dawood (Dale Woodyard)


Comment history

Bond opposition ready for revised plan

78.6% of all stats are made up on the spot.

April 20, 2011 at 10:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

ELECTION CENTRAL: USD 464 bond issue fails by about 100 shy of 2-to-1 margin

My grade schooler no longer attends TES. Bottom line the administration does not care about the children and in my child's case disabled children, nor are they even willing to try to understand and deal with disabilities. If they did care so much they would set up offices in the Mobile Rooms and allow the childeren they care about inside the main building. It is time that people start to see though the blissfull smoke that is blown around.

April 8, 2011 at 8:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

ELECTION CENTRAL: USD 464 bond issue fails by about 100 shy of 2-to-1 margin

You have many interesting theories, however, none are well founded. You ask why one voted no. I throw the question back and ask why didn't more vote yes? The no vote as for myself was based on a distrust of current (not past) administration. Furthermore, I don't feel the plan was sound and had the potential of costing more to fix problems in the future. Many of the no votes came from people who have childeren in the district and have been here for 10 years or less. Seems to me that breaks the mold of what the yes vote likes to paint our side as. A new elementry school does need to be built. Few say that it does not. The problem is the bond and the way the school is operated does not and did not fully focus on the children.

April 7, 2011 at 12:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Signs of opposition


I am not saying move backward. Let us move forward with eyes wide open.

March 29, 2011 at 4:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Signs of opposition


Unlike you, there are too many things, that I cannot trust this administration on, I have had personal dealings with the school. Faith is not enough, I do doubt. Why is it now that childeren are left in out buildings while administration are safe inside brick walls?

March 29, 2011 at 2:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Signs of opposition


I stated earlier that I am not against a new Elementry School, how ever I am against additions to the High School that I view as not needed. Safety is a concern, but why the grand lobby for example? Wouldn't it be better to channel people as they enter the building and not allow a large space for movement once they get passed the entry? I am also concerned about the traffic pattern as proposed at the new Elementry School. As it has been proposed, It would be a huge safety issue for students and parents as children are dropped off and picked up.

Again we agree that new facilities need to be built but why this plan that is so grand and much of it unnessisary. Furthermore, one of the biggest selling points has been safety, I see just as many hazzards with this plan as with what we have now.

March 29, 2011 at 8:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Signs of opposition

I was at the meeting on March 26. It was a good constructive discussion. Dr. Hayden was invited, but was spending time with his family as I understand. I would have liked to have heard from the pro-bond issue folks at the meeting, but none were present, or if they were they did not make themselves known.

There is no need to let this issue upset people. I am against the bond as it is, but not against a new school. For me it is a matter of how it will be done, not should it be done. I do not believe the district is truly looking out for the safety of the children with this bond. All one has to do is observe the proposed traffic pattern to see that safety will take a hit with multiple starts and stops for both busses and private autos during drop off and pick up times.

March 28, 2011 at 12:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Will you be voting in the April 5 election?

Yes I plan to vote on april 5.

March 28, 2011 at 11:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )