Disqus - Latest Comments for billbailey

Re: San Juan School Board meets Wednesday, 6 p.m.; Improvement plans top board's agenda - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 00:59:14 -0000

It seems that much of the angst in this debate is now circling around some folks not feeling that they''re being heard by the board. The proof of this assertion is that the School Board isn't doing what the petitioners want, which is to hire Gary back and give him a one-year long opportunity to make the changes demanded by the board.

I would like to suggest another perspective. There are far more than 400 voters on San Juan Island who elected the current board, to empower the signatories of the petition to the extent that they demand would logically dis-empower the majority of the electorate. Now it is perfectly possible that if the election were to be held tomorrow that the outcome would be different than it was at the last vote, but that cannot be fairly determined by a petition. Democracy works through the will of the MAJORITY, not via the volume of an active minority.

In my opinion, the actions of Mr Power bringing the two recall petitions, and the language contained within those petitions, seemed to this layman to be un-nessecarily provocative, perhaps that's how lawyers talk, but that language set the tone for the majority of this conversation. If, at some points, school board members expressed their anger and frustration, I believe that it is, of not acceptable, at least understandable. I feel that Mr Power's tactic of offering last minute "give me what I want and I'll go away" deals to the board prior to both court hearings revealed the recall petition for what it really was, a good old fashioned shake down." Give me what I demand, and you won't have a fire next week ". Again, perhaps that's just me not getting how laywering gets done, but if so, I doubt I'm the only one who is similarly confused.

I am heartened by the concilitory tone of the last few comments calling for, and agreeing to, some sort of mediated dialog. As long as the pro-Gary proponants can move past their strident demands for minority rule as the standard of "hearing" I think that it is a very positive step toward civil discourse.

Re: School board's McCauley takes issue with Pflueger's 'More of the Story' | Guest Column - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:39:08 -0000

Rob and Jenny, I apologize to you both for mischaracterizing your comments and positions. Rob, I didn't even know that there were "several" forums on this topic! That disturbs me a little, given my distrust of face-less communcations..

I do want to thank both of you for not using disguising screen names to mask your identities. One of the criteria for civil discourse is that we are responsible for what we say. I think that the ability to post anonymously is responsible for a good deal of the increasing vitriol in our shared conversations. Secret ballots are not the same as the secret offering of (sometimes) outrageous opinions.

And Jenny, I too was a Chargers fan before I became a Hawks fan. There's very little difference between the two. Sadly.

Re: School board's McCauley takes issue with Pflueger's 'More of the Story' | Guest Column - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:40:21 -0000

Rob, Yes, I know David, and in my professional relationship with him while working as his building contractor I found him to be honest, forthright, and a good guy to work for. However I didn't think those opinions were releveant to my concerns about which I posted above.

I need to point out that you and Jenny have stated as "fact" that the decission to terminate Gary was the hidden agenda behind hiring the Superindentent. That is an example of the point I was trying to make earlier; that "facts" confirmed only by our emotions are not automatically "facts" for everyone.

Local politics, like any other amature sport, works best when we call our own fouls. It would have been good to have heard your voice confronting some of the more strident anti-Board voices with your objective assesment of David's character as stated above. I agree with you, he's a good guy. I may or may not agree with you that he has "erred egregiously", but that's not my issue in this debate.

I also agree with you in your assesment that democracy will sort it out. I disagree that the best outcome for our community is that following the election that the new School Board should re-hire Mr. Pflueger. I feel that to attempt to do so will further divide our community.

In the interest of full disclosure, I think it's important to point out that Mr Walter is a Bronco fan. So sad..;-)

Re: School board's McCauley takes issue with Pflueger's 'More of the Story' | Guest Column - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:45:41 -0000

Jenny, thank you for your considered reply.
My intention in posting in this discussion is not to advocate for one side or the other, but to attempt to urge our community to consider their words and actions more carefully. I believe you when you say that you're not motivated by anger, but also ask you to examine your statement that your "writting may indicate othewise" carefully. All most of us know about this controversy is what we are reading, and most of what the School Board knows about where you all stand is what you're posting in these comment threads and on FaceBook.

Both of these internet forums are notorious for providing a medium which are prone to misunderstandings. We can't hear one another's tone, or see our smiles when we post something that we think is clever or ironically funny. We "hear" a light attempt at humor as a shouted insult.

Then we are affronted when someone from the other side (and of course my point is that we should all be on the same, larger side, even as we disagree on the smaller issues) reacts to what they "heard" rather than what we "said" we don't understand why they're so defensive. And it just goes on and on......

If we were to ask the board, and the pro-Pflueger group to each write down their 5 most important concerns about our schools or kids communities, I bet that they would be more or less the same. My hope is that we can give that much grace to each other, that we start from common ground with shared concerns, and begin our conversations there. Rather than focusing on where we disagree and further demonize people with whom we share more than we think we do.

No one is on the School Board because they want to harm the schools. No one on the pro-Pflueger side wants to hurt the school. Everyone on all sides has devoted a huge amount of energy and resources to strengthening the school. And I thank ALL of you for caring so much.

I am concerned that any school that may consider employing Mr. Pflueger will look at this record, which is extensive, and not see a man who inspired a large level of community support. Instead thay will see a man who didn't accept direction from his employers, and who was at the center of a disagreement that divided a community. It may not matter who was "right", what will matter is that a future employer, which will certainly be another School Board, may choose not to take the chance that what is happening here and to our Board could happen to them.

Reducing the level of rancor and personal attacks will help both our community and Mr. Pflueger's opportunities for future employment. I hope we can find a way to bring that about.

Re: School board's McCauley takes issue with Pflueger's 'More of the Story' | Guest Column - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 00:39:11 -0000

Having watched the genesis of this debate, the points you just raised were late comers. The "facts" that were first used to justify the pro-Pflueger groups anger have vanished from the debate, only to be replaced by the Superintendents' "thesis". My opinion, is that if viewed apart from the lens of "we're pretty mad, and it has to be someone else's fault but the guy we like" would probably have been excused as a semantics misunderstanding. My sense is that as long as emotion at the center of the group motivation, we will be drug through an ever lengthening list of unforgivable sins committed by the Board, the Superintendent, or, probably, eventually, the courts if things don't go the way you are convinced is right.

I certainly don't mean to dismiss the validity of anyone's emotions, but when we try and assign responsibility for our emotions to a third party (be they innocent or not) that we all get into trouble.

I don't think for a second that the School Board hasn't made mistakes in how this should have been handled, and it is obvious that the Pro-Pflueger group has ranged pretty far from objective truth seeking a few places along the way, and I'd wager that it's also true that Gary wishes he could get a do-over on some stuff he's done or not done in the last few years.

Heck, I have a long list of stuff I wish I hadn't said or done just from yesterday!

But, again, in a community we have to allow each other to screw up once in a while. Going after McCauley because he's: rich, tall, skinny (none of which I am, which is a drag) or a trophy hunter is in no way germaine to the topic, fails to advance the conversation, and is damaging to the cause of salvaging Gary's career.

And of course will cause any prospective candidate for any volunteer position in the counties future elections to think way more than twice about subjecting themselves to this level of scrutiny. That is another shame, don't you think?

Re: School board's McCauley takes issue with Pflueger's 'More of the Story' | Guest Column - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:57:18 -0000

We all have our "own truths" don't we? I am more reacting to the tone of the conversation than I am to the conversation itself. In the days following Mr. Pflueger's resignation, and the filing of the first recall petition, I was concerned about how the "truth" seemed to be defined by the strong emotions that many folks have about Gary's departure. There were few objective facts available, and we know now that the reason for that was that Mr. Pflueger wanted it that way. A totally reasonable request for him to have made. However the consensous "truth" was that the board was conducting a cover-up.
The emotions were running the show, and that has never led to humankinds better outcomes.
My focus is on the strength of our community, and our School Board represents a group of people that I would prefer not to loose.
There are many facets to the Principle's job, and as I said, Mr. Pflueger is obviously gifted at meeting many of the diverse expectations of the position, but there are other aspects that he is clearly not good at. Again, that's not uncommon for any of us. What is uncommon and unaccceptable is that he refused to accept his employers' requirements. When the board stood firm, Gary elected to leave rather than comply. His choice.
I, for one, agree with the board's decission to be firm, and not allow Gary to choose who would evaluate his performance, and what criteria they would use. I will be watching as we approach the next election, and will certainly consider the qualifications of the candidates the Pro-Pflueger gtoup will certainly bring forward. I hope that they will have more to offer then that they agree with your organization.
I love the high level of involvement we now have centered on our schools, that has seldom been the case in the past, and there is at least one current Board member who had to be begged to put their hat in the ring. I think that we will have more candidates, with more points of view, and a much clearer picture of the potential down sides of public service. All that is very good.
As I said, it's not the disagreement, it's the tone, that is concerning me.

Re: School board's McCauley takes issue with Pflueger's 'More of the Story' | Guest Column - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:36:34 -0000

I very much appreciate Mr. Pflueger's letter explaining the chain of events that led to the School Board's request for his resignation. I also appreciate Mr. McCauley's follow-up letter offering another perspective on the same events.
After reading both letters, along with other letters and comments by other Board Members and concerned citizens, I am at last able to make an informed decision about my own position in this matter.
I believe that Mr. Pflueger's resignation is his responsibility, and his alone. He had 3 different Superintendents express concerns about his administrative leadership, and he ignored several specific opportunities to make the improvements that we're being requested by the Superintendent and the School Board.
The silence from the Board was a result of their honoring Mr. Pflueger's specific request, and they stood firm in their commitment to protect Mr. Pfluger's privacy in the face of extraordinary personal attacks from members of our community. Of course, now that Mr. Pflueger has opened the door to the specifics, and published the facts as he views them, and Mr. McCauley has gone on record laying out the facts as he views them, Mr. McCauley is under fire for violating Mr. Pfluger's confidentiality.
We, as a species, aren't very good at channeling our emotions. We seem to think that we need to justify our emotions, especially anger, and will go to great lengths to find "facts" that support how angry we feel. In the opening weeks of the Board vs. Pflueger controversy, facts were in very short supply. Now we know that shortage was caused, not by a School Board cover-up, but by Mr. Pfluger's request.
In short, I support the Board's decision to seek a new Principal. Mr. Pfluger seems to have been very good at the interpersonal aspects of his job, as evidenced by the support he has throughout the teacher and parent community. Unfortunately, that is only about half of the Principal's job description. Gary's refusals to make the requested changes in his approach to the job, his not completing the certification program requested by his employers, and his request for confidentiality in his resignation, bring responsibility for our communities angst where it belongs; on Mr. Pfluger himself.
In my opinion, the School Board has done all they could to protect Mr. Pfluger's career, and Mr. Pflueger has done all that he could to destroy it.
From all perspectives, and for all involved, this is a terrible shame.

Re: Perspective, please... | Letters - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:50:45 -0000

I very much appreciate Mr. Pflueger's letter explaining the chain of events that led to the School Board's request for his resignation. I also appreciate Mr. McCauley's follow-up letter offering another perspective on the same events.
After reading both letters, along with other letters and comments by other Board Members and concerned citizens, I am at last able to make an informed decision about my own position in this matter.
I believe that Mr. Pflueger's resignation is his responsibility, and his alone. He had 3 different Superintendents express concerns about his administrative leadership, and he ignored several specific opportunities to make the improvements that were being requested by the Superintendent and the School Board.
The silence from the Board was a result of their honoring Mr. Pflueger's specific request, and they stood firm in their commitment to protect Mr. Pfluger's privacy in the face of extraordinary personal attacks from members of our community. Of course, now that Mr. Pflueger has opened the door to the specifics, and published the facts as he views them, and Mr. McCauley has gone on record laying out the facts as he views them, Mr. McCauley is under fire for violating Mr. Pfluger's confidentiality.
We, as a species, aren't very good at channeling our emotions. We seem to think that we need to justify our emotions, especially anger, and will go to great lengths to find "facts" that support how angry we feel. In the opening weeks of the Board vs. Pflueger controversy, facts were in very short supply. Now we know that shortage was caused, not by a School Board cover-up, but by Mr. Pfluger's request.
In short, I support the Board's decision to seek a new Principal. Mr. Pfluger seems to have been very good at the interpersonal aspects of his job, as evidenced by the support he has throughout the teacher and parent community. Unfortunately, that is only about half of the Principal's job description. Gary's refusals to make the requested changes in his approach to the job, his not completing the certification program requested by his employers, and his request for confidentiality in his resignation, bring responsibility for our communities angst where it belongs; on Mr. Pfluger himself.
In my opinion, the School Board has done all they could to protect Mr. Pfluger's career, and Mr. Pflueger has done all that he could to destroy it.
From all perspectives, and for all involved, this is a terrible shame.

Re: Perspective, please... | Letters - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:50:34 -0000

removed double post

Re: An Issue of Fairness: Assessor makes a case for boost in department's budget | Guest Column - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 20:10:13 -0000

Thank you for your reply. In my opinion, the difference between reducing property taxes in exchange for keeping property open (regardless of the specific program) and removing land from the tax roles altogether for the same purpose is pretty small. A matter of semantics perhaps? Like you, I am uncomfortable with an unequitable distribution of the tax burden, whether the shifting is done in our property taxes or our income taxes, so in that we totally agree. I'm just suggesting that in the context of our current overall tax situation, protesting about whether someones farming or ranching their ag land seems like small beans. Have a great weekend.

Re: An Issue of Fairness: Assessor makes a case for boost in department's budget | Guest Column - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:04:59 -0000

I don't have too much problem with the way things are right now. Sure, some are paying reduced property taxes, and the burden is shifted to others. But do we really care if someone is getting an agricultural tax break and they're not activly farming their land? We are all probably just happy to see the land kept open, whether it be as a field, forest or farm. If we are really concerned about the unfair distribution of the property tax burden, then we need to work together to eliminate the Land Bank, whose chief aim is to remove valuable properties from the tax rolls entirely.

Re: Islanders protest earmarks, 'unconstitutional' health care reform law - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:50:35 -0000

Barry, I agree with you about the abuses that occur in capitalism, but the motivation for profit also has benefits, provided there exists a competitive marketplace. The drive for profit triggers efficiencies that don't exist in the governmental mind set. With the goal of gaining market share businesses will try and offer better products at a lower cost than their competitors, while finding ways to streamline their production costs so that they can still make a profit (which allows them to remain in business).

Re: Orca Relief says more whale-watch protests to come - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:20:19 -0000

Orcalogic: Do you really believe that the only way to be an envioromentalist is to engage in direct action? You have abandoned reason and civility in your passion, and seem incapable of keeping the discussion from disolving into personal attacks.

My issues are not with environmentalists, and I am not wrestling with Hatred (as you accuse me of). My issues are with the idea of direct action, as it is being acted out by individuals like Watson or organizations like Earth First or ALF. BTW, I do equate Watson with these violent and destructive organizations, and yes, I have read the literature.

You have no idea who I am or what I do or don't do, and there is really no reason for you to, or for me to know what you do or don't do. The issue, at least as far as I see it, is not personal, it is philisophical. Is violence justied in any situation? Is it morally justifyable for an individual or a group to commit violent acts that circumvent the process of legislation and laws?

If your answer to these questions is yes, then we have nothing left to talk about. I recognize a zealot when I see one, and have enough life experience to know that it is impossible to have a civil and reasoned debate with a zealot.

Anticipating your "yes", I respectfully withdraw.

Re: Orca Relief says more whale-watch protests to come - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:54:40 -0000

Orcalogic: You miss my point. I understand the passion for direct action, in some cases I want to take direct action myself. Like when I see people driving in the car-pool lane with only one person in the car...I want to ram them and force them off the road, I mean they're breaking the law, right?

I am confused about your assertion that Watson has never caused any injuries.....I guess it depends on your definitions, again.

My issue with direct action is that any of us can be incited to support or participate in acts of violence, and then either justify it, or re-define it away. Spiking trees is one example. To the spiker, it's non-violent Monkey Wrencing, to the faller who hits the spikes with his saw, it's a violent physical attack.

Granted it takes longer to see things changing when one follows the rule of law and works toward change legislatively. But education into the plight of the planet is changing things, and legislation follows. With the many media outlets now available to organizations like Watson's, the ability to "get the word out" has never been greater. But serving as educators is not as much fun as playing at being the world's animal police, is it?

Re: Orca Relief says more whale-watch protests to come - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:15:24 -0000

traci, thank you for your civility, it is appreciated.
To your points: The fact that there have been some prosecutions seems to better support my thesis; that the system will work if we let it, than it does yours.

The article that you linked to seems to be little more than a justification for commiting acts of terrorism, not a call for reason and community action. Hiding behind a cloak of anniminity and destroying private property, or releasing lab test animals all seem like emotional venting, not reasoned and supportable community centered activities.

I am constantly amazed by the assertion that we need to save the planet NOW or else we'll all die. Well, duh, we're all going to die anyway, and I'm fairly certain that the planet will recover from our actions just fine. To belive otherwise is an (or should be) impressive display of egocentricity and paternalism.

I do appreciate that Orca Relief is doing their protests in the light of day, with their faces and names a matter of public record, but it is disquieting to read one of their supporters so easily making the link to direct action, which, as the linked article asserts, can justifyably be commited in the dark of night by a group of masked vigilanties.

When we abandon laws, how do we decide what actions to take, and where, and how extreme those actions should be? Anti whaling advocates? Anti abortion advocates? Anti petroleum fueled vehicle advocates? Anti.............? All it takes is an emotional appeal, a promise of some adrenaline, and we're on our way........I believe that therein lie the seeds of the end of culture and society, not in the death of whales (which is a big stretch to tie to the whale watching companies!!).

Thousands of species have acheived extinction, and I am still here wondering what to fix for dinner.

Re: Orca Relief says more whale-watch protests to come - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:19:47 -0000

I'll do my homework tomorrow, Mom.....
What Watson and the well intentioned folks from Orca relief share is a willingness to interpret and then enforce laws to suit their interpretation. As I said before, if laws are being broken, collect evidence, such as video, and submit it to the authorities who have jurisdiction. The Orca Relief folks seem to share Watson's hubris, if not (yet) his methods.

Re: Orca Relief says more whale-watch protests to come - Journal of the San Juans

billbailey — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:41:39 -0000

I'm sure that the folks engaging in this protest have the whales best interersts in mind, but, as has been pointed out, they are just another noisy boat as far as the whales are concerned.
If, as they claim, the whale watching boats are violating the law, then they should be shooting video and forwarding it to the authorities to pursue prosecutions. This type of behavior should not be condoned in a civilized society.
It might be helpful if Mr. Anderson actually was famililar with the operators who offer a "guaranteed" whale sighting before he makes irrational assumptions about what they are likely to do to meet that commitment. As far as I'm aware, they provide a coupon for another ride at a later date. Since most boats are operating below capacity, this guarentee costs them nothing, and it's unlikely that any operators will be motivated to violate federal law to avoid "paying off".
Following in the wake of idiots like Paul Watson is not a course to take!