Comments on: MV board terminates Freshwater's contract

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:12:00 +0000

bigjaf — Freshwater was NOT exonerated for burning that student. The referee ruled that according to the testimony presented the matter of the improper use of the Tesla Coil had been concluded, and thus he concluded “that case was closed.” That is, in this one and only instance the administration told Freshwater to stop doing something (using the Tesla Coil improperly) and he did stop. (Note: if this had been the only grounds for dismissal, John Freshwater would still be teaching in Mount Vernon.)nnThe referee’s ruling regarding the Tesla Coil is by no means an exoneration of Freshwater’s actions. The referee stated that “there was a plausible explanation for how and why the Tesla Coil had been used by John Freshwater,” but plausible does not mean acceptable, nor does it mean the incident was “not true” or “did not happen” as you claim. The allegation was true and John Freshwater did in fact burn that student, which is why the insurance company paid that money.nnThe insurance money is hardly “taxpayer money” as you put it. We the taxpayers will pay something more than we would have if the student had not been burned, but mainly this will come in the form of higher insurance premiums that the MVCS will have to pay. That money along with lawyer’s fees for the administrative hearing and the two court cases that were settled or dismissed will come from the MVCS operating budget, which means it will not be available for other, more worthwhile things (for example summer programs for students that did not take place last year).nnThe administrative hearing was a fiasco in terms of how long it took, which ran up the costs to the MVCS considerably. I followed the hearings pretty closely, and in my opinion Freshwater and his attorney did the most to drag out those proceedings (followed closely by the referee who lost control early on in the hearing). As for the two court cases, one was brought by the family of the burned student against the MVCS (and its administration) and Freshwater. The MVCS settled that matter early on and, once again, Freshwater and his attorney are to blame for dragging that out to ridiculous lengths. The other court case was brought by Freshwater against the BOE, and that was dismissed “with prejudice” after a number of rulings by the judge that went against Freshwater and his attorney. (FYI: according to the online ‘Lectric Law Library, “dismissal with prejudice” means the “case (was) dismissed for good reason and the plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim.” In other words the judge told Freshwater: why have you been wasting my time and please don’t bother me anymore.)nnFreshwater is “0 for 3″ in terms of hearings and court cases. If this were me and all this was based on “something that did not happen” as you put it, I would not settle until my name had been cleared. No, it’s pretty clear that John Freshwater was insubordinate, and, therefore, he deserved to be terminated. Contrary to your claim, it is also clear that John Freshwater burned a student in his class. Why you choose to ignore the facts is beyond me.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:39:00 +0000

That is NOT accurate! The referee said he was not ruling on the Tesla Coil incident because he was considering it handeled by the administration. he did NOT exonerate him as you claim!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:31:00 +0000

MR. FRESHWATER WOULD LEAD OUR STUDENTS TO BEILIVE THAT ; A WOMAN GOT A RIB FROM A MAN THEN HAD ACONVERSATION WITH A TALKING SNAKE WHO CONVINCED HER TO EAT AN APPLE CAUSING ALL MANS PROBLEMS RESULTING IN A FLOOD SO NOAH IS EVERYBODYS FATHER MAKES SENSE TO ME.WHAT A WASTE OF A MILLON $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:10:00 +0000

LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT; AWOMAN GETS A RIB FROM A MAN THEN LETS A TALKING SNAKE TELL HER TO EAT AN APPLE REASULTING IN A FLOOD AND NOW A MAN NAMED NOAH IS THE FATHER OF ALL OF US? MAKES COMPLETE SENSE TO Mr. FRESHWATER ( NOT ME )

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:28:00 +0000

It really wasn’t a religion matter…it was an insubordination case….the school district and school board was stupid enough to allow Freshwater and his cronies to turn it into a religious matter.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:25:00 +0000

Schools are not babysitters, they are institutions for education. If there is lawlessness in the students look no further than the parents and family. It is their responsibility and theirs alone for the actions and behavior of their children. Stop sugar coating it and deflecting blame from where it ALL should be…..PARENTS.nnMore humans have historically and continue to be killed, persecuted and harmed because of religion. Anyone who can’t see that is in complete and total denial.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:59:00 +0000

he_said_what: Freshwater was exonerated by the referee of the allegations that he burned a cross on a student’s arm. So the referee did not rule totally in favor of the school board as you claim. But the school board’s insurance company paid a half million dollars to the boy’s family. So the family got money for something the referee ruled as not true. Great way to use our taxpayer money. By the way, I do work and as the owner of a small business I would make darn sure of the facts before spending that kind of money on something that did not happen.

By: Miriam StJean

Miriam StJean — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:47:00 +0000

Mr. Thompson’s record might be clean – but his actions speak louder than his words – his bias is obvious – even when given the proof that Mr. Freshwater violated the Establishment Clause, even given the proof that Mr. Freshwater is a proven liar who has been sanctioned by the Federal Court by imposing a fine of $28k against him for his lies, even given proof that Freshwater is defiant and insubordinate, even given proof that Mr. Freshwater interjected his fundamentalist beliefs into his science classroom, Mr. Thompson voted against Mr. Freshwater’s termination.nnMr. Thompson needs to have have his status as a Board Member terminated at the next possible moment – he obviously doesn’t have the best interests of Mount Vernon in mind, but his own ideological beliefs.nnThat’s inexcusable.

By: Miriam StJean

Miriam StJean — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:41:00 +0000

Mr. Thompson’s “personal record”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:15:00 +0000

abckls — Here is your logic in a nut shell:nn exposing someone to religion = lawfulnessnn restricting someone’s religious experiences = lawlessnessnnHow you reached these conclusions is a mystery. What about the clergy members (not just Catholic priests, by the way) being exposed as pedophiles? What about the many fine, upstanding citizens who identify themselves as agnostics or atheists?nnJust because someone is religious, that does not make them law-abiding. Heck, being “religious” does not even mean they are capable of doing the correct thing such as recusing themselves from a matter when they obviously should do so. (By the way, thanks to JstListening, Adam Gilson, and M_Baker for supporting my earlier comment; I knew I did not need to respond to wgwll personally.)nnLet’s not even raise the thorny question of who would get to decide which religious views to present in the classroom. I just bring this up to give you something else to contemplate. That is, how would you like it if your child’s teacher was a Muslim, or a Roman Catholic, or a Buddhist, or a ______________ (fill in the blank), and he or she started bringing their personal faith into the lessons? (Note: I am assuming you would take exception to one of those faiths/denominations, but I doubt if I am wrong in making such an assumption. If I am, well then good for you. However, my point is still valid.)nnFinally, science is not religion. Please educate yourself on this point. The most important difference is this: science follows a methodology that determines: 1) what is capable of being studied; 2) how one carries out such studies; 3) how results of studies are reported; and 4) how other scientists can then try to repeat such studies to either confirm or deny the results.nnOn the other hand there is religion, which is ultimately a matter of faith in the existence of a supernatural being whose very existence is (by definition) incapable of being addressed by scientific study.