Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Julie Feasel Follies (4) -- Is Olentangy's Julie Feasel above the law?

Originally posted on 4/17/09 -- Jim

She must think so.

It's amazing what you can get with the right public records request. Note the email exhange between Feasel and Jennifer Smith (below). It certainly appears that Feasel is skirting Ohio's sunshine laws by conducting a serial meeting -- you know, polling votes with a nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more.

Feasel is president of a board that has already been in hot water for violating sunshine laws, so she should know better. Maybe she does and doesn't care. You know, power and corruption.

Note:
1. At least one board member (Smith) follows the law, the rest just hold the public in contempt.
2. OFK, How can you still support Feasel in the face of all this? Hmmm.


To: "Julie Wagner Feasel"
Cc: jaheavilin@insight.rr.com
From: "Jennifer Smith"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--=_--0291526e.0291429d.c60a67a8"




Julie,


I have not returned your phone calls soliciting my opinion regarding an upcoming work session, because you made it clear in voicemails that you were - and now have- contacted every other board member and polled them as to whether or not Kathy LaSota should be hired to facilitate a future work session. It is improper to discuss board business outside of public view (properly notified public meetings). This "round robin" voting and discussion is highly improper and there is case law that substantiates that this activity is a violation of ORC 121.22. I will not be party to violating the law.


Jennifer



Julie Wagner Feasel writes:

Jennifer,

I didn't get to make any board calls on Saturday because we spent the day doing graduation and prom stuff so I made my board calls tonight. What I've been asking the other board members is there thoughts on hiring Kathy Lasota for at least one more work session to help us finalize the items we didn't finish on Thursday. So please let me know your thoughts as I would like our next work session to be sooner rather than later and everyone's (sic) schedules will have to be coordinated. Also, I was talking to the other board members about their thoughts and opinions on Thursday's session so I'd like to talk to you about that as well. Finally, I never got to talk to you about your thoughts on the budget subcommittee meeting. I've spoken to Sue, Teri, Mr. Lidle and Becky on their thoughts and I'd like to talk to you as well, specifically about making the budgeting process better next year.

Let me know when a good time to call you will be. I don't have anything on Monday night so I'm open. Or I can call you during my lunch hour noon-1 on Monday.

Julie Wagner Feasel, member
Olentangy School Board
Please note that all e-mail communication to elected officials is public record and maybe viewed by anyone who requests it.

Monday, October 28, 2013

Julie Feasel Follies (2) -- Olentangy School Board in Wonderland

Originally posted on June 5, 2008.

If reelected, Feasel will continue to keep the sunshine from board deliberations. -- Jim



Down is up, and illegal is now confidential. We are now lost in the rabbit hole.

Starting with
Edward Bernays, propagandists have lived by this maxim: Tell a big lie, repeat it over and over, and the masses will accept it as truth. In accordance with this, board has told the big lie and is now in the repeat phase. The question remains: Will the community accept it as fact.

Board member Jen Smith notified the board of a pending sunshine violation, yet the board voted anyway. Why? I assume arrogance. Now the board majority is taking Smith to task in a
letter to the Olentangy Valley News (below). The goal is to repeat the lie until it is believed.

If you want the facts, read the newspaper articles on this issue. The board schemed to violate Ohio sunshine laws, with the smoking gun -- the instructions on how to circumvent state law -- penned by McFerson (as reported on the OVN).

It seems like the board has taken a very Bernaysian turn. Will you believe them?

note: You have to love the implication that board policy trumps state sunshine laws, along with the mention of ethics from one (Dimon) whose own actions caused then-governor Taft to commit ... you guessed it ... ethics violations.


Letter: Smith should not have given confidential info to press

Published: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 11:11 AM EDT

To the Editor:

In the news recently, our fellow board member Jennifer Smith attacked the process the Olentangy School Board is using to hire a new superintendent. As two fellow board members, we feel that these attacks are unwarranted and simply untrue.

Dr. Davis told the members of the Olentangy Board of Education that he would be stepping down due to his illness in a closed executive session. Board President Scott Galloway appointed Vice President Dimon McFerson to lead the search committee. Since three out of the five board members had never participated in a superintendent search, McFerson's background made him the best person to head up this process.

For some reason, Mrs. Smith felt the need to share confidential information discussed in executive session with the press. Mrs. Smith has always voted to go into every executive session the board has had this year, and at no time during any of our executive sessions has she voiced any opinion about why the board should or should not be in executive session. By sharing this executive session information with the press, Mrs. Smith broke the board's governance policies GP 4.1 in the code of ethics, which states "respect the confidentiality of privileged information," and GP 4.2 in the code of covenants, which states "remember that board business at times requires confidentiality, especially in the process involving personnel, land acquisitions, negotiations and the need for security."

Mrs. Smith also told the press that Galloway and McFerson screened the 15 applicants to pick the top five for interviewing -- that is true. What she didn't mention was that she reviewed the same 15 applications herself and picked out five applicants to interview. Ironically, she picked the exact same five candidates that Galloway and McFerson selected. Thus, this process is hardly "rigged" as she told the press it was.

Did the search firm hired to find the best superintendent for Olentangy personally contact potential candidates and talk to them about applying for the position? Absolutely. Did McFerson himself talk to potential candidates about applying for the position? He did. There is no law in Ohio that says these actions cannot be done. That is why the process is called a search. This is done all the time in the business world and in superintendent searches as the great leaders are usually employed. Once candidates apply, their names then become public and the entire board is involved. But until the candidates apply, it is just one person talking to another to get them interested in the position.

Both of us are hopeful that Mrs. Smith will realize she jeopardized the work of the board by discussing confidential information with the press. We also hope she realizes she will get more accomplished through collaboration. She has some good ideas and a passion to improve where improvement is needed. However, she needs to follow the board's governance policies just like every other board member.

Julie Wagner Feasel and Dimon McFersonOlentangy Board of Education members

Copyright © 2008 - Columbus Local News

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Julie Feasel Follies (1) -- Olentangy Levy: Most inane comment from a board member

First published on February 29, 2008. At least the calendar can stretch a month ever now and again. Too bad Feasel can't stretch one simple buck. -- Jim 

Note: Is Feasel the Nancy Pelosi of Olentangy? Hmmm. Something to think about.


Olentangy board member Julie Feasel posted this comment on another
blog:

I just want to point out that Olentangy did make $6 million in cuts to future spending BEFORE even going on the ballot and we continue to look at how we can trim costs. (emphasis added)

Did you get that? The district made cuts to future spending when the issue is this fiscal year and next fiscal year. Is this her idea of cutting costs?

Really, why do I care that they cut projected costs, effective FY2010, when it's FY2009 that has the supposed negative balance (I say supposed as there is no real deficit -- read my previous post)?

Inane!

Just think about it: There are costs that can be cut, yet Feasel and company are waiting until 2010. And, they want to raise your taxes for such nonsense.

This is the logic which guides the district. Amazing!



note: According to Feaselian logic, I am a financial genius and a good steward of my money since I decided not to buy an aircraft carrier in 2010. I cut $1 billion in future spending. Wow!