Report Inappropriate Comments

The two-time election reject proves only that there are no depths to how far he will reach to try and fool readers.

"Over the next year the number of teachers and buildings they needed to spend this money on, got REDUCED SIGNIFICANTLY! That means there should be a LARGE SURPLUS!"

Lie. The two-time election reject is ignoring student population as a major factor in the school budget -- and as the article above explains [which he clearly did not read in his haste to repeat his lies], the remaining elementary schools had to absorb the students from the schools that closed, and the new middle school structure required additional spending to achieve. There was no possibility, because of these real factors and not the two-time election reject's fevered imagination, for any "large surplus."

"They added new positions to the administration such as 'Asst. Principal of Climate and Culture' and 'Asst. Principal of Teaching and Learning.'"

Lie. These positions were transferred to the consolidated middle schools. They were not new positions.

"The SC reduced their "need" to $40 million in the form of a bond (credit card to be paid back by the taxpayers)."

Lie. Bonds are not part of the operating budget, and are not considered by any reasonable or logical person to be considered operating funds.

"In court discovery they will have to show the attorneys for the City Council every dime they already spent for the last many years. Full disclosure will only work against them for the first time this CENTURY!"

Lie. The school department already publicly discloses its budgets and audits every year.

"[N]ot 'need,' 'want!'"

Lie. If this case proceeds, the school department will show, as the article above explains, that the city is nearly $5 million short in meeting the state law that requires adequate funding for necessary [or "needed"] school operations.

Honest, taxpaying readers should also note how the two-time election reject refers to their decision to support the school improvement bonds: "voters foolishly bought it."

This is not the kind of statement that a credible or reasonable candidate would make. Whether he disagrees with their decision or not [and he has already proven through his repeated and willing behavior that he does not accept the two overwhelming rejections of his pathetic candidacy that voters already provided], voters did not make a foolish decision.

It is only a matter of time before the two-time election reject continues to prove his utter incapacity to understand basic facts and his unlimited ability to disgrace himself.