Paul LaClair is a Liar!

[Guest Guest]

He just made a lot of people look like morons for calling him a liar. I guess none of you are honorable enough to apologize for it, huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For withholding valuable pieces of information that could have brought this matter to advanced closure but that would not have afforded him or his son to bask in the limelight for their cause longer? Are we seeking the truth here or are we playing a game? Sure Strife, I apologize for believing he was honorable to begin with.

[Guest Watching From Afar]

For withholding valuable pieces of information that could have brought this matter to advanced closure but that would not have afforded him or his son to bask in the limelight for their cause longer?  Are we seeking the truth here or are we playing a game?  Sure Strife, I apologize for believing he was honorable to begin with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have mixed feelings about that issue. On the one hand, it's a sidelight that doesn't deserve a lot of attention one way or the other. And there certainly was gamemanship on the student's father's part. I think it's best when people lay their cards face up on the table.

On the other hand, anyone who takes an honest look at this thing can see that the school district never dealt with the LeClairs in good faith. Those who have criticized the LeClairs have been vicious. I can't blame them too much for their reactions. Make no mistake: The school district was wrong here, and could have avoided all of this mess if they'd stepped up to the plate and done the right thing as soon as the LeClairs made their complaint.

If I were a Kearny, N.J. taxpayer, I'd be asking some hard questions about the quality of the services I'm paying for. The LeClairs don't have to be perfect to have performed a valuable service in helping expose the flaws there. That said, I really hope that everyone there will keep their eyes on the prize: quality education.

That's what schools are there for, period. Make the necessary changes, including personnel changes. Then move on.

[Strife767]

For withholding valuable pieces of information that could have brought this matter to advanced closure but that would not have afforded him or his son to bask in the limelight for their cause longer?

Uh, recordings of exactly what he said in class, plus recordings of him lying about what he said in class, are already public. In spite of that, Paszkiewicz refuses to apologize for any of it. Suggesting that adding one more thing to the pile would immediately bring closure is absurd. If Paszkiewicz ignored the most damning evidence, what makes you think he'd suddenly 'turn' in light of something that's minor by comparison? The issue revolves around Paszkiewicz's actions, not Matthew's.

Are we seeking the truth here or are we playing a game?

It'd be most appropriate to ask Paszkiewicz that question, since he's the one who was caught lying several times.

Sure Strife, I apologize for believing he was honorable to begin with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Har har.

[Guest Paul]

For withholding valuable pieces of information that could have brought this matter to advanced closure but that would not have afforded him or his son to bask in the limelight for their cause longer?  Are we seeking the truth here or are we playing a game?  Sure Strife, I apologize for believing he was honorable to begin with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's impossible to know whether you're being consistent since you hide behind a cloak of anonymity. However, why don't you take this opportunity to specify how the recent revelations are valuable, and while you're at it identify yourself so we can evaluate your arguments in their totality.

As to your accusation, we revealed the recordings after and because of Mr. Paszkiewicz's public denial that he lied in the meeting.

[Guest Guest]

I have mixed feelings about that issue. On the one hand, it's a sidelight that doesn't deserve a lot of attention one way or the other. And there certainly was gamemanship on the student's father's part. I think it's best when people lay their cards face up on the table.

On the other hand, anyone who takes an honest look at this thing can see that the school district never dealt with the LeClairs in good faith. Those who have criticized the LeClairs have been vicious. I can't blame them too much for their reactions. Make no mistake: The school district was wrong here, and could have avoided all of this mess if they'd stepped up to the plate and done the right thing as soon as the LeClairs made their complaint.

If I were a Kearny, N.J. taxpayer, I'd be asking some hard questions about the quality of the services I'm paying for. The LeClairs don't have to be perfect to have performed a valuable service in helping expose the flaws there. That said, I really hope that everyone there will keep their eyes on the prize: quality education.

That's what schools are there for, period. Make the necessary changes, including personnel changes. Then move on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you were from Kearny and were so familiar with the situation and what is really going on in Kearny, you would know how to spell LACLAIR! Now, try spelling PASZKIEWICZ before you continue talking about him, Mr. Watching From AFAR! Keep watching... That's all you can do!

[Guest Guest]

Uh, recordings of exactly what he said in class, plus recordings of him lying about what he said in class, are already public. In spite of that, Paszkiewicz refuses to apologize for any of it. Suggesting that adding one more thing to the pile would immediately bring closure is absurd. If Paszkiewicz ignored the most damning evidence, what makes you think he'd suddenly 'turn' in light of something that's minor by comparison? The issue revolves around Paszkiewicz's actions, not Matthew's.

It'd be most appropriate to ask Paszkiewicz that question, since he's the one who was caught lying several times.

Har har.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, he held back on the second set of recordings until months after he released the first. Had he struck his blow early, this could have ended earlier. I'm not asking for anything further at this point (but if he has anything, and is truly looking to resolve the matter sans litigation, he should come forth with it).

Uh, I'm not looking for the resolution from the teacher, I'm talking about a resolution from the administration. The teacher's best tactic, from a legal standpoint (and if he was looking to keep himself out of hot water, he would have stuck with it) was to shut his mouth and keep it shut. But dropping the second set of recordings on the heads of the administration would have nullified the teacher's strategy and forced closure from the administration.

Uh, keep saying that Matthew's actions had nothing to do with any of this. I don't blame Matthew, but there sure is a heck of a lot of things he could have done to resolve this matter more quickly - such as (1) discussing the matter first with the teacher, if only to advise him that he was going to file a complaint with the administration, (2) handing the recordings at the beginning of the meeting over to the principal and advise them of same (rather than trying to draw the teacher into further misstatements - the initial recordings were quite enough to hang him, thank you), and (3) handing a recording of the subsequent meeting with the principal to the school board as soon as feasible after the meeting -- just to name three. Now, of course he was not obligated to do any of the above, but doing so would have shown a real interest in resolving the matter rather than looking to incite a controversy. And all arguments about the teachers reaction to his actions (he denied, he lied, he bullied) are null ... at the time that Matthew acted, he could not be 100% certain that this would have been the reaction. It was posturing from the word "go".

Uh, all this posturing has been leeching my trust and faith in the LaClairs. At first, I presumed that they were honorable and just looking to resolve this issue quickly. But these games are suggesting a possible alternative agenda, and I'm feeling quite disillusioned.

Uh, glad to see you're retaining your sense of humor. Your unfettered support of the LaClairs from the beginning is as questionable to me as the most ardent supporter of the teacher. Either you have a personal relationship with the LaClairs and were able to hear the follow-up recordings before they were released OR all the "healthy skepticism" that you display about God apparently doesn't apply to humans. Absent the personal relationship, at some point, a truly impartial individually would have questioned the LaClairs on their points, as much as he or she questioned the supporters of the teacher. Clearly, your anti-Christian bias has dulled your keen sense of cynicism.

There - I threw out enough stuff there for you to get an aneurysm from all the barbs you can throw back! Have at me.

[Guest Paul]

Uh, he held back on the second set of recordings until months after he released the first.  Had he struck his blow early, this could have ended earlier.  I'm not asking for anything further at this point (but if he has anything, and is truly looking to resolve the matter sans litigation, he should come forth with it).

Uh, I'm not looking for the resolution from the teacher, I'm talking about a resolution from the administration.  The teacher's best tactic, from a legal standpoint (and if he was looking to keep himself out of hot water, he would have stuck with it) was to shut his mouth and keep it shut.  But dropping the second set of recordings on the heads of the administration would have nullified the teacher's strategy and forced closure from the administration.

Uh, keep saying that Matthew's actions had nothing to do with any of this.  I don't blame Matthew, but there sure is a heck of a lot of things he could have done to resolve this matter more quickly - such as (1) discussing the matter first with the teacher, if only to advise him that he was going to file a complaint with the administration, (2) handing the recordings at the beginning of the meeting over to the principal and advise them of same (rather than trying to draw the teacher into further misstatements - the initial recordings were quite enough to hang him, thank you), and (3) handing a recording of the subsequent meeting with the principal to the school board as soon as feasible after the meeting -- just to name three.  Now, of course he was not obligated to do any of the above, but doing so would have shown a real interest in resolving the matter rather than looking to incite a controversy.  And all arguments about the teachers reaction to his actions (he denied, he lied, he bullied) are null ... at the time that Matthew acted, he could not be 100% certain that this would have been the reaction.  It was posturing from the word "go".

Uh, all this posturing has been leeching my trust and faith in the LaClairs.  At first, I presumed that they were honorable and just looking to resolve this issue quickly.  But these games are suggesting a possible alternative agenda, and I'm feeling quite disillusioned.

Uh, glad to see you're retaining your sense of humor.  Your unfettered support of the LaClairs from the beginning is as questionable to me as the most ardent supporter of the teacher.  Either you have a personal relationship with the LaClairs and were able to hear the follow-up recordings before they were released OR all the "healthy skepticism" that you display about God apparently doesn't apply to humans.  Absent the personal relationship, at some point, a truly impartial individually would have questioned the LaClairs on their points, as much as he or she questioned the supporters of the teacher.  Clearly, your anti-Christian bias has dulled your keen sense of cynicism. 

There - I threw out enough stuff there for you to get an aneurysm from all the barbs you can throw back!  Have at me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just wrote two contradictory things: (1) the in-class recordings are enough to hang the teacher, so that the issue would be resoved based on them alone, but (2) if we had turned over the later recording earlier, the matter would have been resolved. It's all guesswork on your part, and you're assuming all parties acting reasonably. For example, the second set of recordings hasn't changed the teacher's position one bit.

If you doubt our motives, there's probably nothing I can do to convince you, but I've explained our reasons for doing what we did when we did it. We would still like to see this resolved.

[Guest Watching From Afar]

If you were from Kearny and were so familiar with the situation and what is really going on in Kearny, you would know how to spell LACLAIR! Now, try spelling PASZKIEWICZ before you continue talking about him, Mr. Watching From AFAR! Keep watching...   That's all you can do!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Going after people for typos and spelling mistakes is the last refuge of the desperate. And, as I've already mentioned, I know that all I can do is watch. It must matter to you, as you keep responding to my postings.

[Strife767]

There - I threw out enough stuff there for you to get an aneurysm from all the barbs you can throw back!  Have at me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not going to spend time giving a thoughtful response if this is what lies behind your posting.

[Guest Guest]

If you doubt our motives, there's probably nothing I can do to convince you, but I've explained our reasons for doing what we did when we did it. We would still like to see this resolved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a crock. Your actions say otherwise no matter how many pretty words and phrases you like to play with.

[Guest Guest]

I'm not going to spend time giving a thoughtful response if this is what lies behind your posting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but you had to respond all the same.....................you should really get into a program

[Guest Gil from Brooklyn]

You just wrote two contradictory things: (1) the in-class recordings are enough to hang the teacher, so that the issue would be resoved based on them alone, but (2) if we had turned over the later recording earlier, the matter would have been resolved. It's all guesswork on your part, and you're assuming all parties acting reasonably. For example, the second set of recordings hasn't changed the teacher's position one bit.

If you doubt our motives, there's probably nothing I can do to convince you, but I've explained our reasons for doing what we did when we did it. We would still like to see this resolved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, the post to which you responded was mine.

I really don't see a contradiction here - maybe you are misunderstanding. I think that the first recordings are enough to hang the teacher. However, a school board is more likely to be - sympathetic? - to the teacher. Accordingly, dropping the second set of recordings on them immediately would have allowed those on the fence to act with more conviction much earlier.

I think you're deflecting scrutiny of your actions by pointing to the actions of the other party. If you want to come forward with an "ends justify the means" argument - you're certainly entitled. However, that still doesn't separate the fact that this matter was approached more like someone with an agenda and than someone with a legitimate beef who is looking to resolve the matter (although I still do not doubt your intentions with the latter). That's not to say that you're not entitled to have an agenda. But when a friend (who knew the teacher but who was on your side) turned me onto these posts a week or so before you released the recordings, I had more faith in your altruism than I do knowing that you were withholding the second set of recordings. Maybe setting strategy, posturing and scheming is a hazard of your profession - but to regular Joe's like me, it smacks of someone more interested in the controversy than the resolution.

Finally, the fact that the teacher's position hasn't changed has no bearing on how you conducted yourselves leading up to and through the meeting with the principal. While you are under no obligation to set an example for the teacher, it still would have been more becoming to have been as straightforward as possible when dealing with those to whom you were complaining.

That's all - please don't read this as support for the teacher's or the administration's conduct. I'm just a little put-off by some of the tactics employed.

[Guest Gil from Brooklyn]

I'm not going to spend time giving a thoughtful response if this is what lies behind your posting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Duck and dodge.

[Guest Paul]

Sorry, the post to which you responded was mine. 

I really don't see a contradiction here - maybe you are misunderstanding.  I think that the first recordings are enough to hang the teacher.  However, a school board is more likely to be - sympathetic? - to the teacher.  Accordingly, dropping the second set of recordings on them immediately would have allowed those on the fence to act with more conviction much earlier. 

I think you're deflecting scrutiny of your actions by pointing to the actions of the other party.  If you want to come forward with an "ends justify the means" argument - you're certainly entitled.  However, that still doesn't separate the fact that this matter was approached more like someone with an agenda and than someone with a legitimate beef who is looking to resolve the matter (although I still do not doubt your intentions with the latter).  That's not to say that you're not entitled to have an agenda.  But when a friend (who knew the teacher but who was on your side) turned me onto these posts a week or so before you released the recordings, I had more faith in your altruism than I do knowing that you were withholding the second set of recordings.  Maybe setting strategy, posturing and scheming is a hazard of your profession - but to regular Joe's like me, it smacks of someone more interested in the controversy than the resolution.

Finally, the fact that the teacher's position hasn't changed has no bearing on how you conducted yourselves leading up to and through the meeting with the principal.  While you are under no obligation to set an example for the teacher, it still would have been more becoming to have been as straightforward as possible when dealing with those to whom you were complaining.

That's all - please don't read this as support for the teacher's or the administration's conduct.  I'm just a little put-off by some of the tactics employed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gil, that's fair, so I'll explain. The second recording is relevant only to disciplinary action against the teacher, which I have said all along was not our issue. We had no reason to disclose it until P claimed he did not lie in the meeting. At that point, it became another case of he-said/he-said, and disclosure was warranted for that reason.

That second recording is not relevent to the in-class statements, which speak for themselves. The in-class statements stand on their own as a justification for our two requests/demands, which were (1) quality control and (2) correction of those statements. The fact that the in-class statements were discussed in the October 10th meeting does not change that fact because the in-class statements were all recorded, and those recordings were already in the administration's hands. It's the best evidence rule again, to put this in legal terms.

So with all due respect, earlier disclosure of the later recording was not relevant to our issues, and should not have been relevant to the Board or administration for those purposes. The later recording would only be relevant if we were pressing for further disciplinary action, which we were not. I do not see how this calls our motives into question. Does that clarify things for you?

[Strife767]

Duck and dodge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it's obvious how much dodging/avoiding I do by looking at my post count on this forum.

Sometimes, I just don't feel like repeating myself for the umpteenth time; deal with it. Besides, there was stuff in that post that would be much better for Paul to answer than me.

[Guest Kearny guy]

Yes, it's obvious how much dodging/avoiding I do by looking at my post count on this forum.

Sometimes, I just don't feel like repeating myself for the umpteenth time; deal with it. Besides, there was stuff in that post that would be much better for Paul to answer than me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sometimes you don't feel like repeating yourself for the umpteenth time??...excuse me ol' Strifey boy but that's all you ever do!

[Guest Guest]

Wow, what a crazy thread. Apparently these self-described Christians are unfamiliar with the statement "Train up a child in the way he should go." [Proverbs 22:6.]

[Guest Guest]

Wow, what a crazy thread. Apparently these self-described Christians are unfamiliar with the statement "Train up a child in the way he should go." [Proverbs 22:6.]

Wow..... How pathetic to dredge up a thread from 7 years ago

[Guest Patriot]

Wow..... How pathetic to dredge up a thread from 7 years ago

He's just trying to divert attention away from the incompetent socialist mutt who's in the news every day with his latest F - Up.

[Guest Guest]

He's just trying to divert attention away from the incompetent socialist mutt who's in the news every day with his latest F - Up.

I love the fact that you've been consumed by your hatred of the president since before he was even elected. It 's not good for your emotional health as evidenced by seven years of your moronic spewing rants and daily hate offerings. They hurt only you, you haven't swayed a single person to your extremist positions and are reflective of your hate America, partisan political views that are exactly what is destroying our country. Btw, happy belated Independence Day, I listened to Sarah Palin's version of

Paul Revere riding out to warn the British that we were coming, very moving.