vaughn, who are the ONLY two candidates who are FIT to represent our school community of employees and our entire community of Springboro families and taxpaying homeowners.
The time is urgent; our message is urgent!
Spread the good news to everyone that David Bitner and Kolton Vaughn should be our next two board representatives!

(Please note that yesterday at lunch with a room full of Voters, I noticed that only TWO people had ever heard of the school board candidates David Bitner and Kolton Vaughn -- Spread the Word of truth that these two Springboro Parents are the ONLY two school board candidates that are FIT to represent ALL Springboro families and taxpaying homeowners.)

Spread the Good News!

Vote for Charles Bitner and Kolton Vaughn on November 5, 2013!
November Solution

Girard, OH

#27663 Oct 2, 2013
care to wrote:
<quoted text>
If that is the case, then why have I seen City employees removing ALL political signs that are in the right-of-way? Oh that's right - its that conspiracy theory you subscribe to.
City /township employees regularly remove signage of all sorts so that GRASS MAY BE MOWN.
In the future, you may "care to" better utilize your brain capacity.
partisan

Dayton, OH

#27664 Oct 2, 2013
care to wrote:
<quoted text>
If that is the case, then why have I seen City employees removing ALL political signs that are in the right-of-way? Oh that's right - its that conspiracy theory you subscribe to.
the signs in the right of way are removed by the city when someone calls in and complains about them. I know from experience the city is not pro-active on removing signs.
care to

Springboro, OH

#27665 Oct 2, 2013
truth to power wrote:
<quoted text>
May your Higher Power have pity on your soul if you're not able (or, possibly willing) to see Malone's and Stuckey's blatant conflicts of interest in running for school board.
I'm possibly willing to see their conflicts of interest if you are willing to tell me, with facts, not innuendo, what they are...other than just say there are conflicts.

And really - I have to ask God to have pity on my soul because I asked a question about wanting someone to detail a conflict of interest? Don't ya think that is a little much?
Heart Burn

United States

#27666 Oct 2, 2013
care to wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm possibly willing to see their conflicts of interest if you are willing to tell me, with facts, not innuendo, what they are...other than just say there are conflicts.
And really - I have to ask God to have pity on my soul because I asked a question about wanting someone to detail a conflict of interest? Don't ya think that is a little much?
Please see above. I spelled it out pretty clearly I thought
hypocrites

Girard, OH

#27667 Oct 2, 2013
care to wrote:
<quoted text>
Political signs are not permitted in the Right-of-Ways. Private property yes. Public property no (Right of way is public property). That goes for any political signs as far as I know.
The folks responsible for the placement of VOTE YES ISSUE 3 signage earlier this year must have missed your memo about not placing political signs in public right-of-ways.
care to

Springboro, OH

#27668 Oct 2, 2013
Heart Burn wrote:
<quoted text>
Please see above. I spelled it out pretty clearly I thought
Not real clear as you were rambling, but yes, interesting argument. But "where your best interests lie" is not a conflict of interest. Its a difference in philosophies. "Conflict of interest" is a legal argument and you have put forth a "political argument". Much different.
Heart Burn

United States

#27669 Oct 2, 2013
care to wrote:
<quoted text>
Not real clear as you were rambling, but yes, interesting argument. But "where your best interests lie" is not a conflict of interest. Its a difference in philosophies. "Conflict of interest" is a legal argument and you have put forth a "political argument". Much different.
Legal/political...symmantics. The truth is there are conflicts of interest if he is elected by the community. How do you represent the community and the kids to the best of your ability if you also have to worry about your wife and kids pay and benefits?
care to

Springboro, OH

#27670 Oct 2, 2013
Heart Burn wrote:
<quoted text>
Legal/political...symmantics. The truth is there are conflicts of interest if he is elected by the community. How do you represent the community and the kids to the best of your ability if you also have to worry about your wife and kids pay and benefits?
Not semantics at all. And how do you represent the community and the kids to the best of your ability if you also have kids in the system and you need to adopt a standard that you know would be detrimental to your children but is good for all others? We can have these political "conflict of interest" arguments all day....
Heart Burn

United States

#27671 Oct 2, 2013
care to wrote:
<quoted text>
Not semantics at all. And how do you represent the community and the kids to the best of your ability if you also have kids in the system and you need to adopt a standard that you know would be detrimental to your children but is good for all others? We can have these political "conflict of interest" arguments all day....
I'm not a believer that you have to have kids in the system to do a good job. I am simply using the "logic" that was used during the last election cycle by those that now support SAM.

Although I would ask, why would a parent or any BOE member adopt a standard that is detrimental to their own children?

Unless of course the detriment served a broader self interest...say, to the union and your own family's personal pocketbook benefit. I'd say your argument is a fallacy of logic.

I don't see that conflict with any of the current BOE members nor the Bitner/Vaughn ticket. Suppose to put Children First...right?

Do you honestly believe the SAM ticket wants to "take their board back" to continue the success we have seen with the Children First budgeting?
care to

Springboro, OH

#27672 Oct 2, 2013
Heart Burn wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a believer that you have to have kids in the system to do a good job. I am simply using the "logic" that was used during the last election cycle by those that now support SAM.
Although I would ask, why would a parent or any BOE member adopt a standard that is detrimental to their own children?
Unless of course the detriment served a broader self interest...say, to the union and your own family's personal pocketbook benefit. I'd say your argument is a fallacy of logic.
I don't see that conflict with any of the current BOE members nor the Bitner/Vaughn ticket. Suppose to put Children First...right?
Do you honestly believe the SAM ticket wants to "take their board back" to continue the success we have seen with the Children First budgeting?
I would hope not because if you support Mr. Petroni, which it sounds like you probably do, then you should not be a believer that all BOE members need to have kids in the schools. However, I would differentiate that just a tad.....Mr. Petroni chooses to keep his kids out of the school district....the same district he is an elected leader of. I believe SAM (as you call them) all had kids attend the school district, when they were eligible? Semantics I guess.....

Yes, why would a BOE member adopt a standard that is detrimental to their own children? They wouldn't. Isn't that a conflict of interest then if the standard was good for everyone else? My example was just one to show that conflicts or perceived conflicts can be anywhere or happen to anyone. What you have to hope is that if there is a true conflict that the BOE member would recuse themselves from any vote that would help them or specifically their family. So just because some candidates may have family members working for the School District, does not mean there is automatically a conflict as you suggest.

Please argue candidates based on facts, not suppositions and assumptions.
Doug Wiedeman

Cleveland, OH

#27673 Oct 2, 2013
care to wrote:
<quoted text>
I would hope not because if you support Mr. Petroni, which it sounds like you probably do, then you should not be a believer that all BOE members need to have kids in the schools. However, I would differentiate that just a tad.....Mr. Petroni chooses to keep his kids out of the school district....the same district he is an elected leader of. I believe SAM (as you call them) all had kids attend the school district, when they were eligible? Semantics I guess.....
Yes, why would a BOE member adopt a standard that is detrimental to their own children? They wouldn't. Isn't that a conflict of interest then if the standard was good for everyone else? My example was just one to show that conflicts or perceived conflicts can be anywhere or happen to anyone. What you have to hope is that if there is a true conflict that the BOE member would recuse themselves from any vote that would help them or specifically their family. So just because some candidates may have family members working for the School District, does not mean there is automatically a conflict as you suggest.
Please argue candidates based on facts, not suppositions and assumptions.
Unfortunately for Mr. Malone and Mr. Stuckey, they do not have any in the school district today, and today and tomorrow is when they would be governing. Today and tomorrow are quite different than the cozy days of yesteryear.

Mr. Malone and Mr. Stuckey will not be experiencing first hand the education we are offering our children as viewed from our children's perspective. It is one thing to wander the halls absorbing all the love and adulation being directed your way for making the high school fun and easy, it is another to experience the educational opportunities you personally had developed.

As anyone with a teenager is likely to tell you, your own child may not talk to you as much as you like, but their friends certainly will. Taking the time to listen to kids at the high school discuss certain teachers who instruct via workbook worksheets then either read the paper, or play on the phone, or dally on their computer for the rest of the period can be a real eye opener. Our children are not as gullible as some may wish and tend to know which teachers can teach and which are just occupying time and space.

Lacking that sounding board of the children who live the decisions the board makes would certainly reduce the board's effectiveness.

The current board has Kelly Kohls with children in the district's classrooms. Wendy Kull has children in three different schools throughout the district. Don Miller has children in the district.

Certain members of the community who castigated Mr. Petroni and Mr. Rigano now voice full support for a board that would contain no actual parents with children in our classrooms.

My but how the situational ethical concerns shift with winds.

Kolton Vaughn and David Bitner both know something about being a parent of a child in the schools of our district and bring a voice for the parents to the table.

The choice is becoming one of a voice for the parents vs only voices for adults, whose loyalties may lie hidden elsewhere with a different agenda.
Heart Burn

United States

#27674 Oct 2, 2013
care to wrote:
<quoted text>
I would hope not because if you support Mr. Petroni, which it sounds like you probably do, then you should not be a believer that all BOE members need to have kids in the schools. However, I would differentiate that just a tad.....Mr. Petroni chooses to keep his kids out of the school district....the same district he is an elected leader of. I believe SAM (as you call them) all had kids attend the school district, when they were eligible? Semantics I guess.....
Yes, why would a BOE member adopt a standard that is detrimental to their own children? They wouldn't. Isn't that a conflict of interest then if the standard was good for everyone else? My example was just one to show that conflicts or perceived conflicts can be anywhere or happen to anyone. What you have to hope is that if there is a true conflict that the BOE member would recuse themselves from any vote that would help them or specifically their family. So just because some candidates may have family members working for the School District, does not mean there is automatically a conflict as you suggest.
Please argue candidates based on facts, not suppositions and assumptions.
SIGH....

You are supposing and assuming...I am not. You are supposing and assuming that a BOE member with children in the system would do something that would be detremental to their education. I'm not sure how that assumption makes your argument.

It is a fact that Malone was a dues paying member of the SEA

It is a fact that Stuckey was a dues paying member of the SEA

It is fact that Malone has a wife and child that are employed by us.

It is a fact that the wife and child are dues paying members of the SEA.

It is a fact that this slate of candidates are supported largely financially by the SEA and its members.

It is a fact that this slate of candidates have been preassembled as a package by the SEA to "regain control of "THEIR" BOE.

It is a fact that these candidates and the SEA forced Lisa Babb to withdraw her name as not to siphon off votes in their efforts to "retake their Board"

It is a fact that, if elected, this slate of candidates will not further the progress of the current Children First system that has proven itself to be very successful for our kids and community.
And is a shining example for the rest of the state of Ohio

It is a fact that in the last election cycle the same SAM supporters cried from the highest mountains that not having children in the system was reason enough not to vote for Petroni and Rigano. Yet this election they are whistling quite the different tune.

It is a fact that these same SAM supporters bellowed about frivilous lawsuits that were (falsely) all due to Dr Kohls actions.

It is a fact that David Stuckey has previously sued, and lost, the district because he didn't get the coaching job he wanted. Frivilous?

Where are my assumptions and suppositions of conflicts of interests and double standards?

Instead of ignoring and rationalizing the obvious, try to assure me that a vote for your preferred candidates will not go back to the children second union first platform that we saw year after year with one unneeded levy request after another.

Until then...I'm doing what SAM supporters told me to do last election. I'm supporting those that have the vested interest in their kids and our kids...

...Bitner and Vaughn this November.
Remember in November

Akron, OH

#27675 Oct 2, 2013
care to wrote:
<quoted text>
Not semantics at all. And how do you represent the community and the kids to the best of your ability if you also have kids in the system and you need to adopt a standard that you know would be detrimental to your children but is good for all others? We can have these political "conflict of interest" arguments all day....
...or we could just tell the truth that enough is enough of
status quo and just say NO to union school board candidates
Malone/Stuckey/Anderson.

Just Remember in November that ONLY union school board members would ever consider "adopting a standard that is known to be detrimental to children..." and Mr. Malone has already told voters that he is running for election to gain control of the board's successful children's first budget and re-instate union first business as usual. Now what could be more detrimental to our school children and community than a union controlled school board?
hypocrites

Girard, OH

#27676 Oct 2, 2013
Heart Burn wrote:
<quoted text>
Legal/political...symmantics. The truth is there are conflicts of interest if he is elected by the community. How do you represent the community and the kids to the best of your ability if you also have to worry about your wife and kids pay and benefits?
Hey "care to". Please buck-up and respond to Heart Burn's question.

Re: school board candidates having a "conflict of interest" because they HAVE children enrolled in the district.
During the summer of 2010, David Petroni endured loads of criticism of home schooling, only to emerge victorious and become probably the most popular board member.

This community remembers...

Bitner's and Vaughn's opposition have absolutely nada-zip-zero chance of successfully playing this card.
Remember in November

Akron, OH

#27677 Oct 2, 2013
Just remember in November that the important thing is NOT just to get out there and VOTE, just because the time has come! Even more important than voting IS knowing how to Vote Responsibly!
A VOTE is a terrible thing to waste!

Now is the TIME to get out there and spread the word that Springboro school board candidates,
David Bitner and Kolton Vaughn, are Parents Representing Parents AND on board with the
current board's Win-Win agenda of Students First/Responsible Budgeting!

Vote November 5, 2013, for David Bitner and Kolton Vaughn, whose worthy reform-minded philosophy is a good fit with our school district's board approved 21st century education.
Lurker

Englewood, OH

#27678 Oct 2, 2013
So what do Bitner and Vaughn stand for? I think they are just pawns of Kelly Kohl. She was afraid losing a school board election would dim her chances for moving on to bigger and better things.
inquiring minds

Girard, OH

#27679 Oct 2, 2013
Lurker wrote:
So what do Bitner and Vaughn stand for? I think they are just pawns of Kelly Kohl. She was afraid losing a school board election would dim her chances for moving on to bigger and better things.
You wouldn't be asking this question if you'd attended Bitner & Vaughn's meet and greet.
Or, maybe you did!
Were you that coward who lurked in a SUV on East St and snapped pictures of people as they were came and went?
ISupportBoroStud ents

Girard, OH

#27680 Oct 2, 2013
Lurker wrote:
So what do Bitner and Vaughn stand for?
Thank you very much for inquiring!

http://supportborostudents.com/index.php/8-ho...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Springboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Dayton Mall shoe-thief shooter: 2 hr What 17
Jerkwad Jabbar-shooting details emerge: 4 hr Gun Nut 1
Despite this Hannity Insanity: 5 hr The New Cool Warrior 6
Family Law Attorneys (May '14) 8 hr Calvin James 14
Diversity Perversity (Apr '11) 22 hr The New Cool Warrior 7
What happens when traffic cameras go away? 23 hr Fan of Leon The Man 3
Boro etiquette (Jul '13) Dec 17 near side 11
Springboro Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Springboro People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Springboro News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Springboro

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:07 pm PST

NFL 1:07PM
Browns rule out Johnny Manziel vs. Ravens
NBC Sports 1:14 PM
Johnny Manziel ruled out for Week 17
ESPN 1:25 PM
Manziel ruled out; Browns add rookie Shaw
NBC Sports 1:35 PM
Manziel's season over for Browns, Hoyer hurt - NBC Sports
Yahoo! Sports 1:52 PM
Johnny Manziel's bumpy rookie season is officially over