jackiedoherty.org

There are currently 7 responses to “Equal time? Depends who asks”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

1. 1 On October 26th, 2009, Cliff Krieger said:

   I am with you on this.  This is news, not politicking.  That said, it won’t hurt you at the polls, but that is the same as with any candidate.  If you rescued people in some great and gory accident—say a major multi-bike crash on the trail, with injuries and a cardiac arrest—that would make the news.

   Scotty doesn’t beam up the candidates for the last 60 days of the race.  They live lives.  The news should be reported.

   Maybe John McDonough would like to showcase this on City Life.

   Regards  —  Cliff

2. 2 On October 26th, 2009, Jackie said:

   Thanks for the support. I feel better since taking the opportunity to rant about it–even if it is only in my own forum.

3. 3 On October 28th, 2009, Teddy P. said:

   Jackie,

   I’m a little disappointed in the way you chose to characterize our conversation and what took place on our air. We did not “ignore” the issue….we NEVER ignore news. Just days after your note, we spoke about the legislation with the school superintendent, Dr. Scott, during her weekly visit. She mentioned your name specifically during her discussion of the issue.

   Please understand that the “minefields” I talked to you about involve candidates and air time within an election window. There are FCC guidelines governing them, and we have to be careful not to promote certain candidates and their accomplishments while ignoring others. If you feel this issue is important to your tenure on the SC and speaks well of your accomplishments (which I happen to agree it does), you have vehicles available to you to get your message out.

   Once the election is over, feel free to contact us about anything you’d like to discuss on air, and we’ll be more than happy to accomodate you.

   Thank you for the time.

4. 4 On October 28th, 2009, Jackie said:

   Teddy,
   We are both disappointed then because my issue was not that the bill had been “ignored” but that I was not allowed to talk about it on-air. You seem to have missed that point, which is the crux of the matter for me. While one candidate is given plenty of time to discuss his news, and as Lil mentions, another candidate has been on-air weekly reporting “news” on the council agenda, I was told it was not possible due to timing. (I’ve been working on House Bill 481 for a year and had no say when it was heard before the Joint Committee on Education. I called you based on a conversation with Sam Poulten as I mentioned to you.) Regardless, the inconsistency in the station’s policy regarding what constitutes news and equal time is undeniable.

5. 5 On October 28th, 2009, Shawn said:

   We did have Kevin Murphy in and discussed this bill some. I’m sorry I missed that part of the discussion because now I am understanding the issue some more.

   I agree with having the schools have some input on the educational component, but not on the actual placement.

   And the ultimate decision on home placement must be the DCF, not some SPED board somewhere.

   Right now, on residential treatment, the home school district pays for the education while the DCF pays for the housing and therapy.

   With every kid I had, the IEP’s from the home district were used in the ed system at the treatment center, so I dont understand the IEP issue.

   When I read the law, it ways that the district would only be responsible for education in residential treatment as it applies to an IEP.

   How would the rest of the education be paid for? By the hosting district? Then Lowell would have to pick up the kids in Riverside, Chelsmford would have to pick up the Lighthouse school kids.

   Ultimately, this would discourage towns and cities from allowing treatment centers into their town.

   I’m sure, everyone just wants to say “let the state pay for it.” or “let the federal gov’t pay for it.” They ain’t got any money any more either.

   I would be interested in hearing the arguments on both sides of this.

   The costs of broken families go far beyond education.. in residential placement, education is only one component.

6. 6 On October 28th, 2009, Jackie said:

   My understanding of House Bill 481 is that the schools would not have any say in the placement,nor should we. If we can make a case that the child is progressing in his home school, we should have the opportunity to do so. We are not asking that school districts be removed from the responsibility of educating the child–we are asking to be able to weigh in on the education component. In some cases, such as ones you mention, the child benefits greatly from a residential facility–whether simply for housing or for education as well. Regardless, the school district deserves a voice in what would best meet the educational needs of the child, and that’s what House Bill 481 attempts to rectify.

7. 7 On October 28th, 2009, Shawn said:

   Yeah, but I don’t understand how..
   Its a fairly short bill, that in terms of finances just limits the district’s fiscal responsibility for the placed student to the IEP support only.. and yet doesn’t regard where the remainder would come from.

   Is there a site or literature on what is intended by this bill?