Print

[Hilary]

D&C story:

Mayor Robert Duffy hasn't scrapped the goal of taking control of the City School District, but said Tuesday that he's willing to "wipe the slate clean" on the planning process.

Duffy, before more than 150 area residents in the Phillis Wheatley Public Library, said he and city leaders will listen more to district parents, students, teachers and officials as the plan moves forward.

"If we could start with a clean slate, and maybe have this community start to be involved in" what this system should look like, Duffy said. "I'd be happy to step back. No more speeches ... and try to organize a process to really define what this should look like."

Duffy's comments came more than 90 minutes into a community forum in which he wrestled with specifics concerning how a mayor-led school district would operate.

His comments also came about 30 minutes after frustrated residents — who have been waiting for months for legislation specifying his plans — began diverging from the written-question format and questioned Duffy directly.

After the meeting, Rochester school board member Willa Powell said: "If you're wiping the slate clean, that means you're taking this mayoral control off the table. Is that what he's saying? If so, I welcome that."

Community activist Howard Eagle, who has been vocal in his opposition to the mayor's plan, said Duffy's statements "came as a surprise" and hoped that the proposed changes would no longer threaten residents' voting rights. Under mayoral control, the school board would be dissolved.

After the meeting, Duffy said he still supports mayoral control, but he wants people to come forward with their best ideas and craft what a new district should look like while the political process in Albany continues at its own pace.

"By the end of the night, we ended in a good place," said Duffy. "We as a community are having a conversation we should have had decades ago."

GMCLENDN@DemocratandChronicle.com

[beanqueen]

I attended this meeting, as did Santosha (didn't get to meet you, but saw you on the news later & recognized you).

Hilary asked me off-line what Duffy meant, and I will try to describe it - Santosha , please add your voice to correct / expand on it.  I, for one, greatly appreciate your insights here in the forum!!!

First, I will say that I arrived feeling duty bound to attend, but gruding -  not wanting to hear the same old Nothing i've heard SEVERAL times already, and promising myself to get home by 8 because NCIS was more appealing. In the end I stayed and didn't make it home til after 9! (so thank goodness for Hulu!).

Second, I will say that the woman who moderated ( I missed her name), a retried RCSD teacher herself, did an excellent job in a difficult situation.  HER classroom was never out of order, and she kept even Howard Eagle in line .

It started out as frustrating same old same old - grad rate unacceptable blah blah blah, with the added frustration that questions were to be submitted written on cards.  Finally a woman stood up and when  recognized, pushed the question on the format - it was NOT a dialogue as advertised. After applause to that, the Madame Moderator more or less alternated between written and viva voce questions, with great diplomacy.

Near the end of the allotted time, Bishop Tillman, and another gentleman, "The Man in the White Shirt", had remarks that seemed to...  I  can't exactly say strike the Mayor, but they coalesced many of the previous remarks:  that the Leaders should sit in the audience and the Parents and Teachers should be up front talking about what they see needs to happen, so that there is input from all on the solutions.   And Duffy seemed surprisingly receptive - I believe he did say 'wipe the slate clean', and at least two people videotaped the evening, though I don't know who they are.

I did leave with the greatest sense so far of a new willing on the Mayors part to work WITH instead of talk AT,   and to plan NOW, instead of always fobbing us off with " have to wait and see what the legislation looks like", and that "wipe the slate clean" -- To ME -- sounded like he is closer to an attitude of "whatever will incite the needed major change and improvement to the schools and outcomes"  ( those quote marks are meant to show paraphrase of concept, they are NOT a direct quote from Duffy)

There is a gathering on the 24th or 25th where several City Council members have said they'd attend, and the Mayor said he is trying to clear a of couple items from his calendar so he can come.  It sounded like that meeting might take the format of "leaders in the pews and parents at the pulpit".

I have an e-mail out and when I get the specifics, I'll post them here.

[Stormin]

Thanks for the update, beanqueen.  It sounds like it was a better controlled forum than the one at the Eisenhart.

Here's my question - - - Was there any semblance of some backing of all of the wonderful accomplishments that are promised with mayoral control?  I have heard nothing substantive on the "how to's" to address the most commonly stated metric, graduation rate.

I also have not heard the mayor say that he disagrees with the superintendent's proposals.  If he endorses the plans, why would they be more apt to get implemented under his leadership than with the school board?  Yes, there are is often a small voting block of two that provide dissent to Mr. Brizard, but his plans have all been endorsed by the majority of the board and are being implemented.

To date, I see no substance.  I am actually worried that the rifts will get wider, making things even more challenging to implement.  Yes, there should be constructive debate.  Yes, there should be collaboration across the various factions.  Yes, we need to have significant change.  A change in governance is not the answer.

I have some ideas on what may transpire.  I don't believe that the mayor, the board, or all of the angry citizens are going to lead us out of this nasty state.  I strongly feel that we are going to see substantive results in the near future.  I sure hope that people can rally around what has begun and drop their individual agendas.  All of the passion for our kids must be mutually invested.  Time will tell - - -

[JandJmom]

Stormin' I think you say some good points.  It could be that the greatest value of this whole exercise will be increased energy which leads toward actually finding ways for the City ad RCSD to work together. ALternatively the greatest harm may come from the incredible divisiveness that is building.

[Hilary]

City Newspaper's take on this: (though they apparently weren't at the forum)

Mayor Bob Duffy is 100 percent committed to his pursuit of control of the city school district. We called to check after a somewhat confusing story in this morning's Democrat and Chronicle, which said that Duffy was "willing to wipe the slate clean on the planning process."

Another confusing quote says that Duffy would be "happy to step back...and try to organize a process to really define what this should look like."

None of that should be interpreted, a spokesman says, as Duffy backing away from mayoral control.

"He's focused more than ever on this," spokesman Gary Walker says. "He's not backing off one iota."

Duffy's remarks reflect a frustration, Walker says, with some of the forums on mayoral control that have been held around the community. The forums are being hijacked, he says, by those with special interests - predominantly the unions - who are shouting down any hope of legitimate discussion on the issue. Duffy wants frank, meaningful interactions with parents, Walker says, and that is being prevented by people committed to "F bombs and food fights."

The administration is just as frustrated as everyone else about the delay in the mayoral control legislation. Albany is preoccupied with its budget crisis, Walker says, and this bill is not lawmakers' top priority at the moment.

------------

And some interesting comments:
city school parent said on May. 05, 2010 at 4:20pm

"Wiping the slate clean" in the context of the mayor's divisive campaign to take over our schools could mean nothing BUT taking the threat against voting for the school board off the table -- unless Mr. Duffy was just making meaningless babble. Very sadly, much of what the mayor said last night was empty and he was utterly incapable of answering the urgently important questions asked -- it was only with skillful and assertive communication skills that parents in the audience were able to force a shift in the format of the mayor's controlled and filtered "dialogue". It was then, when audience members could speak, that the mayor became confused and offered to wipe the slate clean. Let's do it, wipe it -- take attacks against voting rights and community control off the table.
community member said on May. 05, 2010 at 5:10pm:
What's really frustrating is those media outlets WHO WERE NOT THERE (CITY) perpetuating FALSE information about those opposing the mayor's plan. Those who spoke up last night had ties to NO UNION EXCEPT THEIR FAMILIES. CITY NEWSPAPER: please stop collaborating with other media power players and start doing your own job with some (just some!) amount of journalistic integrity.

Willa Powell said on May. 05, 2010 at 9:20pm

I was at that meeting. There were no F Bombs. No food fights. One should seriously question an administration (and its agenda) that lets its chief spokesman make such statements, even when used as hyperbole. BeWhen did it become so acceptable

What I did see was a moderator flipping through the questions (looking for softballs to throw?) in full view of an audience that wasn't hearing any of their questions getting read. No wonder they finally got fed up and revolted against the format.

My question for example: Mr. Mayor, you repeat Mayor Bloomberg's assertion that the NYC 4-year graduation rate is 62% every chance you get, saying we could do better. But the NY State Department of Education website says the NYC graduation rate is 46% - same as ours. Aren't you concerned that reliance on this talking point hurts your credibility?

My second question (after the mayor spoke at length about extended hours and after-school use of facilities): How is it that you think as mayor, we should keep the schools open for after school, weekend and vacations, when the Recreation Centers (many of them physically co-located with our schools) were closed early every night during Spring Break? Its not like our kids all went to Disney World. Where would the money come from to pay for those extended hours?

StayTogether said on May. 06, 2010 at 12:07am

Gary Walker is definitely going to eat his words as the full tape of the discussion will probably be released shortly and people will be to see that there were no F-bombs or food fights. Even Duffy said he thought the discussion was healthy. I wonder why his administration is now retracting the day after. I guess Duffy can keep his cool better than Gary Walker. I was at the last two forums. I had my hand raised both times. I submitted my question by the card. Many people know I'm against mayoral control. Of course, I was never called on and my question wasn't read. The censorship continues.

[SKuykendall]

I think Willa Powell's comment that "there were no F bombs" is slightly inaccurate. I had to turn around and ask the woman behind me to watch her language, because she said, in a very loud voice, in response to an unmemorable remark from Duffy, "I'm ****ing DONE!" 

(My daughter was with me -- and several other people had elementary-school kids with them.  I was rather put off by the fact that Duffy's opponents couldn't express their concern for city schoolchildren without swearing in front of city schoolchildren.  I don't think people would imagine that the best way to defend the interests of Brighton schoolchildren would be to yell "****" at Brighton leaders in front of Brighton schoolchildren, so it seemed a bit elitist to imagine that city parents welcomed such interventions on behalf of our children.  And odd that Students for a Democratic Society, a group that insisted on calling one another "comrade," should engage in that sort of elitism.)

Willa Powell was sitting immediately in front of me, so it's hard to imagine that she didn't hear the swearing that I heard -- but maybe she was only paying attention to people who had been recognized by the moderator and wasn't aware of the people who were just lobbing swear words from the peanut gallery.

It was the usual thing -- the opposition to the mayor was so bizarre and inappropriate that it made me want to support the mayor, even though I actually agree with everyone who says there are not enough particulars in the plan.  But if I had to chose, I'd prefer to entrust my child's education to someone who is capable of speaking rationally.

The man in the white shirt did indeed make a wonderful speech to the effect that parents need more of a voice and the elected officials should come together and listen to what we need and want and worry about.  He was sitting next to me throughout the meeting, but I didn't get his name.  He also said that parents needed a forum for our issues.  Beanqueen and I should have been passing out fliers.

And, yes, it sounded to me like Duffy was prepared to scrap the whole thing at the end of the evening when he talked about "wiping the slate clean."  Maybe he was just tired of being yelled at by Howard Eagle and childless twenty-somethings in mohawks, though.  But, yes, I don't think the papers were wrong to suggest that it sounded like Duffy was giving up on the whole idea.

Frankly, I didn't know who to be upset with as I drove home.  Duffy didn't do a rock-solid job of providing information when given written questions from parents, but there were a lot of people at the forum who weren't parents and just seemed to be there because they enjoyed hassling authority figures, so a lot of time was taken up with questions that city-school parents probably wouldn't have wanted to ask, anyway. 

If I had a magic wand, I'd make Duffy understand that he needs to provide concrete proposals -- and make young comrades understand that, if you must swear at people while opposing educational elitism, maybe you should get into your car and drive out to the Pittsford school board in order to do so.

Santosha

[Howard Eagle]

Dear Ms. Santosha,

I don’t recall you posting anything here during the most recent local election “season” (this past November) --- when a member of the Rochester Board of Education (not only dropped a so-called F-bomb at a Board meeting, but added a “mother” in front of it). This was done in earshot of constituents and the media --- so that potentially, all 33,000 of our students were exposed.

Shortly after this happened (within days) the same Mayor that you “want to support” came out publicly and declared his continued, unconditional backing of the MF-bomb-dropping Board member, and even attempted to rationalize the person’s actions by suggesting that use of thoroughly inappropriate language, especially under the specific circumstances, resulted from her “passion for children.”

Perhaps you did write a blog about this situation, and maybe I just missed it.

It seems that you heard quite a bit during the Forum at Phillis Wheatley. I don’t suppose you overheard one of the African American members of Duffy’s Administration when he dropped an N-bomb during the Forum did you? That’s right --- the Ni-double-g-er - bomb. Well, after all, you couldn’t have been expected to hear everything, but indeed, it did happen.

I don’t condone dropping F-bombs, N-bombs, or any other kind of so-called “bombs,” but as it relates to calling a-spade-a-spade, I do believe unequivocally, vehemently in consistency, as opposed to selectivity. There must be one, equitable standard. As the late Malik El-Shabazz was fond of saying: “It’s either this or that.” It can’t be both. Either we admonish everyone for dropping so-called bombs, or we admonish no one --- period.

By the way, I’m certain you recall that I was seated at the back of the room at Phillis Wheatley. Unlike Duffy, I did not have a microphone. Thus, unless I had “yelled at” him --- it would likely have been impossible for the Mayor to hear me. With regard to this critically important issue, we all have a right to be heard, don’t we?

Lastly, it would be much appreciated if you would let your partner, so-called “bean- queen” know that by posting baseless, derogatory, defamatory comments about me in this very public forum --- she and you are in fact out of “line,” especially since I don’t know either of you, and it’s very doubtful that you know anything about me (other than what you may have heard from God knows who). Since you are obviously interested in my activities, perhaps the next time that we are in the same room, you might have the decency and courtesy to introduce yourselves. You can also let Ms. “beanqueen” know that I had no desire nor interest in getting out of “line” at the forum. However, if I had --- it’s very doubtful that “the woman who [so-called] moderated” would have been able to effectively counter.


Peace Be Unto You And Yours,

Howard J. Eagle


Please consider joining us on May 25th. See information below.

The Community Education Task Force Presents:

A panel of Rochester City School District Parents & Students speak to the Community & Invited Guests: Mayor Duffy, City Council, Board of Education, Union Leaders, College Presidents, State Legislators

Dinner to follow discussion

Childcare available

All are welcome

Tuesday, May 25 4:30-7:30 PM

Wilson Foundation Academy

200 Genesee Street

THE EXPERTS SPEAK:

Parent’s & Student’s Perspective on Mayoral Control

http://stopmayoralcontrol.rocus.org

Hosted by the Student Government Association of Wilson Foundation Academy

[SKuykendall]

Mr. Eagle,

I did comment on Ms. Elliot's language during the primary.  At some length.  I'm afraid you did indeed miss it.

I didn't hear members of Duffy's administration using the language you mention.  Perhaps, again, this was because I was sitting in the middle of the room, where people around me were swearing at Duffy in the hearing of my elementary-school-aged child and I was a bit preoccupied with trying to make that stop.  If I am understanding you correctly, there was an African-American member of Duffy's administration sitting in the back of the room, tossing off racist slurs?  I certainly hope you asked him to stop and pointed out to him that (presumably) you or some of your friends had brought your children with you to see how decisions concerning their schools were being made -- and I would further suggest that you write to Duffy about the incident and ask him to take the matter up with the person in question.

My point is this -- forums about city schools should be about city schools, not questions of what might have happened when people who are neither RCSD students nor parents tried to attend a speech the night before.  (I don't show up at meetings about sanitation or streetlights and complain that my daughter's bus ride takes too long.  I don't expect people who are upset at the mayor about something unrelated to the schools to show up at school-related forums and insist that we discuss that instead of the schools.)

I also think that forums about city schools should be conducted in a manner that does not make them questionable venues for the very children who attend city schools.  After all, it's kind of silly to ban kids from these events because those who are concerned with their welfare don't want to inconvenience themselves by using appropriate language while expressing concern.


Santosha

[Howard Eagle]

Ms. Santosha,

It appears that all comments written here are eventually archived. So, I will search for your “comments on Ms. Elliott’s language during the primary.” I’m very interested in seeing whether or not you  utilized the same literary “whip” in Ms. Elliot’s case, that you used in the case of  “people around [you] swearing at Duffy” during the forum at Phillis Wheatley. If I am unable to locate your previous submission regarding Ms. Elliott, perhaps you would be willing to forward a link to it’s location.

I must point out that in your original comments above regarding the Phillis Wheatley forum, you wrote that it was one “woman” sitting behind you who was swearing. In your  latter submission above, you wrote that “people around [you were] swearing at Duffy.” So, did the swearing come from one “woman” or from “people”?  I realize that in a sense, it doesn’t really matter. However, I guess it’s just one of my idiosyncratic beliefs that (as part of sound, credible, non-manipulative, non-exaggerated scholarship) ---  accuracy is important, especially as it relates to forums as public as this one.

Speaking of exaggerated and potentially manipulative scholarship --- I did not write that “there was an African American [no dash (-) between African and American --- because a dash implies disjointedness] member of Duffy’s Administration sitting in the back of the room, tossing off racist slurs.” That’s your statement --- not mine. What I wrote is that “one of the African American members of Duffy’s Administration dropped an N-bomb during the forum, which is a fact. However, there are clear and important differences between your latter quote and mine.

You may not, and apparently do not realize it, but there is definitely a connection between the Phillis Wheatley “forum about city schools” and the “question of what [definitely, as opposed to] might have happened when people who ARE [in some cases] RCSD students tried to attend a [State of the City] Speech [by Mayor Duffy] the night before.” The latter fact is bolstered by the following May 4, 2010 (the day after Duffy’s State of the City Speech and the day of the Phillis Wheatley forum) D&C headline:

Democrat and Chronicle
Duffy defends school plan
Brian Sharp • Staff writer • May 4, 2010
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20100504/NEWS01/5040330/Duffy-defends-school-plan&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL

If you click on the link above, and read the article, you might be surprised that the opening sentence is: “Mayor Robert Duffy used his State of the City address Monday evening to lay out his most extensive defense yet for mayoral control of city schools.” So, you see, the discussion about mayoral control is not (as you seem to believe) occurring in a vacuum or bubble.

While you and I, and many others, are focused on the children --- for some, including, if you don’t know --- the Mayor whom you “want to support”  --- this whole thing, i.e., the whole concept of mayoral control is all about the POLITICS OF EDUCATION AND MONEY. --- period. So that, while Duffy, Morelle, Gantt (all of whom are politicians) and others are charging (based on our disagreement with them) that we don’t have children’s best interest at heart --- they are in fact the ones who are continuing to play politics with the lives and futures of our children, which has always been the case, and which is one of the main reasons why we have not been able to produce the widespread, fundamental change and improvement that children and families so richly deserve. I think this (playing politics) became obvious during the forum. For example, Duffy’s indecisiveness about whether or not he is willing to “wipe the slate clean” and start all over again, and his failure to give parents clear, concise, satisfactory answers to many of their questions = playing politics. As you may recall, one parent became so frustrated with the Mayor’s dog & pony show that she called him out for using rambling rhetoric --- as opposed to answering the question that she had asked.

Clearly, your example concerning “sanitation or street lights and bus rides” is not at all analogous to the ongoing, thoroughly political discussion of mayoral control and the politics of education.

Again, to assert that someone showed up at the Phillis Wheatley mayoral control public forum, and “insisted that we discuss [something other than] schools” --- represents manipulative exaggeration (to say the least).

Lastly, with regard to “using appropriate language,” whether at “forums about city schools,” Rochester Board of Education meetings and/or any other public “venue” --- as articulated above, I support that --- period.

I find it to be most  interesting that apparently, the same Mayor that you “want to support,” apparently does condone use (publicly) of inappropriate language, and even served in the role of apologist for it, at least in Ms. Elliott’s case.

In my humble view, the latter point represents, not only a blatant, fundamental contradiction, but also hypocrisy of the highest order. It’s a matter of the Mayor doing what he does best: playing politics. What’s most amazing is how so many fall for his game. I guess that’s why some refer to him as “the charmer.”

Howard J. Eagle

[SKuykendall]

Mr. Eagle,

Let's see -- in answer to your questions:

I heard several people swearing, but only one of them was sitting immediately behind me.  The rest of them were several rows back.

I'm sorry, but I am just not willing to debate the difference between "African American" and "African-American," in the middle of a discussion on mayoral control of the city schools.  But, yes, I stand corrected on the rest of it.  You only accused the aide of using one specific racist slur, and only of using it once.  The fact that the word was used only once does not really alter my suggestion: that you discuss this with the mayor rather than with me, as I don't know the lady or gentleman in question.

And, yes, I am aware that Mayor Duffy defended his plans for mayoral control during the State of the City speech. 

I am just not sure that the question of whether or not a group of people (some percentage of whom might be students in the RCSD) were asked to leave after creating a disruption during the speech is really the central issue when it comes to the question of mayoral control.  (My understanding of the group's grievance was that they were upset about the fact that they were ejected for their behavior -- and not that they were just randomly ejected while politely and quietly listening to the speech.) Certainly, it is hardly what most parents or most students are worrying about.

And, as for the rest of it, I don't agree that Duffy and Gantt are the main culprits when it comes to the question of why widespread fundamental change has not taken place.  Duffy hasn't been in office long enough to account for all the years in which this sort of change has not taken place, among other things.  But I am afraid that we will just have to agree to disagree. 

I am sorry, but I am just not able to spend very many of my evenings fending off accusations that I inserted a hyphen improperly or used a plural when I should have used a singular.  I'm afraid that I also don't have the time or energy to go back into the archives and search for the comments I posted about Cynthia Elliot.  (If they are public, I am afraid I will have to ask you to do this for yourself, if it's something you want to have done.  If they are not public, then I would not have any more access to them than you do.)  I hope you will understand.  My apologies for any misunderstandings that might have arisen from my previous post.

Santosha

[Howard Eagle]

Ms. Santosha,

There is no need to apologize. When I pointed out to you that placing a dash or hyphen (-) between “African” and “American” implies or suggests disjointedness --- I was not expecting a “debate.” In fact, there’s really nothing to debate. I was just sharing a simple, yet important point of information with you --- period.

You seem to believe that the “discussion on mayoral control of city schools” is occurring in a vacuum or bubble, i.e., separate and apart from all else, which is definitely not the case.

With regard to your “suggestion” --- the reason why I didn’t respond to it in my previous correspondence is because it has little value.

I don’t agree with your flawed assertion that “Mayor Duffy defended his plans for mayoral control during the State of the City Speech.” It is impossible to “defend” something that is non-existent . That is to say, with regard to producing significant, widespread, sustainable, fundamental academic change and improvement within the RCSD --- there is not one iota of evidence that Duffy has a coherent, workable “plan,” and if he does, he certainly has not shared it with the general public.

It is interesting (to say the least) that you continue to insist that “some percentage of [the] group of people might be students in the RCSD” --- even after I have assured you that some definitely are RCSD students. Again, your assertion that they “were asked to leave after creating a disruption during the speech” is incorrect (dead wrong). Only one person was asked to leave. Thus, your “understanding of the group’s grievance” is also, necessarily wrong.

Apparently, unlike yourself, I do not profess to have knowledge of “what most parents or most students are worrying about.”

I didn’t write that “Duffy and Gantt are the main culprits when it comes to the question of why widespread, fundamental change has not taken place.” Apparently, that’s your thought or idea --- not mine. What I wrote, and what I stand firmly behind is: “So that, while Duffy, Morelle, Gantt (all of whom are politicians) and others are charging (based on our disagreement with them) that we don’t have children’s best interest at heart --- they are in fact the ones who are continuing to play politics with the lives and futures of our children, which has always been the case, and which is one of the main reasons why we have not been able to produce the widespread, fundamental change and improvement that children and families so richly deserve.” So indeed, we do “disagree.”

With regard to your last paragraph, again, it is not necessary to apologize. I explained myself above regarding the “hyphen,” and yes, using “a plural when [you] should have used a singular” can be very important at times. For example, you wrote above that “a group of people were asked to leave” --- when, in actuality, only one person was asked to leave. So you see, relative to the use of “a plural [vs.] a singular” --- that particular example represents a lot more than a mere technicality. It represents two fundamentally different statements --- one of which is accurate, and the other which is false.

Like yourself, I don’t have a whole lot of time --- so I’ll have to pass on your request for me “to do this for” myself. It’s really not that deep. I’ll just take your word for it. If you happen to come across the “comments” --- perhaps you’ll forward them. If not, don’t worry about it.  I “understand” fully and clearly.

Howard J. Eagle

[CoolGrrl28]

Wow. I was under the impression that we come to this forum because we want to be a part of the solution. We may not always agree on which path to take, but if we can keep our eyes on the prize, all of the city's children will benefit from our collective input. While reading your debate/postings, I had flashbacks of watching my mom and grandmother argue about things at the dinner table. They both wanted the best for me, and I knew that, but it was disturbing to see their stubborn streaks come out, when they really were aiming at the same goal. I hold both of your opinions in high esteem, and can see the waste of time/energy pile up over this foolish banter of semantics. Please, can we put our personal issues aside, and just come to the table and work to help the children of our city schools?!? I'll get the doughnuts, and put the tea on! We are smart, determined, and passionate parents/people who want to see positive changes happen in our schools as of last week! I'm sure we can get this job done, no matter what the mayor or anyone puts in our way! WE WILL SUCCEED!

[Howard Eagle]

I couldn’t agree more. With regard to your invitation --- I look forward to the specifics, i.e., date time place. Just name it, and I’ll be there.

Howard J. Eagle

[CoolGrrl28]

Say, Hilary... will there be an end of the school year in-person FCP forum meeting/gathering like the one that was held at the Little Bakery (I think that was the location, but unfortunately, I was not able to attend)? Or, since there are so many things happening in June, could we make plans to have a potluck meeting in July at someone's home, or at a park? Maybe a beach cookout? Somewhere that our children could safely play nearby, while we chat and brainstorn our great ideas? Maybe we could offer the older tweens/teens to be the sitters for the younger ones, with a movie pass/gift card/etc for payment for their services? I cannot offer the location, but I will offer to bring the tea selection, some doughnuts, and some bubbles for the kids!

[Hilary]

That's a good question ... the end of the year is rushing upon us! I was wondering if we could squeeze in a coffee meeting for those who are free during the day ...

and/or it would be great to have a summer gathering! My family's summer plans are in total flux right now, but maybe we can brainstorm soon ...

(how's that for a wishy-washy answer!)