USDA

[mom'sfolly]

In the case in Juneau, most of the people who live there are not terribly happy with the principal. They (at least the one's I've talked to) think the principal was wrong in the first place, and wrong to continue it. It cost the town and the district a great deal of money. Juneau is only about 35,000 people, and really didn't need resources diverted to go after a kid with a silly sign, who wasn't on school time or property.

And yes, he was suing under the state constitution, but it was dropped in the settlement.

I'm not touching the whole freedom of religion and healthcare thing. It would flame this conversation into a locked thread.

 

[newchickgal]

It is good to vent about something that bothers you...but if it bothers you that much then do something about it, eh? What good is it doing sitting there yakking on and on about it? I'm not trying to rile anyone up, just aim your 'anger' where it matters. Don't like what's going on in a school, government, city hall, police force and so on? Then go about making changes. IMHO

Now, back to your regular programming...

 

[chickened]

Being a principal in Alaska has it's own challenges... I have a cousin who is a principal in a village town and they usually last less than a year and he willget a bonus and retirement if he stays 2 years or more.

45000.00 settlement is peanuts it most likely went to the lawyers and was paid by the insurance company and negotiated most likely as a "go away" fee for attorney fees.

If the kids were dismissed early to attend the event and went directly to the event instead of being taken home they were still under charge of the school.

In the case in Juneau, most of the people who live there are not terribly happy with the principal. They (at least the one's I've talked to) think the principal was wrong in the first place, and wrong to continue it. It cost the town and the district a great deal of money. Juneau is only about 35,000 people, and really didn't need resources diverted to go after a kid with a silly sign, who wasn't on school time or property.

And yes, he was suing under the state constitution, but it was dropped in the settlement.

I'm not touching the whole freedom of religion and healthcare thing. It would flame this conversation into a locked thread.

 

[gickelvolk]

The "Inspector" had NO BUSINESS intruding on this family's PRIVATE PROPERTY....... The lunch sent with this child was PRIVATE PROPERTY!

When the public allows itself to be subservient to UN-ELECTED bureaucrats, the country has cuckolded the Constitution!

DEMAND an accounting for this! This action was OUTRAGEOUS, UNCALLED FOR, and another vulgar intrusion on the liberties of a citizen's judgment on how best to provide for the nutrition of their child!

WAKE UP AND DEMAND THIS GOVERNMENT BACK OFF OF INTRUDING ON OUR LIBERTIES!

..........

Originally Posted by Matthew3590
If lunch is private property then why do school officials have the right to confiscate phones and other electronic devices?



Because parents allow it.... Like sheep following the Judas Goat..... Without question....

If the parents signed an agreement that those are not allowed, and agree to confiscation as a penalty, and can retrieve the property from the school, then there is no problem.

 

[Mattemma]

Frustrating,but if there are rules in place that the parent agreed too then they should not complain.Don't like it then switch schools or move. We follow so many rules on all levels.If we had a rule would could not deal with say...HOA rules,or public school issues....then we would just move on. That lunch sounded fine. If I were the parent I would pull my child out.

 

[chickened]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

Seems like another case of the blind leading the blind.

Because parents allow it.... Like sheep following the Judas Goat..... Without question....

If the parents signed an agreement that those are not allowed, and agree to confiscation as a penalty, and can retrieve the property from the school, then there is no problem.

 

[KristyHall]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

Seems like another case of the blind leading the blind.

depends on a person's definition of good and evil. morality is relative.

 

[chickened]

It is only relative when you seek man's morality. Which is akin to the fox guarding the henhouse. You can make up your own morality that way which does indeed renders it relative. I am surprised you thinking that way as a native american your ancesters knew there was a greater power than themselves and formed a culture around that belief that indeed formed thier behavior.

depends on a person's definition of good and evil. morality is relative.

 

[cravenchx]

To me the bottom line of this whole situation:
The USDA "representative" had no right to
tell that child her mom had not packed her
a decent lunch, and then given the child
chicken nuggets!

 

[cupman]

yeah, cravenchx, there has been no disagreement on whether it was the right thing to do or not. I think the argument just came down to severity and how we should react. You are right, it is ridiculous and the lady who made the poor judgment should get some kind of reprimand.. I wouldn't say we should fire her without a little bigger picture of what kind of employee she is.

I just have this feeling that we will drive this thread to 30 pages and then we will get the full story and all feel silly for arguing over it.