Dayton Board of Ed votes 4-3 to donate taxes to GE/UD

To the school board members, my firm, The Next Wave, is not under contract to do PR for you, we’re working on process improvement and improving enrollment. But, had we been giving PR advice- and trying to help you prepare for any future levy, we would have recommended a few things:

  1. Legislation that arrives on your desk at the beginning of the meeting- that you haven’t had time to properly review is disrespectful to you, and to the community. It should always be tabled for public examination and review. You represent the community- and without opportunity for community input, you are neglecting your duties. I couldn’t find a required inspection period in Ohio Revised Code for legislation- but, I always believed there was a 48-hour period required- unless voted on as an emergency.
  2. A review of all previous TIF agreements that the Dayton Public Schools has been asked to sign off on over the last 20 years- with proof that these deals actually do provide “economic development.”

This shouldn’t be too difficult, since Ohio Revised Code requires a “Tax Incentive Review Council” which should include a designated appointee from your organization:

A The legislative authority of a county, township, or municipal corporation that grants an exemption from taxation under Chapter 725. or 1728. or under section 3735.67, 5709.28, 5709.40, 5709.41, 5709.62, 5709.63, 5709.632, 5709.73, or 5709.78 of the Revised Code shall create a tax incentive review council. The council shall consist of the following members:1 In the case of a municipal corporation eligible to designate a zone under section 5709.62 of the Revised Code, the chief executive officer or that officer’s designee; a member of the legislative authority of the municipal corporation, appointed by the president of the legislative authority or, if the chief executive officer of the municipal corporation is the president, appointed by the president pro tempore of the legislative authority; the county auditor or the county auditor’s designee; the chief financial officer of the municipal corporation or that officer’s designee; an individual appointed by the board of education of each city, local, exempted village, and joint vocational school district to which the instrument granting the exemption applies; and two members of the public appointed by the chief executive officer of the municipal corporation with the concurrence of the legislative authority. At least four members of the council shall be residents of the municipal corporation, and at least one of the two public members appointed by the chief executive officer shall be a minority. As used in division A1 of this section, a “minority” is an individual who is African-American, Hispanic, or Native American.

via Lawriter – ORC – 5709.85 Tax incentive review council..

The vote, 4-3 in favor of corporate handouts to GE had the backing of county employee Joe Lacey- who was elected because he opposed the buying of the Reynolds HQ to become the DPS administration building. However, he seems to see no problem with giving up of millions of potential dollars to fund Dayton Public Schools and instead be directed to his alma mater, the University of Dayton, through this deal.

Voting Yes for the abatement with Mr. Lacey were board president Nancy Nearny, Sheila Taylor and Ron Lee. Voting No were Yvonne Isaacs, Stacy Thompson and newcomer Reverend William Schooler, who vowed to explore legal remedies to stop this deal. Schooler is the only one of the No votes facing re-election in November; Nearny and Taylor are also up for re-election.

The abatement to GE should make every single business in Dayton reconsider their property tax liabilities. While many small businesses have paid willingly to fund a school system that they perceive as failing, it seems that any new employer entering the community gets the option to redirect their share to benefit them. Imagine if I, decided to pay my property taxes to a neighborhood non-profit, Historic South Park, instead of paying them to support schools. Or better yet, I make my “payments in lieu of taxes” to my landlord, to thank him (me) for the restoration of a vacant building so I can get subsidized rent? (full disclosure, my building did get a tax abatement on improvements for a period of 12 or 15 years, but we still had to pay the value and increases on the original building during that period. The building was bought for $2,600 plus $2,400 in back taxes).

I wasn’t able to attend the full meeting, but was there for the final vote. When it came time for the roll-call vote, Mr. Lacey felt it necessary to become the mad parliamentarian, interrupting those who wanted to explain their vote when they made it- screaming for Madame President to cut them off- that discussion period was over- and that only a yes or no response was called for.  I’ll try to find the link to the complete 3 hour+ debacle and post it.

UPDATE July 7. 6:30 PM: The video is online, http://dpstv.pegcentral.com/player.php?video=9349ce9f41ed262552c71cf8aef00119 the voting begins at 2:5o or so, at 2:51:15 is when Mr. Lacey starts his screaming- while Yvonne Isaacs makes her justification, when Schooler does the same thing later- he speaks at a more normal tone. I was in the room- and I felt that he was screaming. [end update]

Also, I made a public records request for the full legislation as presented and passed. I will also post that for you to review. The Dayton City Commission is probably voting on this same TIF agreement tonight at their 6 p.m. meeting.

I’m interested to see what GE actually promised in writing in exchange for this deal. Guarantees of employment? Income tax generation? Actual hours of volunteer time in the schools.

If there had been time for citizen review, I could answer those questions, and you could ask more- before the vote.

a later thought The best economic development tool cities have: good schools. I wonder how many TIF agreements in Centerville, Kettering or Oakwood have been passed with total abatement- including the schools.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! If you wish to support this blog, please head over and use our services at The Next Wave Printing for all your printing needs. We have 4 Color Business cards starting at just $13.50.

87 Responses

  1. Ice Bandit July 12, 2011 / 7:42 pm
    I question (Joe Lacey’s) ability to even understand the proper meaning of words, as you seem to define them in which ever manner makes you a victim. (Robert Vigh)
     
    …and in that sentence, dear Robert, you have captured the very essence of of that wretched and enabling philosophy we identify as 21st century liberalism. David Esrati’s choice of one word, “screaming,” triggers a Jeremiad of accusation, indignation and victimhood. Of course, David E proved himself worthy of the title of Defender of the Downtrodden when he claimed the GE deal was depriving “poor black kids” ignorant or dismissive of the fact that a large number of Caucasian kids attend DPS as well. Yeah, dear Robert, it was a lot easier back in the day when the only card liberals threw was the one inscribed “racist.” The Old Bandito was once tagged with this title when, in debate with a black Democrat, accused him of “tap-dancing” around the issue. However, dear Robert, the use of the Homophobia charge is the same as that of the brand of racist, not to enlighten, but to stop the debate. And there is nothing more predictable than a liberal who has been branded a racist or a homophobe, and the obligatory defense which generally begins with a variation of the theme “why, some of my best friends are  (fill in the blank). As they say, dear Robert, a racist or a homophobe is the guy winning the argument…..

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  2. Joe Lacey July 12, 2011 / 7:48 pm
    Mike, board members need to consider the rules of order and not put themselves above them at everyone elses expense.

    I agree that Dayton is a better place to be than Huber or Centerville but I doubt that GE would say the same and they had a lot more options (communities willing to offer full abatement) than those.

    This vote was in the best interest of the community that elected me.  To think that a no vote would have resulted in tax money for our schools is naive.  This is a win for our community and it’s not at the expense of our district.  The district loses no tax revenue that it is currently collecting.  The district will actually gain payments in lieu of taxes in year 16 while gaining a community partner from day 1.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

  3. Jeff Dziwulski July 12, 2011 / 7:56 pm
    Wow….way late to this party….no, I dont think David Esrati is homophobic..like David Laure I have met the guy.   There are enough real anti-gay people posting on this board…
    Anyway, back on topic….Lacy says:

    The district loses no tax revenue that it is currently collecting. 

    This is the essence of a TIF.  That there is no net loss in taxes, it just means the school district (or other property tax collectors) wouldn’t be getting the increase in tax that would come from increase in value from a developed property.  If the property isnt developed there wouldnt be any appreciation in the value.  But AFTER the duration of the TIF the full tax collections go back to the various local jurisdictions (that is the generic TIF process).

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  4. truddick July 13, 2011 / 2:45 pm

    OK, since we’re all weighing in on the trivial, having listened to the video I would characterize Lacy’s voice as “Bellowing”.  I hope that satisfies his desire to not appear effeminate (though I note that he assumes that the feminine is somehow inferior; might I accuse him profitably of an implicit sexism?  Guess I could but I don’t want to play the -ism card game).

    Meanwhile, on a more substantive and serious point: Joe Lacey (nor any BOE member) is not capable of performing the duties of parliamentarian because he is not impartial to his own opinions.

    As Robert’s Rules of Order proclaims at the outset, the purpose of parliamentary procedure is to promote the abilities of members to express themselves.  Shouting others down is philosophically counter to that aim.  Being able to raise an objection–and then officially rule that the objection is valid–is a little like allowing Joey Votto to call his own balls and strikes.  Oh, it can work in friendly little organizations for a while, but public bodies of partisan elected officials are–as we can see–prone to contentiousness.

    And yes, Joe Lacey has himself violated Robert’s Rule of Order.

    One example: he has insisted that board minutes be word-for-word transcripts of the proceedings, including unabridged transcriptions of non-business related commentary.  Roberts specifies that minutes contain no record of discussion, but rather a simple record of motions, seconds, and voting.  If Roberts were followed, Lacey’s calls for points of order would not make it into the minutes, since they had no bearing on the actions of the board.

    This, note, is not a trivial quibble.  Having to transcribe and publish multiple copies of extra-long minutes costs the district in employee time and materials which might be used more productively.  The impression is that Joe is indulging in a vain exercise to ensure that his words are somehow preserved for posterity.

    Another example: as has been pointed out elsewhere, in this case Joe also violated Robert’s Rules by stating his objection immediately, loudly and aggressively.  The proper way to call for a point of order is to simply state “point of order” and then wait to be recognized by the chair.  In my own participation in parliamentary bodies, I have occasionally raised points of order; I did so by calmly requesting to be recognized and then waiting my turn to speak when recognized in order by the chair.  The privilege to interrupt with a call for a point of order ought to be restrained by whether it’s a case of urgency; in this case, there was no great harm if Ms. Isaacs completed her brief comments–in fact, the damage to decorum and the extra time it took to complain probably inconvenienced the body more than a little tolerance would have.

    Third example:  I don’t have access to the agenda for the meeting, so I’m wondering if there was a predetermined time limit on the discussion?  If not, then closure of discussion requires a motion and a second and a 2/3 vote; it’s not something that the chair can impose unilaterally.  An impartial parliamentarian would have pointed that out to the chair if a member had raised a point of order regarding further discussion.

    So we’ll see if Joe really cares about Parliamentary Procedure here. Will he re-read Roberts (and state procedures) and direct that board minutes be simple records of official action?  Will he exercise proper decorum in future privileged motions?  Will he arrange for the board to quit appointing one of its members as parliamentarian and instead hire a qualified impartial practitioner?

    In the interest of full disclosure, I have occasionally been hired as a parliamentarian, and on other occasions have volunteered in that capacity.  My doctorate is in a discipline relevant to parliamentary procedure, and I have taught about it in classes and in workshops.  So I am not talking though my hat in this case.  No parliamentarian is perfect, but in this case the parliamentarian can’t deny that he’s biased in his own favor–which works to the detriment to all involved, himself included.

    Well-loved. Brilliant: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1

  5. truddick July 13, 2011 / 10:32 pm
    Curious about what Robert’s said concerning voting, I looked it up.

     http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-08.htm

    …Taking a vote by yeas and nays, which has the effect to place on the record how each member votes, is peculiar to this country [USA] , and, while it consumes a great deal of time, is rarely useful in ordinary societies. While it can never be used to hinder business, as long as the above rule is observed, it should not be used at all in a mass meeting, or in any other assembly whose members are not responsible to a constituency. By the Constitution, one-fifth of the members present can, in either house of Congress, order a vote to be taken by yeas and nays. In representative bodies this method of voting is very useful, especially where the proceedings are published, as it enables the people to know how their representatives voted on important measures.
    Since Robert’s says that this method of voting is useful primarily in representative assemblies (like Dayton BOE) to let people know how representatives voted, the spirit of Robert’s, it may be argued, is that representatives in small bodies like Dayton BOE ought to be permitted to comment briefly on their votes.  There is no specific prohibition to this practice that I can find.  Unless I can locate a specific prohibition, Lacey’s contention that commentary on a yea-or-nay vote is improper is clearly arguable.

    Moreover, there is precedence in Dayton.  For example, in the historic city commission vote in favor of equal rights for all gender orientations, each commissioner was afforded time to explain her/his position.  I found Rhine McLin’s comments particularly memorable.  Perhaps Joe Lacey, if he’d been a commissioner, would have cut her short by bellowing “point of order”?  An interesting consideration, because then if he’d been commission parliamentarian he could have ruled his own objection valid, as he did in the current case.  Of course, it’s hypothetical; Joe would not have wanted to cut short commentary that was clearly pro-gay rights (he might, however, have interrupted an earlier commissioner who was against the proposal–thus eliminating McLin’s moving remarks en passant).

    The clear question here is whether it’s ethical to allow a partisan to have the ability to impose a parliamentary ruling on a body when there’s a clear conflict of interest.  I am waiting for Joe’s explanation (or, alternatively, his whiny complaining).
     

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  6. David Esrati July 13, 2011 / 10:48 pm

    @Truddick- THANK YOU. Now maybe we can get back to the real issue- and if the public should have had time to examine, validate and weigh in on the matter.
    The BOE are our representatives- not our voice. We should have the chance to discuss these things with them and review them as well.

    I still want to know why the treasurers numbers don’t match the auditors.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  7. Joe Lacey July 14, 2011 / 9:04 am
    Truddick, society has a derisive view of effeminate men.  It’s not my view.

    Per Truddick, “he has insisted that board minutes be word-for-word transcripts of the proceedings”.  I never said that.  That statement is a lie.  I asked the board if we could submit written transcripts of any speech at a meeting for the record and the board agreed to that.  The practice is not Robert’s rules but it is board practice by agreement and board agreements supercede Robert’s rules for our board.
    I did say to the chair that I had a point of order and the chair recognized me.
    Closure of discussion does not require a two thirds vote if it is closed without objection.  Discussion was already closed without objection and voting had already begun.
    I didn’t impose a rule on the meeting.  I pointed out a rule.  Any board member can do that.  Any member can bring forward a point of parliamentary procedure as I did.  I was not acting in any official capacity at that meeting other than as a board member.
    The public has had time to weigh in on the matter since it was brought up at our June 14 board meeting.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  8. David Lauri July 15, 2011 / 2:14 pm
    The bullying of men, gay and perceived as gay, by mocking their effeminacy never ceases. June Thomas of Slate.com’s XXfactor called professional homosexual activist Dan Savage out yesterday for bullying Michele Bachmann’s ex-gay* counselor husband Marcus Bachmann in a post entitled, “Dan Savage, Bully“:

    This week, though, [Savage’s] podcast started with an attack on Marcus Bachmann’s masculinity. After a short preamble about the accuracy of gaydar (with a scientific citation, no less), Savage—whom I respect tremendously—played a tape of Michele’s husband’s speaking voice. Bachmann has a tiny bit of a lisp—though it’s barely perceptible—and he slurs his words slightly. To Savage’s ears, it was a gay accent. Savage played the tape over and over, and reprised it several times throughout the podcast. He even did his own Bachmann impression, exaggerating the lisp and camping it up.

     
    David Esrati, with his vitriolic use of the homophobic word “screaming” has Dan Savage as company. Whether you think that’s a good thing depends, I guess, on your view of Dan Savage.
     
    *Marcus Bachmann is not ex-gay himself (at least not openly so) but does offer, as Thomas terms it, ” ‘reparative therapy’ to ‘cure’ gay people,” something Thomas finds to be “reprehensible” but not deserving of the horrible anti-gay bullying that folks like Esrati and Savage dish out.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  9. truddick July 15, 2011 / 4:38 pm
    http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/About/FAQ/FAQs.aspx?tagid=1201
    Are detailed minutes required to be taken at a public meeting?

    A public body must keep full and accurate minutes of its meetings, but those minutes do not have to be an exact transcript of every word said. Minutes must be promptly prepared, filed and made available for public inspection. 
    This powerpoint presentation from Dave Yost, Ohio state auditor, confirms that the minutes only need to record motions, seconds, and votes.
    http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/conferences/lgoc/2011PostConference/resources/Resources/Minutes_Forbes.pdf

    I can get more links if you want, but aren’t these definitive?

    You claim the board agreed to this deviation from state recommendations?  Joe, I don’t think you can document that the board ever took a vote on this issue, so if this is the case, you all violated sunshine laws when you decided that your speeches out to be published at board expense–the decision must have been made in closed session.  But I doubt it was ever made by the board at all; I think it was done at your insistence.  So can you document the board vote on this matter?  Even better–want to save the public dollar just a little by getting over yourself?  I’d say that it’s a safe bet that just about nobody but you and your close family really cares if your oratory is preserved.

    As to public notification–I believe there was no BoE meeting on June 14, rather a joint session with city commission.  The board does not publish agendas for meetings beforehand, and joint sessions with commission, unlike regular board meetings, are not televised nor videorecorded.  Moreover, minutes of board meetings (regular or joint) are not published on the web or in other media convenient to the public.  Moreover, as Yvonne Isaacs pointed out, the complete proposal was not even provided to board members until July 1–with the vote taken during the meeting of July 5–giving the general public one holiday weekend to track down and study the proposal if they cared to.

    So let’s summarize: no published agenda, no minutes, no TV or video, by report the only mention at the joint meeting was “here’s a heads-up, this is coming”, the proposal isn’t completed until four days prior to the vote–do you think public notification happens via mind-reading?  Or only to those who, by dumb luck or force of habit, happen to have the time and inclination to attend in person?

    Do I recall that Joe Lacey once sued the BoE over a lack of public notification–despite the fact that public notification in that case was well documented and easy to access, as the records of your deposition clearly demonstrate.  The appearance is that Joe Lacey’s attitude about public notification is based on political expediency–you need very little unless Joe Lacey is running for re-election and looking for a chance to file another lawsuit against other candidates, at which point it doesn’t matter even if it was extensive.  If you don’t like giving that appearance, some consistency would be in order.

    And about closure: you claim that it was done in the absence of objection.  But clearly several board members objected and so demonstrated by continuing to make statements.  In such a case, an impartial parliamentarian would–best practice–note (when asked) that there seemed to be division of the body regarding further discussion and would advise a motion, second, and vote for closure (which, if the two members who you wanted to shut up had opposed, would have failed and discussion would have remained open).  To presume consensus when members are not, by actions, consenting–well, that’s presumptuous.

    Well, you didn’t advise that a vote was in order–you wanted to shut people up (you admitted that’s why you were shouting, above) and you did it, loudly and with the aggression of (borrowing a term from David L.) a bully.  Of course, one might quibble about whether name-calling, as an act of bullying, equates to preventing an elected official from expressing the rationale for an action during a public meeting.  Name-calling, after all, is sticks and stones–not obstructing an attempt to communicate with the public.  

    One more thing that you’re failing to grasp, Joe.  A polite member tries not to interrupt another unless the matter is crucial.  When interrupting, one is supposed to simply say “Point of order (or privilege, or information)” and then wait for the chair’s acknowledgement.  After the objection is duly expressed, the chair is supposed to rule (the chair may consult the parliamentarian for assistance).  If there are objections to the chair’s ruling, the parliamentarian makes the final determination. 
    http://www.sonoma.edu/Senate/Roberts_Simple.html
     Point of Order
    This motion permits a member to draw the chair’s attention to what he/she believes to be an error in procedure or a lack of decorum in debate. The member will rise and say: “I rise to a point of order,” or simply “Point of order.” The chair should recognize the member, who will then state the point of order. The effect is to require the chair to make an immediate ruling on the question involved. The chair will usually give his/her reasons for making the ruling. If the ruling is thought to be wrong, the chair can be challenged.

    So, Joe, again I note that you were out of turn and out of order yourself.  As parliamentarian you don’t act unless the chair or the body calls upon you to do so.  Now, again I note, since you as a member were raising the objection, you could not have been impartial if the chair called on you as parliamentarian–you won’t rule against yourself (note: this assumption rests on my opinion that you are not insane).  If chair ruled against you, you could have objected as a member, then ruled in your own favor as parliamentarian.  So no matter what–YOU WIN!

    Are you so dense as to fail to appreciate the inherent unfairness of having such power vested in one member?  Especially one who seems unenlightened about the intent, application, and practice of parliamentary procedure itself.  You could unilaterally impose a point of order or a point of privilege at any moment in any meeting.  In this case, that’s exactly what you did.

    I recognize the natural tendency to think of yourself as correct, but Joe, look at the evidence!

    Off topic–or maybe not since we seem stuck on GLBT theories and the culture wars–in the wake of the Ohio supreme court decision in the lesbian co-parent custody case, do you and your partner have your legal paperwork in order?  It’s not done out of distrust of your partner but to ensure that the best interests of the child are upheld, since the courts and the legislature so clearly don’t give a rat’s patootie.  (This is another of hundreds of cases where same-sex couples get burdened with expense and complication via denial of secular marriage rights.)  Feel free not to treat that question as rhetorical and not answer it, it is after all your private life.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  10. Ice Bandit July 15, 2011 / 10:03 pm
    …professional homosexual activist Dan Savage…(David Lauri)
     
    …is “professional homosexual activist” what Mr. Savage enters into the box labeled “occupation” when he does his taxes?…

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  11. truddick July 15, 2011 / 11:20 pm
    Another question for D. Lauri:

    Do we consider intent, or is any inferred name-calling considered conclusive evidence?

    If the latter, than you (and Savage) calling people bullies is just more name-calling and you are the pot calling the kettle black.

    I’d like to think that most of us realize that Joe chose not to respond to the primary question, which was “why do you think it was a good idea to give $9 million in tax breaks to a corporation that already doesn’t pay many taxes?”  Now, clearly there are a number of rational and logical reasons for that action–and if we were discussing those reasons then we would probably disagree politely.

    But no, Joe doesn’t provide his reasoning.  In fact, the evidence shows that he thinks explaining things like that to the public is less important than his own misinterpretation of rules of procedure.

    So, in order to evade the main question, Joe glommed onto a word (screaming) that may or may not be interpreted as derogatory, and made that his primary issue.  And David L. was sucked into the evasion.

    Is “screaming” necessarily effeminate?  Consider:

    http://www.yardbarker.com/nba/articles/gun_threat_in_hulk_hogan_wedding_brawl/3797638

    The photographer who crashed Hulk Hogan ‘s wedding screamed, “I’m packing a gun”

    http://fictionfootball.com/2011/04/04/jerome-harrison-suffers-brain-trauma/
    “James Harrison, long known for his violent tackles in which he appears to use his head as a torpedo, suffered severe brain trauma today, not from any number of the violent, rule defying collisions he often initiates, but from a particularly cold version of one of Baskin Robbins’ 31 flavors…. ‘He was yelling and screaming really loud…'”

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090802131308AA6IoBC

    In which Rocky movie does Sylvester Stallone scream the famous “Adrian”?”

    So, if it’s effeminate, then Sly Stallone, NFL “Assassin” Jerome Harrison, and a pistol-packin’ photog at Hulk Hogan’s wedding are all sissy men.  Right?

    Now please quit pretending that you understand semantics and cease the petulant evasion.  We’ve all agreed that Joe was bellowing like a moose, and even if he had been screaming the examples above show that it doesn’t mean he’s effeminate.  Unless you want to go up to Jerome Harrison and make that allegation to his face.

    Incidentally, gays have sometimes accepted the notion that, in same-sex relationships, one partner might be “butch” and the other “swish” or “femme” or “nelly”.  And yes, those terms are all employed as insults by some people, mainly the gap-toothed shirtless gutbuckets who occupy some of the rental properties in my neighborhood (and yet more still in, say, old north Dayton).  But the intent of the speaker ought not be inferred simply through use of the term–otherwise we must conclude similarly that Paul Laurence Dunbar or Sly Stone were racist and anti-black because they used the n-word in their rhymes.  A ridiculous conclusion, no?

    I think that GLBT people–and for that matter straight people–ought to be free to act as “effeminate” as they please.  If acting swish gives you a satisfying sex life with your butch partner, then hooray.  OTOH, if both partners like to be fairly unremarkable in behavior and appearance, then also hooray.  Consider the film “Jeffery” where the lead character and his flame are both pretty mainstream, whereas Patrick Stewart’s character and his partner are both–to borrow another common term–flaming.

    To each his own, vive la difference!

    Now, can anyone here besides David E and myself focus on the procedures and rationale of BoE decision-making?  I’m waiting…

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  12. David Lauri July 16, 2011 / 2:18 pm
    truddick asks me, “Do we consider intent, or is any inferred name-calling considered conclusive evidence?” and then comments, “David L. was sucked into the evasion.”
     
    Put your sarcasm glasses on and then go back and read my post about Dan Savage again. Or scroll back through my earlier comments on this excessively long thread and see what I said about screaming when I wasn’t being sarcastic.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  13. truddick July 17, 2011 / 2:15 pm
    OK, Lauri, thanks for identifying it as sarcasm.  Ice Bandit, it seems, was also unable to detect the tone, suggesting to me that many who did not post a response would also have thought you serious.

    Hm, taken seriously when one intends the opposite–is that better than being thought humorous when one intends to be serious?  Perhaps citizen Lauri has surplus gravitas.  (and no, I intend no sarcasm)  

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  14. David Lauri July 17, 2011 / 8:16 pm
    Can anyone say “vitriolic use of the homophobic word ‘screaming'” with a straight face? I know I can’t.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  15. truddick July 18, 2011 / 8:24 pm
    Well, I can, but then again I was trained as an actor…

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Mark Wasson July 20, 2011 / 1:58 am
    The gay thread is still going on?  Good grief.  I’m gay.  I knew Joe’s gay.  We met a gazillion years ago – I think it was at some fundraiser where I gave $50 to some campaign of his, if I remember correctly.  When I read Esrati’s original “screaming” characterization, it never occurred to me that it was a gay slight.  That said, I watched the video, and I wouldn’t have characterized Joe’s behavior as screaming – maybe it sounded more like screaming in the room.

    Glad to have that resolved.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  17. Joe Lacey July 20, 2011 / 9:09 am
    Mark, if I was not screaming then why does Esrati say that I’m screaming?  Screaming generally means high pitched and gay people are often made fun of for having higher voices.  Esrati also said that I like to get bent over.  I don’t know David Esrati that well but I do know that he likes to throw out personal insults while debating an issue.  Maybe you understand better what David’s characterization of me means and you can explain it to me.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  18. Joe Lacey July 20, 2011 / 9:32 am
    Truddick saw a movie with some gay people in it so he feels qualified to explain us to everyone about six posts above.  I would thank Truddick for posting that it is ok for me to be “nelly” but I doubt this crowd would detect the sarcasm.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  19. Robert Vigh July 20, 2011 / 12:39 pm
    Joe, again with defining words in whichever manner makes you a victim. You just cannot stop. It is possible that you are addicted to making yourself feel victimized. 

    Truddick, debating anything with Joe Lacey seems rather pointless. Ever try to have an argument with someone who will begin changing the meaning of words? It is exhuasting. He is better off sticking with comments like “I doubt this crowd would detect the sarcasm”. Implying that everyone that posts/reads is a moronic bigot <– This last sentence is my best attempt at Joe Lacey logic, I feel like he has victimized me. Ewwwwww, ahhhhhhh…………..it feels good, give me another hit of victimization please!      For the Moronic bigots in the crowd, I went ahead and underlined everything that is sarcasm.

    Joe, for some reason Merriam Webster does not notate that screaming generally means high pitch: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/screaming

    Truddick, this is why debating someone like Joe is exhausting. Because at some point you have to go out and get links and definitions for every single word. And sometimes, you then have to get definitions for the words used to define those words…etc. etc. I mean seriously, follow his logic from above: Screaming = high pitch. High pitch = gay mens voices. Gay men with high pitch voices are ridiculed. Therefore screaming = ridicule of a gay man.  Do you think there is room in there for a reasonable or rationale changing of the mind?!
                  

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  20. Robert Vigh July 20, 2011 / 12:41 pm
    The formatting underline did not work. So, I apologize to anyone that stared and stared before the arrived at these words. :)

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  21. Bubba Jones July 20, 2011 / 2:26 pm
    Robert Vigh – Since you and I are among the more intelligent readers of Esrati.com :), we usually agree 99.9% of the time with each other. This time I’m going to disagree with you and side (somewhat) with Joe Lacy.  First, those that have reviewed the video of the meeting (which I haven’t) have agreed that Joe didn’t “scream” in spite of what DE explicitly said in his post.  Next, men (which Joe is) don’t scream – men yell.  Women scream.  Therefore, by using the word “screaming” in his post, DE is implying a more effeminate action.  Add to that the point that DE then went on to say something about Joe getting “bent over” which is another queer reference.  If you or I said that we “got bent over” on some sort of deal, that is akin to saying that we “got f***ed up the a$$” which is an activity normally not associated with heterosexual men.  Finally, DE admitted in an earlier response to DL that he specifically chose his terms for the homosexual aspect of them.
     
    For what it’s worth, I don’t know Joe Lacey but I have met him once when he was out campaigning door to door for a county wide position about 15 years ago.  There was nothing about him that struck me as effeminate at the time.  Plus, I’m pretty sure that he and I both share a common experience of TAHA (Joe should know what the acronym is and it shouldn’t matter to the rest of you).  You have to be tough as nails to have survived that experience so Joe has my respect for that.
     
    But, to pick on Joe for a minute, I don’t think that he ever did really “justify” his vote on this matter which should have really been the crux of the 60+ comments on this post, not an intense discussion of Joe Lacey’s sexual preferences.
     
    Finally – David E – I think to say that Joe voted in favor of this because he’s a UD grad ranks among some of the stupidest stuff that you’ve ever posted on this blog.  It ranks right up there with the time that you insisted that the oil companies were stiffing poor folks because gas prices were lower at the intersection of OH-73 and OH-741 (due to a “gas war” among the stations at that intersection) than they were in your neighborhood.  Sheesh!
     

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. Robert Vigh July 20, 2011 / 4:08 pm
    Bubba, thanks for calling me intelligent, not sure if that will hold up!

    Scream is simply not defined as an effeminate adjective. I posted the definition, yet somehow there is still opinions that this particular word means shrill, high pitch, effeminate or other. Here is the definition for yell:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yell

    Scream and yell are synonyms. You state: “Next, men (which Joe is) don’t scream – men yell.” This is your own definition of the word and has absolutely nothing to do with the real definitions. For example “He screamed like a little girl” is a common saying. If all screams were indicative of “screaming like a little girl” then why would that need to be said? The saying “he screamed” would imply like a little girl. It simply does not, because there is plenty of uses of the word scream(ing)…………including the adjective of “Powerful”.

    So, screaming is an interpretative word, used by DE to define a situation. Was Joe conspicuous? Probably, so screaming is appropriate. Was Joe forceful with his opinion? Probably, so screaming is appropriate. Did Joe have elevated volume? Probably, so screaming is appropriate. So, many readers have commented they do not find screaming effeminate. There are plenty of examples in our culture to support that it is not effeminate. Therefore, I do not feel you can even claim cultural normalcy on this. It is simply Joe and others defining a word as they see fit, whether it is victim addiction or lack of access to a dictionary I cannot say.

    DE, did say to get bent over. His use of a double entendre came late in the conversation after Joe had proven that he likes to self define words and stray from the main topic of discourse. At that point, it is apparent to me, that DE is human and chose to throw a snipe after Joe’s incorrect analysis of word usage. So, was that a snipe, yes. But, getting bent over is about power and force. The statement refers to a sexual act, but it is indeed one of psychological dominance as well. Meaning, it does not always and automatically convey a pleasurable act. David, may be right or wrong at this point of frustration, but either way, it does not change the meaning of the word screaming in the original article. To me it appeared to go something like this:

    JL: You called me gay
    DE: I did not
    JL: You called me gay
    DE: I did not            
    JL: You called me gay
    DE: Fine, you are gay    
    JL: HAHA, I knew it!

    Regarding your final paragraph. Joe voting for this to benefit his alma, that is not so stupid. It requires some assumption, but when you vote to benefit one group over another and that particular group is one that you may seek social favor or standing with………..then I really do not think it is so absurd to make a point of the connection. It may not be the whole reason, but it certainly could be some of the reason. It could also be enough of a reason to not vote, and determine if a clear majority could be reached without his input.
       
    So, the crux of the argument by JL and by yourself is: On the basis of cultural use, regardless of countless examples to the contrary, screaming is and must be RE-defined as en effeminate adjective?

    Bubba, how will we ever argue a topic, when the meaning of words are now no longer defined by their definition, but by each of us individually?    
     

    Well-loved. Brilliant: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  23. David Lauri July 20, 2011 / 4:41 pm
    How ironic that on this day, one of the hottest of the year, hell must surely have frozen over, as I’m finding myself clicking thumbs up on posts by Robert Vigh of all people!

    Well-loved. Brilliant: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  24. Bubba Jones July 20, 2011 / 7:31 pm
    Robert – we’ll just have to agree to disagree.  Don’t worry though, buddy – I still love ya!  (In a “I love you, man… but you can’t have my Bud Light” kind of way, of course! LOL!!)
     
    David L – Hell doesn’t have to freeze over.  I give you a thumbs up probably more than you think!

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  25. David Esrati July 23, 2011 / 8:24 am

    And in case anyone needs a reminder of why GE really doesn’t deserve a tax break:

    G.E.’s net income for the second quarter rose 21 percent, to $3.76 billion, up from $3.11 billion in the period a year earlier.The company reported operating earnings per share — the measure of performance most closely watched by Wall Street analysts — of 34 cents a share, up 17 percent from 29 cents a share in the period a year earlier.The average estimate of analysts, as compiled by Thomson Reuters, was 32 cents a share…

    G.E. has raised its dividend three times in the last year, to an annual level of 60 cents a share.

    via G.E. Profit Exceeds Forecast – NYTimes.com.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  26. truddick July 23, 2011 / 10:54 am
    Yes, Robert.  I appreciate that Joe can’t put together a rational argument.  He’s still stuck on “screaming” as a slur, when the rest of us conclude that it was Esrati at a loss for words and writing the first one he could think of that means “loud”.

    Joe is trying to dodge the real issues here:

    1)  The final document on which the board voted was presented to them just prior to the meeting.
    2)  Evidently this sort of TIF is first supposed to be vetted by a committee with representatives from various local government boards and agencies, and wasn’t.
    3)  Since the proposal wasn’t presented to board members in any complete form until 4 days prior to the meeting (and on a holiday weekend), the public had no opportunity to study it and respond intelliegently.
    4) Joe Lacey is incompetent as a parliamentarian, and he abuses the office to impose his will on the rest of the Board when it suits him.

    I’d like to see Joe’s substantive responses to the above rather than a bunch of “wounded ego” and “you’re not gay” dodges.  A shame that the BoE candidate pool is so shallow; where’s Roger Godsey when we need him? 

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  27. Richard Burks July 30, 2011 / 10:43 am
    Dave, right again on another important issue. I have been in a room when Mr. Lacey goes off the deep end with his rants and rtaves and question why he is even on the Dayton Board of Education. The previous post made an excellent point “too bad the pool of candiates for the Board of Education is so shallow and weak” !

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  28. Joe Lacey August 2, 2011 / 1:39 pm
    Truddick,

    1) and 3) the final document had no substantive difference from the original document presented to the board on June 14 in a board meeting.

    2) if the is supposed to be vetted by a committee first then, fine, you have grounds to nullify it.  Have at it.

    4) I never acted as a parliamentarian in the process of passage of this agreement.
    I’m in no way wounded.  I’m simply pointing out what Esrati is doing in his efforts to personalize a discussion of an issue.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  29. Joe Lacey August 2, 2011 / 1:46 pm
    Mr. Burks, name a time and place where “Mr. Lacey goes off the deep end with his rants and rtaves”.  You can’t because it’s not true.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  30. truddick August 6, 2011 / 12:23 pm
    Lacey: 1) and 3) the final document had no substantive difference from the original document presented to the board on June 14 in a board meeting.

    And so the board members who objected, and the general public, had time to study the final draft and confirm that there were no substantive changes?  Is “substantive” your biased opinion?

    4) I never acted as a parliamentarian in the process of passage of this agreement.

    Joe, you never acted as a competent parliamentarian in the passage of this agreement.  In your office as parliamentarian, you get to rule on orders of business when a challenge is raised.  I appreciate that no one asked your opinion as parliamentarian per se, but that’s a distinction without a difference.  I think it reflects positively on the chair that she didn’t bother asking; why would anyone expect you to overrule yourself?

    This statement is absurd; it’s as silly as if Obama claimed that, during a cabinet meeting, he was not acting as POTUS.  Does the chair stop being chair when making personal comments, debating an issue, or voting?  This is why Ohio should require independent, professionally-trained parliamentarians; there would be no role confusion.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  31. Joe Lacey August 8, 2011 / 8:53 am
    1) and 3)  Yes.  It was written on the document what the two changes were and clearly pointed out to them with arrows, and those two changes weren’t substantive.
    4) Other board members have raised points of order.  That doesn’t make them parliamentarians.  The parliamentarian has no formal role on the Dayton Board of Ed. and is simply elected because that’s what they have done in the past.  The president’s decision on a point of order would not be appealed to the parliamentarian but to the full board.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. truddick August 8, 2011 / 10:18 am
    In short, Joe, because YOU think it’s enough time, the matter is closed.  Yvonne Isaacs claims she didn’t feel she had enough time, but she’s not Joe Lacey, so she did.  Others with similar complaints are, similarly, wrong b/c they’re not Joe Lacey.

    And if you have no function as Parliamentarian, why do you have the title?  Is it an honorific bestowed upon you to mollify you?  Is this an admission that, in your opinion, the Board does not follow parliamentary procedure properly?

    For the record, I am not engaging in this conversation thinking that Joe Lacey will see reason. 

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Richard Burks August 8, 2011 / 10:29 am
    somehow I had missed the response to my earlier comment…I suggest the perhaps Mr. Lacey has forgotten about his ranting and ravings at a Party Meeeting back in 2004 RE. his alleged abuse at the hands of the Dayton Police because he was standing in front of the County Building or Courts building on Third Street collecting signatures for a petition. So indeed ,many of us have been subjected to his irrational behavior. I can not speak to the issue at hand re: the Dayton School Board but only too Mr. Lacey’s behavior pattern. I however do stand by my earlier point that it is a shame that the candidadte pool is so shallow and where there has been a viable, fresh face they often get buried behind the party clones or buried under red tape at the BOE. I would also add, Montgomery County has gotten a real lesson this year on just how that body operates…pathetic!

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  34. Joe Lacey August 8, 2011 / 1:58 pm
    Truddick, the meeting that we are talking about went on for hours before we voted.  Ms. Isaacs had plenty of time to read and ask about the two sentences that I mentioned earlier and to see that they made no real difference to the agreement.  The only change was to add a sentence or two that said that the city would seek help from UD and GE for the district.  There was no guarantee we would get anything and this was made clear to the board members.  It simply added non-binding language to an agreement.  This was not a substantive change or technically any real change at all to the tif agreement and certainly not a reason to vote against it if one was originally inclined to vote for it.

    I am called parliamentarian because my fellow board members voted to make me parliamentarian.  I didn’t ask to be elected parliamentarian and roberts rules doesn’t require an elected parliamentarian.

    Mr. Burks, I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to a party meeting in 2004.  I never collected petition signatures outside the county or courts buildings nor was I ever abused by the Dayton Police.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  35. David Esrati August 8, 2011 / 4:37 pm

    So @Joe Lacey- all this BS- about a simple change:

    The only change was to add a sentence or two that said that the city would seek help from UD and GE for the district.  There was no guarantee we would get anything and this was made clear to the board members.  It simply added non-binding language to an agreement.

    Maybe Yvvone wasn’t pleased in voting for a change that was in your words- “Non-binding” – which doesn’t belong in a contract in the first place. Maybe she wanted time to get substantive language- and she and every tax payer had a right to have the time to fully examine this bs.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  36. Joe Lacey August 9, 2011 / 8:32 am
    Per Esrati, “Maybe Yvvone wasn’t pleased in voting for a change that was in your words- “Non-binding” – which doesn’t belong in a contract in the first place. Maybe she wanted time to get substantive language”.

    No.  Yvonne said why she voted no and that wasn’t it.

    I agree that they shouldn’t have bothered with the non-binding language but that doesn’t make or break the agreement.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  37. truddick August 10, 2011 / 10:43 am
    OK, Joe Lacey was elected Parliamentarian.  And also he was elected School Board member.

    He doesn’t think that being elected parliamentarian means that he has to do that job right.  It’s fair to conclude he has similar low standards for performance in his other elected office.

    Wonder how long it will take Karl Keith to pull Joe aside and suggest that he quit sticking his foot in?  Or is KK not a hands-on mentor? 

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *