The likelyhood that board members do not have any money is ludicrous! Who do you think serves on boards?
Here we go again.Lawdy,lawdy.Can't you stop?
"Ludicrous" again.If anything is ludicrous it is to think that on a www forum such terms won't be treated with the contempt they deserve.
There's 9 members I gather.Now 9 new ones.And presumably other candidates.They can't all be rich?I gather it may be $5 million.There's the problem of the members of the old board who voted against.Are they responsible?So more litigation and more costs.Did they exceed their powers knowingly.
Even if they are rich couldn't they have divested themselves of assets.They do that here in some cases.I feel sure the bourgeois of America are as smart as our bourgeois in such anti-spirit-of-the-law matters.
Any chance of an answer to the question c.i. or is "ludicrous" just an admission of don't know.
Who pays if the board members "can't"?Will this lead to more costs which if they "can't" pay now they won't be able to pay then.Are they a carcass with vultures circling around getting weaker as the circle of the pecking order increases in circumference.(A double metaphor-it applies both ways.I could really extend it too but I know how sensitive you all are.)
Come on c.i.-have a go.I'm quite fascinated.Our news gives a very wishy-washy picture of your legal system.
I remember watching Death On A Staircase once and the lawyers were amazing.And that lot in Mailer's Gilmour book were right out of it.Gilmour and the two dead women and the suspect were boring.
DANGER-MEN AT WORK used to be a sign appearing in the comics and in cartoons at regular intervals when I was filling my head up.Perhaps it's stuck in me like Freud said.So it's not really my fault.You'll have to sue Dandy and Beano.
They don't have to be "rich," but in better shape on average than the community at large.
Show me any board member that now lives in poverty.
What a good exercise it would be for a group of potential English Literature students to give them a copy of my last post and maybe a bit of background and invite them to rewrite para 6 with the metaphor milked dry in classic agricultural style.
Quote:They don't have to be "rich," but in better shape on average than the community at large.
Quote:Show me any board member that now lives in poverty.
Come,come c.i.Are you not aware that both of those sentences are meaningless in this and most contexts.
Your assumption that most rich board members will divest themselves of their wealth is laughable at best, ignorant at worst. I have served on boards, and I do not know of any that have divested to protect their assets. "They could," but that's only in your imagination.
Don't make me laugh so much LOL.
thats what BOD insurance is about. It indemnifies the board members in commercial and not-for-profit 501 c3,s etc
farmerman, While serving on boards, all one needs to do is to attach an addendum to their property insurance at very low cost. Some organizations pay for BOD insurance, but not all - some do both.
That just means the Board members can pay because the Board members are a part of THE BOARD MEMBER'S UNION which is piloted by insurance companies just as motorists have arranged for them.
Is that right?
When did the insurance company first hear of the 3 paras.?
Board member's union? Piloted by insurance companes?
The school district < no matter what the present makeup of the board, is responsible for the costs of the past litigation. The judge said so in page 139. The school board voted itself a great deal of distance from ID and , is now left with the bill to pay for the whole thing.
Schoolboards are composed of usually, retired people , those with special agendas, and political junkies , as well as a certain proportion of those who really want to make a difference.
The schoolboard IS, in reality, the republican, form ogf government in action. We elect the board to act as our agents. They are, in effect us. Weve conferred the title upon them by our vote.
Dovers (ID) board was elected under false pretenses. All the IDers were part of a "save our taxmoney at all costs" ticket. They gradually morphed into the ID strategists and certain board members, seeing that this was happening, spoke up about the "taking over of our ed process by a bunch of zealots posing as fiscal reformers"
The reading of the ID statement and casting doubt upon natural selection as "only a theory" was just a first step in tune with the Discovery Institutes "Wedge document". The gradual take over of the biology curriculum was done without ANY support from the professional teachers and administration. In fact the board, now short two memebrs who, by resigning in disgust, could have made it a fight. The court case was a last step in a round about which involved members of the University community, scientific organizatuions, and even NON EVANGELICAL ChURCHES. This entire hoo hah was a coup organized by a group of Evangelical Christians working together with the Discovery Institute to get their nose under the tent. The law suit , and the later realization by the Discovery Institute that the case was pretty much unwinnable in its present form. (The whole issue had very little to do with science, instead it was based upon the issue that ID was RELIGION and not science) We talked about this at some length before the trial but I didnt want to say too much. The Thomas More law center and the Discovery Institue mounted a really dumb defense and , for the most part, to a dispassionate viewer, looked like a bunch of redneck fools.
Apendius has been spouting dross about this entire case but has never evinced that he had even a slightly informed opinion about the case. His opinion that "parents shouldnt be allowed to make decisions in schools " evidences a clear lack of an understanding how public schools work in Pa.
If he can understand that the school board is nothing but a deputy board representing the parents as a whole.AND that the board, as constituted is required to represent the parents wishes on all matters capital and curricular (notwithstanding state policy on performance standards). This ID board failed its mission, it usurped its authority and the parents had no other choice (they did try to draw some state ed board directives in play , but these were vetod by the governors ed cabinet director, who, as of this moment, is not favored to keep her job due to her lack of vertebral ossification) than to bring suit. Nobody had any idea that the voters could be reasoned with to remove these "stealth Evangelicals". So the case went forward as did the election process. The fact that all 8 schoolboard memebers were kicked out doesnt really tell the community feeling. AS Ive seen, the votes were extremely close and the swing vote was the fact that elderly people came out to vote "AGAINST THE WASTEFUL SPENDING THAT THE CASE REPRESENTED"
Is it a repudiation of ID, IMHO-no!. Its a precedent however, and one that will dearly cost the people of Dover. It appears that the decision has split the town closely on idiological grounds. Such grounds have no matter when it comes to teacjhing science. If the people who favored ID will just keep in their minds that nobody is forcing evolution in their churches, so howbout they reciprocate by keeping ID out of school science classes.
Board of Directors Insurance has nothing to do with a Union spendi. Please limit your comments to that which you can comprehend. (Im sure thatll keep you posts brief)
ci, in PA , its part of the Muni and Ed codes that board members (school boards, panning commissions, volunteer firedepartments, township and borough supervisors,) are all covered by BOD insurance policies. They are fairly cheap indeed. People are always threatening to sue some constituted board and its kind of an idle threat cause the insurance carriers who write these products rae usually only about 3 companies and 9Xout of 10 the plaintiff and defendent are covered by the same company.
spendi's imaginatiion runs way ahead of the facts on most issues, but that doesn't surprise me.
Farmerman,
Spendius should be thankful to you and C. I. for setting him straight. However, I was surprised that in your opinion ID was not repudiated. I think the decision by Judge Jones does hold that ID is not science. Below are separate quotes from his decision:
Quote:In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Quote:ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces that we cannot see, replicate, control or test.
There's nothing up there I don't already know except that there's only 3 insurance companies writing these policies and that there are seemingly hundreds of thousands of premium payers whoever actually signs the cheques.For those who don't pay themselves it's a benefit in kind.Part of a package.Part of income really.Is that taxable?I guess, but I think it will be here.
"They are fairly cheap indeed" is hardly the sort of statement to slip past a half-wit scientist without the underestimation involved escaping his attention.
It's more bluster to avoid answering 718 and 721.
Buying D&O insurance is a choice if the organization doesn't provide it. That you would resort to adhominems shows your continued ignorance on the matter.
