“I supported and campaigned for Kaufman and I think we need to give him some time. He was trapped by the working method of BOE. This has been the standard operating model of Dr Fishbein and BOE. They bring in an expert for presentation, and post presentation declare everything is good.
They did exactly that on Monday. They went into a closed session – without a published agenda, breaking OPMA rules, they threatened all board members that the sky will fall if they voted to withdraw the motion, and then came out at public meeting and repeated their scripted presentation. This is their response for EVERY question raised to them. Presentation and then declare themselves GOOD/Winners.
Kaufman did not get enough time to process that information and to respond/put the motion. The BOE really need to adopt same format as the council. They need to discuss difficult topics at woerk session and then vote at the next meeting, so board members get enough time to think through those topics.
You can’t expect Kaufman to become fighters like Knudsen and Sedon on day 1. It probably took them some time too to understand the tricks being played by the majority.”
He was not much of an expert, to say the least. He was stumbling over his words, contradicting himself, and apparently sweating during a polar vortex. He was attempting to fast talk so everyone would think he was right and knowledgeable.
re: “This has been the standard operating model of Dr Fishbein and BOE. They bring in an expert for presentation, and post presentation declare everything is good””
.
This is because Fishbein is either over his head, apathetic, lacking in leadership qualities or all three.
.
He has no vision, no problem solving skills and no guts. He comes off as a burned out tenured teacher, union lifer or government worker – putting in his 9-5, maintaining a low profile and collecting his paycheck.
.
Hugely disappointing.
.
Anonymous, I agree with you about the attorney Jeff Merlino. He was stumbling over his words. This usually happens when you are trying to defend your client with an argument, but you know deep inside that the argument may not be correct.