In "As We Heard It," the political column written by my old boss Patrick Manteiga when I wrote "On the Other Hand" for the paper for several years before my good friend and almost 4th daughter, Andrea Brunais, took over here is what Patrick said this week:
School Board Chairwoman Jennifer Falliero went over the top a the February 19th public meeting when she became visibly angry with the speaker.
Lee De Cesare, a regular critic at School Board meetings, was the last member of the public to speak before the meeting's end. She was talking about a teacher Bruce Burnham and his difficulties iwth the system and went a few seconds over the allotted time. Jennifer Falliero started to get loud about the time De Cesare stopped, and when she started to leave the podium, Falliero shouted that she was out of order. As De Cesare, who often describes herself as a granny, neared the back of the room to exit, Falierro asked Chief Freidberg to "do your thing." The chief then escorted De Cesare out of the building that she was already leaving and, according to De Cesare, threatened to have her arrested.
For what, we cannot fathom.
Is it a felony to go seconds beyond your time? Falliero said that it is not allowable for speakers at the meeting to mention anyone by name and that De Cesare violated the rules. Many names were mentioned at the meeting before and none made the chair gavel them out of order.
Jennifer Falliero cannot make up the rules as she goes. She and Chief Friedberg owe De Cesare an apology for their disruptive and bullying behavior.
3 comments:
Put many people in a position of power and they start to make up the rules as they go along. The power goes to their heads and they don't think things through. Jennifer Faliero showed that. Many conservatives would love to have the Constitution and Bill of Rights trashed in the garbage so they can dub themselves queens and kings and people must obey them. Yet they claim they are the patriotic ones. Meanwhile, our founding fathers spin in their graves at this behavior.
to anon 5:48
I agree with your first 3 sentences.
However, your choice to make a generalized statement about conservatives gives reason to question your ability to analyze a specific situation, but rather use incidents to champion your own ideology.
I don't have a problem with you not liking conservatives, but at least base your dislikes on an accurate assessment.
On what basis is it determined that the chair is a "conservative". "A rose is a rose", even if it misnames itself. By that I mean, if a tulip calls itself a rose, tells the world that it is a rose, but acts and lives as a tulip, is it really a rose?
We would all be better off if we called out the tulips of the world who are masquerading as roses than to simply bash roses.
I can think of several reasons that may have effected the Chair's actions. Most of them have more to do with her personal character, and that she is trying to rid herself of a problem.
I believe, especially in this last incident, that she did not act alone. Are we to assume that the others who were engaged in this plot are "conservatives" also?
To make the case that the sets of people who would be identified in your first three sentences would only be a subset of conservatives is a bit self serving, in my opinion.
Forget the Miracle-Gro. Where's the Weed-Be-Gone?
Post a Comment