Report on the news that matters to your community and don't let us miss a beat. Send in your stories and photos.
My Recent Comments
One final question, Ms. Burke:
You say that the Education Action Network copied a misquote from Anita Christy's Gilbert Watch, where you were misquoted as saying, "We can do without the 17.9 million and still maintain a quality education."
Just how did Ms. Christy misquote you? What did you actually say? And in what forum did you say it?2 days ago
mjncpa, you might hav noticed that Patterson's column is about the media.
And, like the good Foxophile you are, you conflate a real scandal -- the IRS horrible, possibly criminal behavior with the Tea Party groups -- with the Issa circus that Fox made into a miniseries.
If your claim is true -- that fox has soaring ratings -- then obviously the public has read or seen plenty about Benghazi.
If you're so concerned with the truth about Benghazi, you should be angry that Issa has chosen to question Thomas Pickering behind closed doors, even though Pickering wants to be questioned in a public hearing. I thought your boy Issa was all about the public's right to know.2 days ago
Is there a liberal bias in the media? Yep. Were most of the media slow to cover Benghazi as a "scandal"? Yep.
Is Fox part of the mainstream media? Yep. In fact, Newscorp is the largest media conglomerate in the world. Sound pretty influential to me.
If Fox's viewship is, as mjncpa claims, "soaring," then to argue that the media has suppressed the Benghazi story is a bit disingenuous.
On Fox, it's been a miniseries.
Reality check 1: Fox News ratings are actually dropping this year.
Reality check 2: Stephen Hayes and ABC were dealt a phony email to report. As has been reported by everyone but Fox -- speaking of suppression -- the emails Hayes and ABC used as the basis of their reporting were in fact summaries of emails put together by a Congressional staffer and then leaked to Hayes and ABC, inaccurate summaries it turns out.
Reality check 3: All these emails Issa's loudly been talking about lately, and Fox has been ranting about? Issa's had them for three months.
Reality check 5: While Fox suppresses this news, other outlets have reported that Issa will have one of the authors of the independent commission, Thomas Pickering, testify to Issa's committee. Behind closed doors first. Talk about wanting transparency.
Reality check 6: Fox and other outlets reported that Ambassador Stevens turned down extra security for the consulate in Benghazi twice in the weeks leading up to the terrorist attacks.
Reality check 7: Obama's administration sure does look like it didn't want this to be seen as a "terrorist" attack leading up to the election. But the rest of these so-called "investigations" are dog and pony shows used by Republicans for political purposes only.
We might ask, too, why Republicans voted against increased funding for diplomatic outposts' security.2 days ago
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 days 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?3 days 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.
4 days 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.4 days ago
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 . . .
4 days ago
Oops. 2012 override, not 2011.5 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?5 days ago