The New York Giants defeated the New England Patriots 21-17 on Sunday to win Super Bowl XLVI at Indianapolis' Lucas Oil Stadium.
From Fox News
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Sunday, February 05, 2012
A Little More Light On Fredericksen And The Board
Joe,
Thank you for bringing a large portion of the truth to light regarding Fredericksen and the majority of his board. I am not a fan of blogs in general because there tends to be little reasonableness but in this case you have provided a factual account of the situation and a balanced moderation to the posts. It is interesting to see the responses and what the public generally believes. Some of it is close to the truth, some of it contains a hint of the truth, and some of it is simply way off base. In the situation of Fredericksen and the board it is necessary to use this forum because the level of incompetence and collusion among him and the board is too deep to address in other ways.
I found it funny that some people posting assumed that I was writing to defend of Moses and Messick. That's not the bigger purpose here. What Fredericksen has done to them, and what the board has allowed him to do with them, is maybe the worst example, mainly because they are women who stood up to him, but it is much larger than only that situation. If anything, that is a case where eventually Fredericksen and those board members involved will pay, and probably quite literally. Either the State Board will take up the case and assign an administrative law judge to do the fact-finding that the board has refused, the EEOC will enforce an investigation, or it will reach a federal courtroom where those two women then will have subpoena power, and the whole house will tumble down on Fredericksen, Willey, Wright, Fitzgerald, and the others if it hasn’t already.
In that case, the great irony is that the board has chosen to put their eggs in Fredericksen’s basket and their trust in Jeffers’ legal advice. Under the Title VII anti-discrimination law, the board as the employer will have all of the liability and Fredericksen none. They may endorse his incompetence and lying but they will end up accountable. I suppose that is poetic justice. But once that case gets to trial each board member, Fredericksen, and others will also be held personally liable for punitive damages under a Section 1983 claim. Oddly enough, basic incompetence is essentially a legal defense for an attorney so Jeffers will escape while the board goes down.
As that record becomes clearer to the public, people will be even more amazed not only by the details but by the supreme incompetence that will be revealed on behalf Fredericksen, Jeffers, and the board. Those two women wrote to the board through a series of letters and begged and pleaded for the board to appropriately investigate their discrimination complaint, to stop the retaliation, and to seek advice from an actual labor attorney who is current on school and labor law. At one point, Moses and Messick even cited large sections of the EEOC guidance manual for employers on processing and investigating discrimination claims. They begged in about four different letters for the board to handle it so that they would not have to go to outside agencies. The board arrogantly refused. As you know, I don’t write anything to you that I can’t prove through documents. Some of this sequence will be attached below.
As the first view of incredible incompetence let’s stick with a few more examples from their case for now. Who other than Fredericksen, having had a gender discrimination complaint filed against him, would proceed to retaliate by searching computers, then cook up a lie with his only pal Dave White to fire the two complaining women, and then replace them with two male acting substitutes in Middleton and Greenwood? As if that’s not enough, who other than Fredericksen would take those steps and then pay the two men more than the two women he wrongly terminated? Then again, if you need some expert advice on dangerous liaisons and sticky relationships at the board office, who better to have at your side than Middleton?
As for the board, or at least Willey? I told you before that Willey initially wrote a response to Moses and Messick representing a board decision from a board meeting that never occurred and that Willey ordered the board clerk to keep their complaint from the rest of the board. It gets better. When Jeffers finally wrote a letter on behalf of the whole board instead of just Willey acting in cahoots with Fredericksen and Jeffers, he, the attorney, mischaracterized their complaint as sexual harassment instead of gender discrimination. The two women actually had to write back, essentially to the board’s attorney, and explain discrimination law categories for complaint. At that point, Jeffers wrote a new letter for Willey to sign simultaneously thanking them for clarifying their discrimination complaint and refusing to receive it for not following the board’s complaint procedure (enclosed). From there it gets even more amazing.
Moses and Messick then had to write back to Willey (Jeffers by extension) and explain that the board’s discrimination procedure requires that the complaint be filed with either the board’s Title VII or Title IX coordinator or with the supervisor of the alleged discriminator. Guess who were the board’s Title VII and Title IX coordinators? You got it; Moses and Messick. Since Fredericksen was the alleged abuser as superintendent and everyone else reports to him, they had written to his supervisor, which is the board. Jeffers actually wrote another letter for Willey to sign thanking the two women for clarifying and explaining their own policy to them, but then assigning Townsend to investigate, even though she is Fredericksen’s subordinate and under his control (enclosed). The women protested that Townsend was an inappropriate investigator and again provided EEOC guidance and it was at that point that suddenly Jeffers and the board stopped taking their free legal advice, dug in around Fredericksen, and ultimately dismissed their claim without ever conducting an investigation.
So how about Townsend? She also is not clean in this whole thing. Moses and Messick reported directly to her and they made a point to keep her updated and to appeal to her for help. They provided her the same EEOC guidance that the board received. Her initial reaction was that she agreed and would go to Willey. Then, suddenly Fredericksen was in China, because if our school system is failing under his leadership and the board’s governance, it makes sense to dash off to China. The board brought in Townsend to private session to fill in for him while they discussed the complaint. This violates ex parte communication rules for administrative procedures. Moses and Messick raised this concern to the board and from that point on Townsend lost her sense of right and joined the board. She too will be personally liable when this ugly mess makes it to court someday.
For those now anointing Handy in their posts, her integrity perhaps is even more questionable than Townsend’s. Handy observed and was subject to as many of the demeaning gender remarks from Fredericksen as anyone. She complained throughout his four years about his sick array of derogatory statements about women in general, his treatment of women, and his comments about him being privileged as a tall, white man. She sat in the room with him on more than one occasion where he attacked Messick’s gender and age, and when he left the room commented about how awful it was and how she would testify when needed. Instead she was right at the table with Fredericksen at the end as he was creating his Dave White lie for termination.
Not that Fitzgerald needs more for his own indictment but he also was well tuned in to Fredericksen’s treatment of women, if not from firsthand observation than from Townsend (more below). In September and October of 2011, Fitzgerald who was fed up with Frederiscksen’s treatment of female employees personally met with and interviewed four secretaries with whom Fredericksen had regular contact. Two were employees in the central office and two were recently retired. Based on that information in October, 2011 Fitzgerald met personally with Fredericksen and chewed him out for his treatment of women. When the Moses and Messick case broke the very next month and their gender discrimination complaint was filed, Fitzgerald was one of the leading votes in violating the EEOC guidance and ultimately dismissing the complaint without investigation.
And that’s not all for Townsend. Townsend’s family has a lifelong relationship with Fitzgerald. Therefore, it will be no surprise that it was Townsend who personally took over the job creation and special hiring for Fitzgerald’s future son-in-law. It was Townsend who took it upon herself to personally meet with the boy, give him his special job created just for him, let him know they would give him priority for future openings over any other candidates, and authorize the budget adjustment necessary to create a non-budgeted job for him out of thin air. As always, if it’s not true and provable, it doesn’t get shared with you. Enclosed is Townsend’s personal email confirming all of these details. She even makes a cute little joke at the end about making sure he gets paid the right amount so that it doesn’t “open another can of worms! :-)”
For some other examples that shed some broader light on Fredericksen and his board that go way beyond the Moses and Messick case, here’s an extreme case of incompetence. Enclosed is a letter from the State Superintendent to Fredericksen, which Fredericksen actually emailed out to about 20 people. Fredericksen asked about reducing the school week to four days and the State Superintendent wrote back to point out to him that the school system is failing and that perhaps he and the board might spend some time focusing on instruction. It’s remarkable. As if it’s not bad enough to get a letter like that from the State Superintendent, he is actually abnormal enough to email it out. The most damning quote is “it would be incumbent on the local board to review all the research on this topic and ensure themselves that (it) does not shortchange students.” Or, “I am sure you and the local board will consider paramount the instructional needs of the students of Wicomico County when you make your decisions.” Wow, an admonishment from the State Superintendent and he not only doesn’t understand it as such, he circulates it.
Fredericksen’s extremely unusual relationship with Dave White, the union president, has already come up including their very strange trip to Denver where they shared a room and a rental car. If anyone is curious as to why the board was willing to back up his reliance on White when terminating Moses and Messick, despite White’s lack of credibility, it may be worth knowing that Wright was the other person who went on the Denver trip. For another glimpse at this bizarre relationship, Fredericksen met with White and at White’s request, actually agreed to prevent the central office staff from sitting in with principals at employee conferences where the union was present to represent the employee. Some things you just can’t close your eyes to so the administrator union immediately rose up and wrote to Fredericksen demanding that he reverse that decision and allow principals to have management with them in union-led conferences. The enclosed letter to Fredericksen is priceless in that it is about as nicely as you can write “have you completely lost your mind?” Interestingly, if the board wants a second opinion as to whether Fredericksen and White are more credible than Moses and Messick, it would seem that the administrator union has decided. “We recognize the value of representation by the Human Resources Department in such situations and appreciate all they do to protect us when faced with issues in which WCEA is involved.” Perhaps the fact that the superintendent is part of management and not part of the union was not covered at the Denver conference, or maybe that session was during a rental car trip.
Now, to get back to board member ethics let's take an example from the public responses to the blog that people are trying to figure out. That is the case of the employee on leave since September for mismanagement or possible theft of public funds. The situation makes more sense if you understand Willey’s connection. The program is not actually a school fund but a non-profit organization that for some reason the board runs the money through board accounts (but that’s a subject for a separate blog). Willey sits on the organization’s board of directors. The funds were discovered to be mismanaged with some money missing between September and November. The employee case was ready for action in the fall but at the point Willey exerted his influence on Fredericksen and it was pulled and has remained so with the employee on paid leave ever since.
And lastly a Wright story. This one is the situation where she lost it (that’s a theme) with a senior staff member over the decline in the number of field trips to the pumpkin patch at Wright’s family market. While there is certainly no ethics violation for field trips occurring to Wright's Market so long as it is one option for schools among others, her rant was about the decline in trips after Wright's Market had invested so much money into the setup and into adding educational components and how more schools needed to sign up. This is a clear line crossed under a conflict of interest in the Public Ethics Law. So, if Wright resigns it surely won’t be because of the ethics disclosure form.
For now let’s leave the other four board members alone. They still have a chance to try and salvage something of the school system. Let’s give them that chance. Make no mistake, they are not guiltless and they are complicit even if by their inaction. Some may cry in church and others may whisper in stores, but so far none have had the integrity, character, conscience, or will to do something right for the sake of the system. One theme in the blog that I whole-heartedly agree with is that someone should be looking at the end of this process and seeing 14,000 children. Obviously, that isn’t Fredericksen, Townsend, Handy, Willey, Wright, or Fitzgerald. They look around and see each other and I suppose maybe Dave White.
That leaves Elmore, Dodd, Bly, and Chase. Maybe they’ll surprise us and demonstrate a conscience, a sense of responsibility and leadership after all. Maybe they’ll vote no before March 1st. Maybe they’ll call for an external ethics investigation of board members. Maybe they’ll request the State Board to appoint an independent investigator to review the unheard discrimination complaint. Maybe they’ll seek a second opinion from Jeffers’ associated law office or another approved firm. Maybe they’ll write to the legal services administration for local boards of education, which is free, and ask about how to properly process discrimination complaints. Maybe they’ll join the State Superintendent in asking if anyone could spare a few moments from lying, conniving, getting rid of those willing to stand up, getting friends and family jobs, protecting their own interests, and floating stupid ideas, to consider the fact that our school system is one of five in the state designated as a failing school system. Maybe they’ll send an anonymous survey to employees in central office and ask about Fredericksen’s leadership and if they now live in a climate of fear each day. Maybe they’ll sit down with Fredericksen and ask about Minnesota, violations of the PIA (here and there), false statements in affidavits and letters he signed, emails and orders to search computers, and why no one except him and Wright, including the local and state unions, trusts White. Perhaps what happens in Denver, shouldn’t stay in Denver. Perhaps four board members with a chance at saving their own integrity and credibility as well as our school system will rise to the occasion and honor the oath they swore. Perhaps no one will use the lame excuse of an ethics disclosure form in order to escape their sworn responsibilities. A few of them might sleep better at night when they do.
Thank you for bringing a large portion of the truth to light regarding Fredericksen and the majority of his board. I am not a fan of blogs in general because there tends to be little reasonableness but in this case you have provided a factual account of the situation and a balanced moderation to the posts. It is interesting to see the responses and what the public generally believes. Some of it is close to the truth, some of it contains a hint of the truth, and some of it is simply way off base. In the situation of Fredericksen and the board it is necessary to use this forum because the level of incompetence and collusion among him and the board is too deep to address in other ways.
I found it funny that some people posting assumed that I was writing to defend of Moses and Messick. That's not the bigger purpose here. What Fredericksen has done to them, and what the board has allowed him to do with them, is maybe the worst example, mainly because they are women who stood up to him, but it is much larger than only that situation. If anything, that is a case where eventually Fredericksen and those board members involved will pay, and probably quite literally. Either the State Board will take up the case and assign an administrative law judge to do the fact-finding that the board has refused, the EEOC will enforce an investigation, or it will reach a federal courtroom where those two women then will have subpoena power, and the whole house will tumble down on Fredericksen, Willey, Wright, Fitzgerald, and the others if it hasn’t already.
In that case, the great irony is that the board has chosen to put their eggs in Fredericksen’s basket and their trust in Jeffers’ legal advice. Under the Title VII anti-discrimination law, the board as the employer will have all of the liability and Fredericksen none. They may endorse his incompetence and lying but they will end up accountable. I suppose that is poetic justice. But once that case gets to trial each board member, Fredericksen, and others will also be held personally liable for punitive damages under a Section 1983 claim. Oddly enough, basic incompetence is essentially a legal defense for an attorney so Jeffers will escape while the board goes down.
As that record becomes clearer to the public, people will be even more amazed not only by the details but by the supreme incompetence that will be revealed on behalf Fredericksen, Jeffers, and the board. Those two women wrote to the board through a series of letters and begged and pleaded for the board to appropriately investigate their discrimination complaint, to stop the retaliation, and to seek advice from an actual labor attorney who is current on school and labor law. At one point, Moses and Messick even cited large sections of the EEOC guidance manual for employers on processing and investigating discrimination claims. They begged in about four different letters for the board to handle it so that they would not have to go to outside agencies. The board arrogantly refused. As you know, I don’t write anything to you that I can’t prove through documents. Some of this sequence will be attached below.
As the first view of incredible incompetence let’s stick with a few more examples from their case for now. Who other than Fredericksen, having had a gender discrimination complaint filed against him, would proceed to retaliate by searching computers, then cook up a lie with his only pal Dave White to fire the two complaining women, and then replace them with two male acting substitutes in Middleton and Greenwood? As if that’s not enough, who other than Fredericksen would take those steps and then pay the two men more than the two women he wrongly terminated? Then again, if you need some expert advice on dangerous liaisons and sticky relationships at the board office, who better to have at your side than Middleton?
As for the board, or at least Willey? I told you before that Willey initially wrote a response to Moses and Messick representing a board decision from a board meeting that never occurred and that Willey ordered the board clerk to keep their complaint from the rest of the board. It gets better. When Jeffers finally wrote a letter on behalf of the whole board instead of just Willey acting in cahoots with Fredericksen and Jeffers, he, the attorney, mischaracterized their complaint as sexual harassment instead of gender discrimination. The two women actually had to write back, essentially to the board’s attorney, and explain discrimination law categories for complaint. At that point, Jeffers wrote a new letter for Willey to sign simultaneously thanking them for clarifying their discrimination complaint and refusing to receive it for not following the board’s complaint procedure (enclosed). From there it gets even more amazing.
Moses and Messick then had to write back to Willey (Jeffers by extension) and explain that the board’s discrimination procedure requires that the complaint be filed with either the board’s Title VII or Title IX coordinator or with the supervisor of the alleged discriminator. Guess who were the board’s Title VII and Title IX coordinators? You got it; Moses and Messick. Since Fredericksen was the alleged abuser as superintendent and everyone else reports to him, they had written to his supervisor, which is the board. Jeffers actually wrote another letter for Willey to sign thanking the two women for clarifying and explaining their own policy to them, but then assigning Townsend to investigate, even though she is Fredericksen’s subordinate and under his control (enclosed). The women protested that Townsend was an inappropriate investigator and again provided EEOC guidance and it was at that point that suddenly Jeffers and the board stopped taking their free legal advice, dug in around Fredericksen, and ultimately dismissed their claim without ever conducting an investigation.
So how about Townsend? She also is not clean in this whole thing. Moses and Messick reported directly to her and they made a point to keep her updated and to appeal to her for help. They provided her the same EEOC guidance that the board received. Her initial reaction was that she agreed and would go to Willey. Then, suddenly Fredericksen was in China, because if our school system is failing under his leadership and the board’s governance, it makes sense to dash off to China. The board brought in Townsend to private session to fill in for him while they discussed the complaint. This violates ex parte communication rules for administrative procedures. Moses and Messick raised this concern to the board and from that point on Townsend lost her sense of right and joined the board. She too will be personally liable when this ugly mess makes it to court someday.
For those now anointing Handy in their posts, her integrity perhaps is even more questionable than Townsend’s. Handy observed and was subject to as many of the demeaning gender remarks from Fredericksen as anyone. She complained throughout his four years about his sick array of derogatory statements about women in general, his treatment of women, and his comments about him being privileged as a tall, white man. She sat in the room with him on more than one occasion where he attacked Messick’s gender and age, and when he left the room commented about how awful it was and how she would testify when needed. Instead she was right at the table with Fredericksen at the end as he was creating his Dave White lie for termination.
Not that Fitzgerald needs more for his own indictment but he also was well tuned in to Fredericksen’s treatment of women, if not from firsthand observation than from Townsend (more below). In September and October of 2011, Fitzgerald who was fed up with Frederiscksen’s treatment of female employees personally met with and interviewed four secretaries with whom Fredericksen had regular contact. Two were employees in the central office and two were recently retired. Based on that information in October, 2011 Fitzgerald met personally with Fredericksen and chewed him out for his treatment of women. When the Moses and Messick case broke the very next month and their gender discrimination complaint was filed, Fitzgerald was one of the leading votes in violating the EEOC guidance and ultimately dismissing the complaint without investigation.
And that’s not all for Townsend. Townsend’s family has a lifelong relationship with Fitzgerald. Therefore, it will be no surprise that it was Townsend who personally took over the job creation and special hiring for Fitzgerald’s future son-in-law. It was Townsend who took it upon herself to personally meet with the boy, give him his special job created just for him, let him know they would give him priority for future openings over any other candidates, and authorize the budget adjustment necessary to create a non-budgeted job for him out of thin air. As always, if it’s not true and provable, it doesn’t get shared with you. Enclosed is Townsend’s personal email confirming all of these details. She even makes a cute little joke at the end about making sure he gets paid the right amount so that it doesn’t “open another can of worms! :-)”
For some other examples that shed some broader light on Fredericksen and his board that go way beyond the Moses and Messick case, here’s an extreme case of incompetence. Enclosed is a letter from the State Superintendent to Fredericksen, which Fredericksen actually emailed out to about 20 people. Fredericksen asked about reducing the school week to four days and the State Superintendent wrote back to point out to him that the school system is failing and that perhaps he and the board might spend some time focusing on instruction. It’s remarkable. As if it’s not bad enough to get a letter like that from the State Superintendent, he is actually abnormal enough to email it out. The most damning quote is “it would be incumbent on the local board to review all the research on this topic and ensure themselves that (it) does not shortchange students.” Or, “I am sure you and the local board will consider paramount the instructional needs of the students of Wicomico County when you make your decisions.” Wow, an admonishment from the State Superintendent and he not only doesn’t understand it as such, he circulates it.
Fredericksen’s extremely unusual relationship with Dave White, the union president, has already come up including their very strange trip to Denver where they shared a room and a rental car. If anyone is curious as to why the board was willing to back up his reliance on White when terminating Moses and Messick, despite White’s lack of credibility, it may be worth knowing that Wright was the other person who went on the Denver trip. For another glimpse at this bizarre relationship, Fredericksen met with White and at White’s request, actually agreed to prevent the central office staff from sitting in with principals at employee conferences where the union was present to represent the employee. Some things you just can’t close your eyes to so the administrator union immediately rose up and wrote to Fredericksen demanding that he reverse that decision and allow principals to have management with them in union-led conferences. The enclosed letter to Fredericksen is priceless in that it is about as nicely as you can write “have you completely lost your mind?” Interestingly, if the board wants a second opinion as to whether Fredericksen and White are more credible than Moses and Messick, it would seem that the administrator union has decided. “We recognize the value of representation by the Human Resources Department in such situations and appreciate all they do to protect us when faced with issues in which WCEA is involved.” Perhaps the fact that the superintendent is part of management and not part of the union was not covered at the Denver conference, or maybe that session was during a rental car trip.
Now, to get back to board member ethics let's take an example from the public responses to the blog that people are trying to figure out. That is the case of the employee on leave since September for mismanagement or possible theft of public funds. The situation makes more sense if you understand Willey’s connection. The program is not actually a school fund but a non-profit organization that for some reason the board runs the money through board accounts (but that’s a subject for a separate blog). Willey sits on the organization’s board of directors. The funds were discovered to be mismanaged with some money missing between September and November. The employee case was ready for action in the fall but at the point Willey exerted his influence on Fredericksen and it was pulled and has remained so with the employee on paid leave ever since.
And lastly a Wright story. This one is the situation where she lost it (that’s a theme) with a senior staff member over the decline in the number of field trips to the pumpkin patch at Wright’s family market. While there is certainly no ethics violation for field trips occurring to Wright's Market so long as it is one option for schools among others, her rant was about the decline in trips after Wright's Market had invested so much money into the setup and into adding educational components and how more schools needed to sign up. This is a clear line crossed under a conflict of interest in the Public Ethics Law. So, if Wright resigns it surely won’t be because of the ethics disclosure form.
For now let’s leave the other four board members alone. They still have a chance to try and salvage something of the school system. Let’s give them that chance. Make no mistake, they are not guiltless and they are complicit even if by their inaction. Some may cry in church and others may whisper in stores, but so far none have had the integrity, character, conscience, or will to do something right for the sake of the system. One theme in the blog that I whole-heartedly agree with is that someone should be looking at the end of this process and seeing 14,000 children. Obviously, that isn’t Fredericksen, Townsend, Handy, Willey, Wright, or Fitzgerald. They look around and see each other and I suppose maybe Dave White.
That leaves Elmore, Dodd, Bly, and Chase. Maybe they’ll surprise us and demonstrate a conscience, a sense of responsibility and leadership after all. Maybe they’ll vote no before March 1st. Maybe they’ll call for an external ethics investigation of board members. Maybe they’ll request the State Board to appoint an independent investigator to review the unheard discrimination complaint. Maybe they’ll seek a second opinion from Jeffers’ associated law office or another approved firm. Maybe they’ll write to the legal services administration for local boards of education, which is free, and ask about how to properly process discrimination complaints. Maybe they’ll join the State Superintendent in asking if anyone could spare a few moments from lying, conniving, getting rid of those willing to stand up, getting friends and family jobs, protecting their own interests, and floating stupid ideas, to consider the fact that our school system is one of five in the state designated as a failing school system. Maybe they’ll send an anonymous survey to employees in central office and ask about Fredericksen’s leadership and if they now live in a climate of fear each day. Maybe they’ll sit down with Fredericksen and ask about Minnesota, violations of the PIA (here and there), false statements in affidavits and letters he signed, emails and orders to search computers, and why no one except him and Wright, including the local and state unions, trusts White. Perhaps what happens in Denver, shouldn’t stay in Denver. Perhaps four board members with a chance at saving their own integrity and credibility as well as our school system will rise to the occasion and honor the oath they swore. Perhaps no one will use the lame excuse of an ethics disclosure form in order to escape their sworn responsibilities. A few of them might sleep better at night when they do.
Record Days, Outstanding Information
Salisbury News numbers are, to put it mildly, exploding. The local MSM have proven they will say and do just about anything to attempt to discredit me. Hence the TWO articles about a recent fender bender. If you were not aware, they didn't just publish one article about me, they published one that said "Salisbury Blogger" and another one that said, "Delmar Blogger".
Now, here's the major difference between Salisbury News and the Daily Times. For example, the Football Coach we published information about 4 weeks ago, the Daily Times published it, what, yesterday? Yet they have INSIDERS in the BOE and the only reason they put anything out there was because we uncovered it first and too many people challenged them as to why they didn't produce the story.
We have ALL seen them publishing things weeks after we publish them and quite frankly no one can trust them any more, so they're pissed, hence the Editor saying F/U Joe Albero. You have all seen the Sunday Newspaper stands almost full to the top. No one wants to pay $2.00 for OLD NEWS you saw on Salisbury News 4 weeks ago. Then they write stories about the state paying 96% of the total cost of Bennett Middle School and they knew that was complete BS. I could go on and on.
The Daily Times is nothing short of a propaganda newspaper for special interests and Salisbury News is the ONLY news source out there delivering the truth and facts. Salisbury News is also the ONLY news source out there people can trust. Hence ALL of the people/victims coming forward exposing the facts/truth.
Now, if you think I'm done exposing more information on the BOE, well, you'd be seriously mistaken. I have TWO more stories coming out either later today or tomorrow. There is more information coming out than I would have ever thought possible. I even had one person call be about the article we did on the expensive lights on the tennis courts at the High School. Boy were they pissed off. You see, ALL the bickering and fighting that has gone on about Olney and Batemen Road and the fact that the BOE stated they don't have the funding to pay for the reconstruction of that new intersection, yet they want the TAXPAYERS of Salisbury to pay for that intersection and the Board goes out and buys better lights than any of the sports complexes on the Shore. Salisbury Taxpayers got screwed, period.
People are coming forward to Salisbury News because while we have the names and contacts of the authors, while we hold onto documents, (for now) proving what they are saying is factual, people know they can trust me. Our goal is to EDUCATE you with the TRUTH. The BOE and the Daily Times are pissed off because they know we have the audience. They know we now exceed the volume of traffic than ANY other news source on the Shore. They do NOT want this information exposed, yet it is our job to do so, shouldn't it be theirs too. Do we agree with everything we publish, absolutely not. However, is it the truth, absolutely.
All too often people say that Joe Albero will eventually throw you under the bus. Well, I guess if it is the TRUTH, I will. I have a job to do and I have tens of thousands of people visiting this Site each and every day. I may not be the most LIKED individual to some but let me assure you, I am respected and those who claim they do not read Salisbury News, well, they're liars and my numbers prove it.
Mr. Fredericksen, if you think for a second that I don't know about how the Board of Ed is following Salisbury News, you'd be sadly mistaken. If you think I don't know about how you and your people are desperately trying to find out who is leaking such information, let me just tell you this. You're wasting your time because it is MULTIPLE people who do not support you or the Board. You may not like that but one thing is for sure, your next 4 years will be more difficult than you can imagine, IF you get hired again.
IF you or anyone else think Joe Albero is going away, your wrong. This is my job Mr. Fredericksen. I'm sure other Bloggers are making up incredible stories about me and my past. Heck, even the Daily Times used their paper last week trying to make me look like a criminal. They have been doing this to me for 7 years now and guess what, it doesn't bother me. The cover ups need to end. The BOE will EXPEL people for cheating. Maybe its time to EXPEL some of our leaders the same way the Board expels students.
In the mean time, thank you for visiting Salisbury News. Thank You for sharing your opinions. Together we will STOP the internal bickering in different Boards and Council's. More importantly my hope is that we stop the bickering and wrongful termination of those people who were actually doing the honorable thing.
Challengers And Watchers
Maryland law permits properly designated individuals to serve as challengers and watchers during early voting and on election day. Being a challenger or watcher gives the individual access to a specified early voting center or polling place to observe voting activities. There is a tremendous amount of voter fraud in Md!
If you are interested in either designating individuals to serve as challengers or watchers or would like to serve as one, please read the Instructions and Information for Challengers, Watchers, and Other Election Observers (PDF). This manual provides information on who can designate challengers and watchers, the rights of challengers and watchers, and other election observation opportunities. You are also encouraged to review summaries of the tasks performed during opening and closing of voting locations.
Get involved!!!
More
If you are interested in either designating individuals to serve as challengers or watchers or would like to serve as one, please read the Instructions and Information for Challengers, Watchers, and Other Election Observers (PDF). This manual provides information on who can designate challengers and watchers, the rights of challengers and watchers, and other election observation opportunities. You are also encouraged to review summaries of the tasks performed during opening and closing of voting locations.
Get involved!!!
More
Early Voting March 24th
Introducing Early Voting.
Instead of having only one day to vote, now you can choose to vote on any one of six days. Early voting centers will be open 10am to 8pm on March 24, 2012 and
March 26 - March 29, 2012.
On Sunday, March 25, 2012 early voting centers will be open 12pm to 6pm.
Voting is convenient, accessible and on your schedule.
More
Corporatism Is Not The Free Market
The U.S. ceased to be a free market a long time ago
When a front-running presidential contender tells the country that thanks to Barack Obama, “[w]e are only inches away from ceasing to be a free market economy,” one is left scratching one’s head. How refreshing it is, then, to hear a prominent establishment economist—a Nobel laureate yet—tell it straight:More
Sex Turns Off Many Young Japanese Men: Studies
(CBS News) TOKYO -- Call Japan The Incredible Shrinking Country.
Fewer babies mean Japan's population could plunge, by 30 percent in coming decades.
There are many reasons for this demographic freefall. For instance, Japan is all but closed to foreign immigrants.
But young Japanese men are taking some of the blame for Japan's population decline. Studies show young males are apathetic about dating, and disinterested in sex.
More
Fewer babies mean Japan's population could plunge, by 30 percent in coming decades.
There are many reasons for this demographic freefall. For instance, Japan is all but closed to foreign immigrants.
But young Japanese men are taking some of the blame for Japan's population decline. Studies show young males are apathetic about dating, and disinterested in sex.
More
Lawsuit Alleges Another Isolated Incident
According to the complaint, which made its way to Courthouse News yesterday, Cantu, a diesel mechanic, was making his lunch January 22, 2010, when he saw a few cops streaking across his yard. A deafening explosion shook the room as a flash bomb shot through the door. Nearly 20 officers crashed in.
“Get on the ground!” they allegedly ordered him. Cantu, according to the complaint, obliged and was zipcuffed. Inexplicably, the filing claims, the officers kicked and punched him until he was unconscious, lying in a pool of his own blood on the kitchen floor. Meanwhile, they searched his house and allegedly didn’t find what they were after. Cantu’s alleged butcher’s bill: a broken orbital bone, a broken nose, a concussion, traumatic brain injury, a loss of vision in his left eye and loss of hearing in his left ear. According to his complaint, the “injuries required surgical intervention and caused significant scarring and disfigurement.”
Tigard Businessman Blocked From Returning To U.S. After Humanitarian Trip To Libya
A Tigard businessman helping distribute medicine and supplies in his native country of Libya has been blocked from flying back to the United States, his family and attorney said Friday.
Jamal Tarhuni, a 55-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, was denied boarding a U.S.-bound flight at a Tunisia airport last month, his daughter said. After consulting with the U.S. embassy in Tunisia, Tarhuni met withFBI agents who interrogated him about his religion and intimated that he had information about terrorist plans, his daughter said. Tarhuni, who has lived in the Portland area for more than 35 years and ran a furniture store and import business, is Muslim.
More
Jamal Tarhuni, a 55-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, was denied boarding a U.S.-bound flight at a Tunisia airport last month, his daughter said. After consulting with the U.S. embassy in Tunisia, Tarhuni met withFBI agents who interrogated him about his religion and intimated that he had information about terrorist plans, his daughter said. Tarhuni, who has lived in the Portland area for more than 35 years and ran a furniture store and import business, is Muslim.
More
Pennsylvania Officials Roll Out Drug Tests For Welfare Recipients
Pennsylvania officials are wading into the controversial territory of drug-testing welfare recipients, testing out a new program Republicans say is meant to prevent beneficiaries from getting a "free ride."
After a federal judge blocked a much broader drug-test rule in Florida, Pennsylvania is taking a more careful approach. Instead of mandating drug tests for all welfare recipients, Pennsylvania plans to randomly test only those with a felony drug conviction within the past five years and those on probation for such offenses.
Read More
