from Con
In a small Town, very often any given lawsuit or proceeding initiated by citizens simply does more harm than good. A group of Woodstock Citizens most closely associated with woodstocktruth.com fails utterly to realize this nearly self-evident dynamic (And BTW, WHY do they call cafe.com ‘Aljazeera’? - that says much about their bigotry and prejudice…)
Is there any specific data regarding the Total amount of Legal Fees spent on matters involving or initiated by Town citizens? Our Teachers always said “It takes 2 to fight” and when there was a costly fight, the first question was always “Who started it?”
Absolutely it is a citizen’s perogative to initiate lawsuits when the situation calls for it and all other alternatives have been fully explored and exhausted, etc. and no one should be treated unfairly or live with a bad situation. Taxpaying citizens deserve to trust that tax dollars are not to be wasted on lawsuits which are unnecessary or in which the Town wrong or has done wrong; Citizens also deserve to know that fellow citizens would only initiate expensive proceedings only as an absolute last resort and, ideally, are as narrow as possible, only to correct an existing, materially bad and costly problem and NOT merely to prove that they are in the right, to correct some minor problem/situation or to retaliate.
Ideally, citizens in a small town understand that the Town is simply not equipped to deal with costly lawsuits and, though possibly unfair, such citizens would go the extra mile to avoid costly proceedings by taking all factors into account. Ideally, citizens would put the interests of the Town’s taxpayers above such citizen’s interest in merely proving the town wrong, setting some precedent, ‘punishing’ the Town for inappropriate behavior, etc. It simply does more harm than good.
When complaining about 1) The high costs of Legal Fees; and 2) Whether the Town’s Law Firm is competent, ethical or honest, then notions of Transparency, Fairness, Honesty, Conflict of Interests and Full Disclosure call for the full disclosure of not only how much these discreet matters cost taxpayers, but also a comprehensive description of the steps taken/initiated to avoid such costs, such as the very well-developed area of ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’, Mediation and the like and whether the persons complaining has been engaged legal battles with the town (and how many and the cost). Ideally, those complaining would take responsibility for their share of these costs. Regarding the Law Firm, involvement as a legal opponent of the Town (and therefore the Town’s attorney) might influence and bias the opinion that the attorneys are no good.




The Aljazeera reference could be, at best, a worn out joke - not necessarily an indication of ignorance and/or bigotry. However, it certainly makes me question the agenda of those who use that term, and adds a juvenile air to any statements that follow such a reference. I’m not sure that I feel any difference when I read references to the “Untruth” web site.
IMHO, it is best to state an opinion, back it up with facts, and let people decide what they believe is reasonable. In other words, Aljazeera versus Untruth is a bit of “I’m rubber you’re glue”.
As to Mr. Powers’ law suit, I don’t know enough about the case to comment. I do see the irony of someone filing a lawsuit against the Town and then complaining about legal fees.
As to the issue Mr. Shultz raised - there is no mention about what was done prior to consulting a lawyer about a school administration changing a grade. I would hope that parents, the teacher, and administrators were in contact prior to seeking legal advice, but there is no mention of that - only an assumption/assertion that that was not the case.
I think it is important to know what is behind these numbers before coming to any conclusions. … (see Kevin’s new article. Admin).
JK - While I agree that those who continue calling the cafe.com website “Aljazera” may not identify them as pure bigots, etc., BUT that particular name used during the past several years is a lot more than a worn out joke to me - WHY did they choose such a racially, religiously, culturally, etc. charged name? What are they trying to say about this website and those who run it, comment on it and read it?
I find the name use ignorant and offensive - just as certain ‘Code’ words are no longer considered harmless or just a lame joke when it comes to, say, African Americans, Asian Americans, etc. the same dynamic absolutely applies to Muslims/Arabs, etc. So many Americans who call themselves True Patriots practice what they may consider harmless name-calling or the like, but that does not make it any less offensive to certain groups who, by the way, were fully included in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. etc.
I think they ought to stop using that Offensive Name unless they truly mean all of it’s possible pejorative and racial meanings. Those who continue to use the name ought to truly ‘own’ their usage. Calling that site the “Untruth” site is not really appropriate and I don’t like to see it, but it certainly sends a completely different message than “Aljazeera” . Thanks.
Pejorative names like “Aljazera” and “Untruth” don’t bother me so much in the context I’ve heard them used. However, I try to stay away from those types of terms in my speech as I believe they dilute the substance of the message I’m trying to deliver.
Thanks,
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BoE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BoE in any way.