Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2014 12:56:02 GMT -6
Thank you, Mr. Bean. After asking the question of you this morning, I asked others to give me reasons for entering children into sports, & "fun" was given. So I pressed, & fun was generally seen as a pleasant outgrowth of a more important purpose. Lessons of cooperation & being a useful team member, surfaced as reasons for kids to learn about sports, in order that they might take the skills learned in games, into their future career. Where, hopefully, they would be a benefit to their workplace no matter what field, whether as a missionary to the sick & needy or a physicist. Team players are always better workers, for reasons that seem obvious to me. But then again, the reasons for children participating in sports, also seems obvious to me. No...your "important purposes" are an outgrowth of kids having fun first of all.
|
|
|
Post by roman on Nov 22, 2014 18:48:10 GMT -6
Greek, I am still scratching my head trying to understand your post. I mentioned that I have a photo from one of my reunions showing our former wrestling coach and five former wrestlers. I also mentioned their attained degrees. There were only ten first-string wrestlers on the team, one for each weight class. You responded by saying “Sounds like my High School class. Only we he had two MD's, five attorneys, one JD, one College President, a number of teachers, and a number of Viet Nam veterans.” Unless you had only ten kids in your class, the comparison doesn’t make sense. I found your reference to “five attorneys [and] one JD" to be puzzling. In order to be an attorney, a person must possess a JD. Of course, if you were simply trying to create another legend, you might make such a mistake. Greek, I see that you are back on-line. Perhaps you can clear up my confusion as to your last post on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by roman on Nov 22, 2014 19:55:22 GMT -6
Greekie, I know you are here. Straighten out your latest lie.
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Nov 23, 2014 0:10:57 GMT -6
Roman, here's my question. Does the board have to vote on the administrations reccomendation to not rehire or is not voting on it the same as voting no? Administration always gives a reccomendation to the board on each action item. If the board voted to approve the reccomendation to rehire the assistants wouldn't they have to vote a to accept the reccomendation to not rehire?
Vote for Lansford. 4 more years.
|
|
|
Post by roman on Nov 23, 2014 6:31:34 GMT -6
Roman, here's my question. Does the board have to vote on the administrations reccomendation to not rehire or is not voting on it the same as voting no? Administration always gives a reccomendation to the board on each action item. If the board voted to approve the reccomendation to rehire the assistants wouldn't they have to vote a to accept the reccomendation to not rehire? Vote for Lansford. 4 more years. Admittedly, the procedure followed by the Board was convoluted, but certainly not improper. Because there is no tenure in extracurricular jobs, employees are hired on a yearly basis. In other words, the Board would have to have taken action to continue his yearly contract. Unlike probationary teachers where inaction by the board continues the contract, inaction in the case had the legal effect of firing the coach.
|
|
|
Post by willy on Nov 23, 2014 11:39:43 GMT -6
FOT, I also thought the way it was handled was 100% wrong. If you're going to have the courage to put your vote on record to rehire all the assistant coaches, put your vote on record for dismissal. It's easy to talk behind those doors and to easy to shut up and not voice those same opinions in public. Being on a board isn't a popularity contest. In my opinion the Board hired those admin people to make recomendations, it then becomes the Board's responsibility to follow through with a vote to finalize everything. That's how we did it with my twelve years on that very board.
|
|