Re: Moscow teachers

["John Danahy" <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>]

I must, with all due respect, disagree with Lois' suggestion that each side
go to the public to generate support.  With this idea, rational discussion
of the various issues disappears under a wealth of mis-information as each
side attempts to curry public favor.  The "spokesman" will, of course,
present their "side" in the best possible light with as little real
information as possible, while ridiculing the "other side's position" as
much as possible.

A much better solution is the simple but effective process of publishing the
minutes of each session immediately after each session.  Such minutes are,
by Idaho public law, required to be kept and made available to the public.

John

John Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lois Melina" <lmelina@moscow.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:41 PM
Subject: re: Moscow teachers


> This discussion of teacher salaries is interesting, but "salary
> compensation" is only one area of discussion that we are told is being
> discussed, and even then, we don't know the specific areas of disagreement
> on that issue. In addition, there are several other areas of discussion
> where the board and the teachers evidently disagree.
>
> Earlier this week, someone suggested that rather than a referendum on
> contract issues, the public needs to let the board know its wishes. The
> difficulty here is that both sides have agreed not to discuss specific
> proposals publicly. While that's probably a wise move in the early stages
> of negotiations, now that we are facing the possibility of a strike unless
> this impasse is resolved, it might be helpful to the negotiations for both
> the board and the teachers to know where public support is on the issues.
I
> urge the board and the teachers to agree to end the secrecy and put the
> proposals out for the public to evaluate.
>
>
>
>