There was a vote the other day at the Christian high school. This was a vote on whether to join the Paliser school system or not. Now admittedly, I don't know all the details about Paliser, but I know that we would basically be joining the public school system in some way shape or form, similar to what happened in Edmonton some years back.
Now I will make this as short and sweet as possible. It is not the vote or idea I have a problem, with as people are all entitled to their opinions for their own reasons, what I have a problem with, not wait a BIG problem with, is how it all went down. You see there was a vote not so long ago where the outcome was not the 75% majority that the school board set forth, so as it didn't pass, that should have been the end of it. After the vote was defeated, people wrote numerous letters and complaints, again totally fine with this, but all of a sudden this resulted in a new vote being called. This is where I have the problem. You see a vote was called, the vote took place and was not passed. This should have been the end of it, but it was not as the board decided because 72% (and many of them I suspect) of the voters were not happy with how the vote turned out, that there would be another vote. This time it was approved, now making other people unhappy. (when can we expect a re vote this time...)
Now before you all lambaste me, understand that if I did indeed vote, I would have accepted the outcome for what it was whether I was happy with it or not. But to have another vote right away because it didn't get the 75% approval??? If there was going to be another vote, it should have been a minimum of one year later. You see the long and short of it is, is that the board set forth the number required, it wasn't met and therefore was defeated. If the board was so sure that it was going to get the 75% then it has to live with the fact that it didn't, and move on. If if they cant do that, then they should at least admit that no matter what the outcome was, there would continue to be re votes until the desired result was achieved, which is what happened in the end.
To end this post I will say one more thing that I have a problem with. I have heard from both sides of the fence and both present good arguments, but what I hate HATE HATE hearing, is when I overheard someone telling another person that they were on the wrong side and how did they feel about that. WRONG SIDE!!! Aren't we all in this for the education of our kids, isn't that why CCS was started so many years ago, to bring up our children in a Christian setting. Since when are there sides. If we start to all think this way and lose sight of what it is we are all trying to do with Christian education, well then we might as well close the doors tomorrow. Our parents and grand parents fought hard, made many sacrifices, both financial and emotional, to start this school, and that is something that I think we need to remember, and not ask what side are you on, we should be on the kids side!
In closing, I pose one simple question: If this Paliser does not work (and I TRULY hope that it does), where do we go?? You can never go back to what it was, so where do we go?? How do we start all over??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I don't pretend to know all the details of the proposal as I did not vote or participate. But there a couple of things that may help you. As I understand it, the board had some options considering the form in which the proposal took that affected the percentage required for passage. i.e. they could have proposed it in a form that required a lesser percentage, say a simple majority or even a super-majority of 2/3's, in which case 72% would have been a pass anyway. I can respect the choice to require a strong mandate before acting. 72% is a strong mandate no matter how you look at it, more than a super-majority, and much more than is required for most "parliamentary procedures."
You state that since if fell just shy, that should have been the end of it. Why? In most deliberative bodies that conduct the business of entire countries, there are often instances where motions are re-introduced. The procedure for doing so is built into the bylaws. If you don't like revotes, those procedural rules might be changed perhaps but there is nothing untoward about the board introducing a motion again. In this case, much more than a super-majority were in favor, clearly justifying a second attempt. It's also relevant to note that the second attempt passed very strongly, with a very small percentage dissenting, further evidence that the board did the right thing in calling for a re-vote. (I had heard that many yes voters did not take the opportunity to vote because they tought passage was virtually assured and may have regretted that decision. As well, those on the fence were perhaps swayed by a disproportionately vocal dissent at the polls. In most elections, campaigning at the voting booth is prohibited.)
As for the future of the school and your points on the merits, I had heard the choice was between the Paliser and the financial viability of the school. What is the point in rejecting Paliser if the school subsequently folds financially anyway. The financial benefits enabling much needed raises for the staff outweigh any other concerns. If the concern is control of the school and maintaining the Christian aspect of education within its walls, will not the Lord be faithful in this process as in any other?
In the end, the vast majority of people who have a stake in the future of the school, our parents and grandparents notwithstanding, are seeing their prayerful wishes for the school's continued viability addressed.
Well Mr. (or Ms or Mrs) Anonymous has some good points as to why a re-vote was necessary.
Sidebar - For those folks who post as anonymous, I don't know if it because you don't have an identity signed up, or if you really choose to remain anonymous. You can still sign your name at the end of an anonymous post. I think it's more genuine to the discussion for you to put your name to your comments. Any case, maybe you have good reasons to remain anonymous, but I'd give your comments more credit if you were willing to put your name on them. End Sidebar.
Again, I did not vote, but I know plenty of people involved or affected by this issue. The first go-round sounded like there was some serious shady stuff going on with people buying memberships for other people to try and flood the vote in one direction or the other. When you have that kind if stuff going on, no matter the outcome, you need to question the results and if they are truly reflective of the membership.
I think it was healthier for the board to re-vote than to trodge on with nearly 3/4 of their membership telling them they should be going in a different direction.
Looking at it from strictly a business point of view, I think this was an absolutely critical move in the right direction. With so many alternative Christian education options available, funded under the public umbrella it was only a matter of time before CCS became a school where only the very wealthy could send their kids. And those that couldn't afford it sent their kids to publically funded Christian schools. Think of how many more children are going to get access to a Christian education with this change in direction.
To me, that's a good thing.
Let me preface my comment by noting that I voted in favour of the proposal, but I wanted to voice some objections on how the process occurred (I make the preface in order to prevent you from seeing me as strictly one of 'those people' who was opposed to the motion merely ranting, which, believe me, is apt to happen under these circumstances). Mr/Mrs/Miss Anonymous raised some points which I feel compelled to comment on.
You state that "the board had some options considering the form in which the proposal took that affected the percentage required for passage. i.e. they could have proposed it in a form that required a lesser percentage..." Yes, this is true, but the board chose the form of proposal that they did and those were the terms that the vote was to proceed on, so this is a moot argument. If they had chosen a different form, such as simple majority, than those would be the 'rules' (for lack of a better term) that would have been in play, but because they did not, arguing that the board 'could' have used that format after the fact is irrelevant to this discussion.
Second, you say that 'In most deliberative bodies that conduct the business of entire countries, there are often instances where motions are re-introduced. The procedure for doing so is built into the bylaws.'
- Yes this is true, and I may be misunderstanding Matt, but I think he did not say that a re-vote, or re-introduction of the motion, was wrong, I think he stated that he had a problem with the hasty re-introduction of the motion. Why the need for expediancy...were the wheels already in motion for the school to join the public system in the fall? If so, wasn't that more than a little presumptious? Was the reintroduction of the motion due to backlash and response from the 72% who were in favour of the motion initially (or the untold others who did not show up until the 2nd vote)? While I agree that a reintroduction of a motion is valid, it leaves the governing body (in this case, the board) open to credibility questions.
Speaking of credibility and confidence, my 3rd point is this: If there were indeed many 'yes' voters who did not show up to the first vote, my question would be why did they not show up? Was it arrogance, an assumption that the proposal was a slam-dunk? The same goes for the board's decision to hold to a 75% approval for the motion to proceed. If this was the case, then the board should have done its homework and made sure they did what they could to make sure those in favour of the motion got out to vote. I also understand that some people left early due to childcare and it was presented that this may have helped lead to the defeat of the proposal (which in turn led to childcare at the 2nd meeting and a reformatting of the meeting to have a question and answer period early in the evening and a specific time for the vote after that). Again, this format is good, i believe it should have been instituted for the initial vote. Which has leads me to the conclusion that the board was really not prepared for the initial vote, which has me questioning the board's credibility again. The structure of the 2nd meeting was far more agreeable to achieving the desired outcome in the vote.
In another comment, you state that 'those on the fence were perhaps swayed by a disproportionately vocal dissent at the polls. In most elections, campaigning at the voting booth is prohibited'
-Again, this was the format for the meeting from the beginning, the board should have done a better job, and been more prepared for the negative comments. There are always people opposed to a position, the best way to defeat an argument is to be ready for it when it comes...the board had adequate time to know what the main arguments against their position would be and they should have been prepared to answer those arguments at that initial meeting, I believe this would have prevented 'those on the fence' from being swayed by a disproportionately vocal dissent' and I believe that is exactly what occurred at the 2nd meeting. The board was much more prepared to answer the 'negative' questions brought forth.
Finally a comment on the following: 'I had heard the choice was between the Paliser and the financial viability of the school.'
- Really, was that the only choice, it is ONLY A or B, there were no other alternatives possible. For instance, was there no way to pay the teachers and adminsitration equivalent to ATA salaries without (a)raising tuition so much so that the school becomes an elitist option only or (b)joining the public system as an alternative school? I can think of at leasat one other option. It is a model used by a number of Christian universities and it involves lobbying and dedicating a person(s) to raising funds from wealthy individuals and/or organizations that agree with the principles of the school. This option would require a lot more work on the part of the society and a stronger dedication and vision from the leadership, but it is another option. Now, the board may have already talked about this option and decided it wasn't viable, which is perfectly acceptable, but for you to argue that these were the only options and for it to be presented this way is false. To say these are the only 2 options is really taking the easy way to 'maintaining the viability' of the school. What does that mean, anyway, 'viability' of the school, what makes the school viable? How does one define viability? Man, sometimes I can go on and on...so I will not get into this question, maybe at a later date.
Anyway, I will just leave it on this note, with regards to the following: 'If the concern is control of the school and maintaining the Christian aspect of education within its walls, will not the Lord be faithful in this process as in any other?'
- I agree wholeheartely, but this same argument can be made for NOT joining the public system.
I guess, in the end, while I voted to join the public system, I did so with trepidation, and I think it is unwise to reject the potential downsides to the proposal, strictly on the argument of the 'Lord being faithful' because I believe He is faithful in all things, and uses our often flawed decisions and rational for His purposes, although we can argue as to what His purpose for the future of the school is, but we cannot KNOW, ultimately, what His purpose is, we can only trust that what we are doing is in line with his purpose. I feel fear for some of the decisions being made in other provinces with regards to public education and I am not necessarily convinced that the quality of education will improve, but as you said, I still voted for the motion, based on the argument that "God has His hand in the decision". But, once again, this same argument could be said for the initial rejection of the proposal...
Perhaps it was God's plan to have another vote? If we truly believe it was God's will to be done, then certainly it was His will to have another vote, and to continue having votes until His will was done.
Perhaps the vote had to happen again so quickly otherwise CCS may have been looking to hire 7-10 new teachers for next year. That high of a number of quality teachers would be hard to replace on such short notice, thus affecting the quality of education our children would recieve.
Perhaps Matt is an ASS.
"perhaps matt is an ASS"
takes gut to call someone a name under anonymous...
I am not asking people to agree with me, just putting a thought out there, but hey we can't all be educated and have worthwhile things to say. I will be leaving this comment up so that every time you see it Mr anonymous, you can be reminded of what a coward you are.
For all the others, who actually had something to say, thanks. You actually must have read my post and saw that it is not the result I have a problem with, or even an eventual re-vote (if you are confused please re-read my post) but how it all went down so quickly. To you DC, you find the original vote sketchy, well then I can only assume that you must find the second one just as, if not more sketchy by your logical standards. As far as only two options, BS, you think that all the no voters would rather see the school die before joining paliser... I won't even dignify that with a comment
On to the point about the teachers. Aren't there a number of parents who threatened to pull their kids from the school if the vote went through, as I think that this is completely the wrong attitude, so to do I feel about 7-10 teachers, something doesn't go your way so you quit/leave. Where I do agree wholeheartedly that teachers deserve more money, when was the last time you heard a teacher say "I am teaching for the money", quitting something when it doesn't go your way, and what about all the teachers who have taught for years before you, I didn't see them quitting during hard time.
And for many of you commentors, please read my post carefully and see that it is not the yes or no side I am writing about, but the process, so please stop putting words in my mouth.
SO I MAKE MYSELF CRYSTAL CLEAR, I AM NOT WRITING ABOUT THE RESULT, OR SAYING I AM A YES OR NO VOTER. I AM WRITING ABOUT THE MAJOR FLAWS I SAW IN THE ENTIRE PROCESS
Mr last anonymous, grow some balls and act like a mature adult.
Missy,
I agree with most of what you said, especially the part about staying unified and moving forward together, which you will see if you read in my post that last part about sides, and how I believe there shouldn't be! This to me still should be the main objective no matter which way your vote went. Quitting and pulling kids from the school is not, I repeat NOT the way to go!
What you say about the board lack of preparation goes hand in hand with my issue with the process. I agree that the proper thing to do with such an important vote, would have been to table it and continue with the process in the correct way. this didn't happen, and thus should be lived with until the kinks could be ironed out. And don't tell me that you can iron out the kinks in three weeks. As I wrote, a vote next fall, or sometime the next year would have sufficed.
You say that the re-vote wasn't because people didn't get there way? really, then why were people threatening to remove the children, why were teachers threatening to quit... sounds like they were mad they didn't get what they wanted to me.
What I don't agree with you on, is how you compare what I said about "what if palliser doesn't work and where do we go then" to "YIKES" having a child. Having a child is something that generally 2 people decide upon and it ultimately has the most affect on said two people. If palliser doesn't work, and let me REPEAT I HOPE AND PRAY IT DOES, I don't think we can go back to being CCS without starting all over. Comparing that to having a child, not a very good comparison in my mind at all.
Finally to DC, I do agree strongly with the fact that Christian education should be more available, but available to whom?? Any Tom, Dick and Harry that wants to come? Can you clarify a bit there for me.
In the end I suppose I am sorry that I wrote this post (although I CLEARLY have not officially picked a side) and might as well delete it.
For the record, I was the first undeleted anonymous, the one ChrisW responded too and NO OTHER. I typically put my name down but did not in this instance for two reasons, 1)I was not discussing the merits of the vote or calling out any person in particular but only discussing the procedural issues that Matt had raised and therefore did not feel the need t put my name to it 2)I wanted the ideas to stand on their own without any preconceived notion of which side I might be on. Since some of you see that as cowardice, here I am, you know where to find me. If I had taken a position on the motion or decided to get personal I would have atached my name for certain.Bottom line, I don't think commenting anonymously makes me a coward unless I am getting personal, but there you are.
Now, I love the passion with which Chris and Missy and the rest are writing. I would have to say that I fall on the side of Missy and DC as far as the merits but as I said before, I am likely the least informed person in our circle of friends. I will therefore defer to others to debate the issue on its merits.
Chris, I was pretty careful in my post to deal SOLELY with the procedural aspects of the vote. And I was careful to point out that the A vs. B options were the options as I understood them. I made no claim that there were no other options. It was simply my impression of people's general view of the matter.
Regarding your critique of my comments, it is true enough that the board chose to go for 75%. That they got 72% IS moot if I am arguing that the motion should have passed. But it is not moot to say that the closeness of the vote makes a difference.
You are right in that the board made a choice and has to live with it. But they made that choice in the context of knowing that there were alternatives to proceed again should the vote be so close as to merit it.
I don't think there is anything to question the credibility of the board. I am sure those on each issue are not entirely happy with every aspect of how it went down.
The point of my entire comment was simply to point out, REGARDLESS OF THE MERITS, that the board was not acting outside its authority or bending the rules or doing anything unusual in terms of introducing the motion again, even on short notice. There is nothing unusual that should raise suspicion about the procedure they followed.
In looking back on my comment, I guess I did comment a little bit on the merits. But I had tried to make it clear that I am no kind of authority on all the nuances and was trying to be respectful regarding my opinion. As far as the Lord being faithful, you are right, He is faithful regardless so it is not a strong argument in favor of the motion.
Steely,
unless you are the anonymous posting that I am an ASS, then you are not the coward I am referring to, you should know that : )
I do appreciate yours, along with all the other serious comments and take them all to heart!
Besides a few stupid comments here and there, I think that this is a good discussion over all.
I agree - save for a lone comment this discussion has been productive. I can also verify that I did not make the anonymous comment about you being an ass. Had I made the comment, I most definately would have eliminated the word "perhaps" :P HA!
In any case, I did not mean to harp on the anonymous poster - but it is a pet-peeve of mine. I suspected that it was Dan that wrote it - it smelled like law school textbooks to me :)
As for the proximity of the re-vote to the original vote. I think it is not only prudent, but should be required of the board to settle the issue as quickly as possible. A big part of what I understand is driving this issue is salaries and tuition. Both of which will undoubtedly impact staff retention and student enrolment next year. How could you leave an issue like that to linger for even a few weeks with so much in the balance? Obviously the profession of teaching is not about the money, but lets face it, the teachers at CCS are grossly underpaid. They need to know NOW, if they can expect a raise, or need to look for employment that is a bit more financially rewarding. I know I couldn't live and frankly don't know how so many of them manage to live on such a small wage. The flip side to this is to raise their salaries under the current structure. This would of course inevitabley cause a rise in tuition to compensate. Unless you have the extra dough kicking around that you don't mind sending to CCS, this could also very likely influence your decision to enroll your kids at the school next year. So I think it needed to be settled, and quickly.
As far as every Tom, Dick and Harry having access to the school. Why the heck not? As long as the curriculum and the school's code of conduct can still be based on Biblical principles why shouldn't this kind of education be accessible to all? I'd like to hear any arguments for why creating an isolationist camp where only Bible beleiveing (or even worse, CRC members) can send their kids is a good thing for the school, or the kids. I'd like to see CCS turn the corner and start to reach out to the whole community rather than be a place where kids are only exposed to part of it. It's been a long time since I darkened those walls so maybe it has changed, but I know when I was there, it often felt like a place where Christian parents sent their kids to try and hide them from the outside world.
But we shouldn't "yoke ourselves to the unbeliever" (TiC)
Interesting discussion so far, and Matt, if you're gonna post of controversial nature and keep anon open, your gonna have to expect the odd "ASS" comment. But note, ASS is in all caps, meaning it was most likely an acronym. (Probably meaning A Sexy Sonnamabitch)
;-)
AS
This was an e-mail that was sent to me with the request to keep their identity anonymous.
I can understand why the board revisited the vote in less then a year. I am not sure if either of you made the last meeting but it was ugly. Not a day you would want to admit to being part of CCS the tempers were flying and the board should have tabled the vote until another day because people voted out of feelings that day and anger to whomever they may have been sitting around (I know of 4-5 people who changed their votes due to the childlike attitudes of the teachers sitting around them)
I have a very strong background in Christian Education, my grandparents were part of the core group of people that promised money, sent children and helped start up Christian education in Lethbridge. This is so you know where I am coming from. Yes, we made many sacrifices growing up – no winter holidays, camping in tents (with a ski boat of course) and movies and suppers out were a treat not a common occurrence. We are raising our kids this way also. We still camp in a tent (although as we near the 40 mark in our lives crawling up from the ground seems like more and more work) Sorry I am rambling but bear with me. We have never taken our family on a winter vacation (well once to canmore) downhill skiing is not something we can do, and I babysit. Every family has made many sacrifices but I do believe we are becoming a society that is unwilling to sacrifice, we want the Christian education and the trips to some Disney location, trips to Europe, holidays with big RV’s and new vehicles in our garages. In part this is where the push for the vote came from. Rambling again. The cost of sending our kids to the school was starting to become something we as a family would only dream about one day (but I also know in the past when things were tight God always always provided)
At the meeting I think one person really helped our family decided (because I went in believing that a no vote was still the way to go) Martin VanderMuellen stood up and said that if this opportunity had been available when the school was started they would have taken it. I wonder if Christian schools had a difficult time accepting money when the government started giving money to schools. I do know that when CCS accepted Heritage Funds money for building or something Immanuel trashed them and wondered how as Christians CCS could possible accepting money gained from gambling and tobacco.
Anyway … you are probably hoping I get to the point someday, preferably today. I am starting to sound like my husband more and more, who knew this would happen 17 years ago. The comment posted on your website is horrid. This attitude is what pitches Christians against each other. How can a person say that those people who wanted to keep control of the school be bad. I was one of them. This whole event is going to be a huge change to the school and there will be many bitter angry people and attitudes like that will just feed things out of control. This attitude about right and wrong is like the whole CRC/United Reformed split – people being God and judging others. And if things do not go well it will make it worse. We as Christians and CCS families need to pray for God’s guidance and forgive eachother not stir up discontent.
As you can see by the length of this an email was the better way to go. Well … thank you for allowing me to vent I feel better, hope I did not rain on your day HA HA HA.
Post a Comment