Jump to content

Could Beaumont suffer the same fate as La Marque?


The Icon

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, ozensfinest said:

A lot of you guys were happy that TEA took over BISD...and as you can see it hasn't changed anything as I said it wouldn't. 

1. They chopped off the head of the snake and others. 

2. It has only been just over a year. What kind of results were they supposed to have in something that took years to create?  

I am assuming that you would have a coach take over a perennial losing team, keep most of the same players and coaches and win the state championship the first year.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, tvc184 said:

1. They chopped off the head of the snake and others. 

2. It has only been just over a year. What kind of results were they supposed to have in something that took years to create?  

I am assuming that you would have a coach take over a perennial losing team, keep most of the same players and coaches and win the state championship the first year.  

Since TEA has taken over the school's in BISD have gotten worse you're missing the point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ozensfinest said:

Since TEA has taken over the school's in BISD have gotten worse you're missing the point. 

The whole thing has been spiraling in a whirlpool down the toilet for a long time. What has the TEA done that has made it worse? 

With all the scams discovered (such as changing grades) and the people indicted, convicted and sentenced to prison from the former administration, please name all the bad things done by the TEA. 

Again, you want then in a little over a year to correct years of corruption. I am sure they aren't perfect but I fail to see where it has gotten worse. Since you appear to have such inside information on all these atrocities committed by the TEA, please enlighten us with their faux pas and how much better the previous felons were. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 21, 2016 at 10:10 PM, ozensfinest said:

A lot of you guys were happy that TEA took over BISD...and as you can see it hasn't changed anything as I said it wouldn't. 

The commissioner of TEA just released a statement of support for the BISD board of managers.  Also, the change of accreditation is a result of financial decencies that occurred before they took over.  I'm just curious: do you feel that the growing amount of thieves that are being convicted for stealing millions of dollars from students and taxpayers is a good thing?  Or should they have been allowed to continue stealing from the district?  Because as far as I can tell, things have changed considerably since the BOM took over, with the biggest change being that high ranking employees are no longer using stolen BISD funds as a source of supplemental income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 22, 2016 at 9:07 AM, The Icon said:

 

BISD is 1 of 18 school districts in the State of Texas out of around 1200 to be put on Accredited-Warned status

As a result of financial issues that occurred before the BOM was installed.  BISD has the support of the president of the TEA.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, baddog said:

That woman going to court now says she "only" embezzled this amount.....not that amount. Give me a break.

Yes, what I understood was she said, "I only took a $150,000", which had me in a state of disbelief.  It's an indication of the mind numbing amount that was stolen when "only $150,000" come out together.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to wonder what made it so easy for all these criminals to embezzle money away from the kids. WB was complaining that they needed a new weight room. Couldn't afford it since these people were building their fine homes and taking trips. What sorry individuals they truly are, but let's start measuring their criminality by how much they embezzled........REALLY? Guilty is guilty, not by how much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...