My Recent Comments

• Ah, Ms. Burk, your explanation becomes curiouser and curiouser . . . So if you told the administration and cabinet that the override should be set at 8 percent, why didn't you mark that motion in a public meeting? But at the same time, you believed it had no chance of passing anyway. And your math is curious as well: You believe that a 49 percent turnout means that "49 percent of the Gilbert district got off the couch to go out and vote NO . . ." As you might say any sixth grader knows math better than that, because by your thinking, there was a 100 percent turnout. Come on, Ms. Burk, I want to give you credit for being smarter than that.
  3 hours ago
• Actually, Ms. Burke, it's a conjunction. You continue to claim you haven't changed your mind about the override. Thus, are you saying that if last year's override had been for 8% -- the figure you support currently -- you would've supported it then? If not, is your reasoning that last year was not a good year for the override? And if so, what has changed in the last six months to make you believe differently?
  12 hours ago
• Well, Ms. Burk, it's been quite the back and forth here. Two final things: 1. You haven't shown how Option C was not for 2013, even though your fellow members certainly believed it was. 2. You haven't explained your change in thinking about the override. And if you want to lecture me about English, please make sure your grammar and sentence structure are correct when you do so.
  20 hours ago
• And Ms. Burk, I do hope your health problems are behind you. The job you and the others do on the Board -- without pay -- are often thankless jobs requiring far too many hours. Regardless whether I disagree with you, I applaud your willingness to do that job.
  Yesterday
• So, Ms. Burk, A. A site you have been on, a site that supports you, misquotes you. So you didn't say that? And since you have your own page on that site, why didn't you correct the misquote? Do you believe it's a credible site? If you don't, why do you have your own page on it? B. Since Option C was not for the upcoming school year, why even have a vote on it then? And why did Mr. Colvin and Ms. Smith want to consider that? Were they mistaken? C. What changed between November and now to have you believe an override was necessary, particularly since in a recent board meeting you asked fellow members to wait until you learned from the state just how much would be budgeted from them? The percentage is irrelevant, given that in the override election of 2012 you didn't mention the percentage being the key factor. No, Ms. Burk, you have some explaining to do . . .
  Yesterday
• Oops. 2012 override, not 2011.
  2 days ago
• Further, Ms. Burk, unless you're misquoted, I found the following quote from you concerning the 2011 override: "Ms. Burk brought up the issue that an election is coming up in November. There will be a new board in January, so there might be more places to cut. She stated very clearly, “We can do without the $17.9 million and maintain quality education.” Source: The Education Action Network, a site that has always supported your place on the board: Here's the link: http://teach1776.ning.com/group/gilbertschoolboardtaskforce/forum/topics/6-5-2012-gilbert-public-schools-meeting-no-override-no-confidence?xg_source=activity Now, possibly the Education Action Network has misquoted you, though given their continued support of you, that'd be surprising. And equally surprising, given that you have your own page on that site. As you did on a Tea Party Network site, even though in the past you have said you are not part of that movement. So the question stands: What has changed in your view, Ms. Burk? Six months ago, the district could do without the $17.9 million. Today, you call for an 8% override?
  2 days ago
• Not a problem, Ms. Burk: 1. Until 3 days ago, Budget Option C was on the table for this year. Having either attended or watched all the board meetings that included discussion of the three budget options, no one -- including you -- mentioned that Option C was NOT for this year but for the school year 2014-2015. However, in an email to all employees you sent on Friday, May 10, you include the following: "It has come to my attention that there is some anxiety regarding decisions the board has made and therefore I would like to provide some reassurances. I will begin with budget option C. Budget option C is a snapshot of the possible cuts that may need to be made for the 2014-2015 school year based upon the failure of the override. Budget option C does not involve returning money to the State or giving back money we have been offered by the State. It would mean not collecting that tax amount from the local Gilbert taxpayers. Regardless, I do not see budget C passing a majority vote this June. However, I did want to clear up any factual misunderstandings that may have occurred." That was news to everyone who has attended or watched any of the board meetings over the last several months. Further, at least Ms. Smith and Mr. Colvin believed Option C was for this year, given that they wanted to continue to pursue it for the 2013-2014. If in fact Option C was never for 2013-2014, Ms. Burk, you wouldn't have had to call for a vote Wednesday that took Option C off the discussion for this year. 2. In an email to GPS employees on Tuesday of this week, you told them the following: "After careful review of the District finances, I believe that it is time to ask that the governing board meet and discuss the possibility of adopting a resolution to place an 8% M&O override request on the ballot for the November 5th, 2013 election." You have been on the board for a few years, Ms. Burk and had adequate time to review the budget. As you quote yourself above, you would rather see "cuts in other areas and still maintain quality education." Now, less than six months after the override failed, you want a special election -- costly to the voters -- to have another override. What -- after your study of the budget -- changed over the past six months, from you opposing the override to being the one who calls for an override? What did you discover in your careful study now that you didn't know then?
  2 days ago
• Very simple, VofReason. If the school's a for-profit (and many are), they can cut costs in teacher salaries (few charters have salary schedules), class sizes, and supplies. Traditional public schools can only carry over a very small percentage of current year funding to the next year. Charters don't have that restriction plus for-profits can skim whatever they can afford to keep after operating expenses. Thus, the profit.
  3 days ago
• What you saw last night was the Tea Party Board in full retreat. Delicious. And Ms. Burk's apparent study wasn't enough to continue the call for an override. I'll be curious to see in the future just what her study showed. Of the three Tea Partiers, she's the slickest, calling her opposition to last year's override a result of her believing it wouldn't pass (any bets on her not wanting it to pass?). Did someone tell her to slow down on the override? Smith and Burk seem a little shell shocked from the opposition they received at last week's meeting. Colvin, however, is at least true to his word. Let's see if he remains the Board's lone voice of Tea Party philosophy in the future.
  3 days ago