Another example of Nelson's temper tantrum when he doesn't get his way. First, his language is not acceptable in a public meeting and the threat against others is over the top. What is he - three? When was the last time that Nelson said or did anything that was in any way connected to student achievement in this district? Isn't that what it is supposed to be about? This boy needs to go!

If things don't go my way I'm going to stomp my feet, hold my breath and punish the kids by becoming a huge roadblock to ANYTHING...if i don't get my way.
-Putting Steve Nelson's actions into words.

Horrible behavior. When is this clown's term over?

""Believe me, I will vote no on every single agenda item if you deep-six this as you did with (the guiding principles)," Nelson said."

Ahhhhahhahhhahhhahahhahahahahhaaaahhhaaa, er, ehem.

This guy is a comedian!

Steve Nelson, a comedian?

A warped one, to be sure.

Dude needs to go.

This is an excellent example of more of the damage to the district that has been caused by Nelson since he was elected to the board. Students don't matter to him. It's all about minutia and politics to him. One more year of this ridiculousness and then he will be gone, Good riddance. Let's hope he doesn't do something stupid with this superintendent that will cost the distinct anither quarter of a million dollars in the meantime.

Things we already know:
1) Nelson is odd
2) You lot like to complain about his existence and pat yourselves on the back for it

If you truly wanted to improve things for the district and the other board members you'd offer what you could to show exactly why what he wants is wrong. Otherwise your vapid whining is as useful as a food critic telling us how salty the salt is at Chez Sel.

Go ahead. Prove you're better than Nelson in tone and thought. It couldn't be that hard, could it?

I agree with Prove Yourselves.

Rather than complaining about Mr. Nelson, show exactly why what he wants is wrong.

It actually makes sense to me.

Oh look, the Nelson defenders are back out again...

You folks haven't been paying attention, have you? Steve Nelson, through his "actions," has made the task of the MVWSD a LOT harder than it needs to be. What he has done is to make the board far more dysfunctional than it needs to be.

Simply put, once Nelson is gone, the chances of a properly functioning board existing are greater than with him on the board.

I also disagree with the Nelson critics. He made a request to agendize an issue with trustee support and Wheeler screwed him. I'd be upset too. My impression is the whole board is dysfunctional. Wasn't the new appointee supposed to solve the problems with this board?

It isn't what he asks for, it is how. He consistently threatens to vote no on every agenda unless he gets what he is asking for. He did it to Chris Chiang and he is doing it to Ellen Wheeler. He was also not the only trustee out of line at that meeting. Greg Coladonato also made a very rude remark to Ellen Wheeler. Clearly the problem is bigger than one trustee is able to fix. (If that was his job in the first place.)

To "Resign, Nelson!": A call to explain your position with regard to agenda items isn't a call of support for Nelson. Since you can't recognize that subtlety, it follows that explaining your position on future agenda items would be difficult for you.

You've made it clear time and time again that you don't like Nelson and want your way but, by sharing in his behaviors, you validate him and YOU become the Nelson endorser.

So, cheers for the unintentionally ironic response however your inability to channel your frustration into a specific, coherent advancement of your (namesake!) cause means you've failed to prove yourself.

Anyone else care to expand their position beyond 'salt is salty'?

No one is perfect, but a good board member would not cost the district hundreds of thousands of dollars that could have been spent on student learning and achievement while accusing others of not being fiscally responsible. They might recognize delaying decisions has costs too. The delays on spending bond money and the consequent decreased buying power is an example.

It's great to have dissent on a team, but it's not okay for dissenters or conformers to shout down those who disagree. It's not okay threaten to not play when you don't get what you want.

Prove Yourself asked to be shown why what Nelson wants is wrong. It's a fair question. In my opinion what Nelson wants is to hold others to different standards than he wants to be held too. I think that's as wrong as any position someone might take on an issue. How we behave matters.

Hey, prove yourselves, how's about you go back and read ALL the stories about Nelson's abhorrently childish behavior. The detractors have nothing to prove, but it seems you have some reading to do in order to be informed of the back issues...the whole story behind this baby-man who throws temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way. He is the problem we need to endure, but thankfully so many people are aware of his broken behavior, so he's gone...dead man walking politically. He'll not get a thank you when he's gone, but there will be cheers.

A history of bad behavior (on which many of you can't seem to understand that we already agree, so it serves very little purpose to focus or limit the discussion to that) doesn't mean thinking people can't alternatively consider the debate about agenda items.

Since most of you are sadly still struggling with this concept, I'll attempt one example to help you understand. We'll use Hitler as it is (hopefully) safe to assume we all carry a passionate dislike for Hitler. Imagine he had said "puppies are cute and should not be drowned by their owners". Some of us out there are able to say: we disagree with everything Hitler stands for, he should be held accountable for his crimes against humanity and we should continue our efforts to remove him from power, but we're also capable of considering and (also hopefully) agreeing with his anti-puppy-drowning statement. The point: sometimes you have to look beyond the person and their behavior or else you risk becoming a 'puppy drowner'.

If you can't arrange your thoughts around how the proposal for managing agenda items could be good or bad (not how Nelson brought it up, or why you dislike Nelson personally), then you have failed to prove yourselves and continue to demonstrate that: you are only able to chirp about how salty salt is, are no better than Nelson, and by throwing your own tantrums here you should be treated as he should.

I like your Hitler analogy. I think it shows that even people who have major flaws, can also have insight into issues. The issue with Steve Nelson isn't whether his ideas are good or bad. We want differing opinions on the school board. It is SOLELY his reaction to people not siding with him that is detrimental to the functioning of our school board. It is not that he brought up standardizing and outlining agenda items. Very logical thought. It is the If I don't get my way, then I promise I will not pass any other items. This is pertinent to this Instance at this moment.

<TWEEEET!!!>
The Nelson apologists have now brought in a Hitler analogy. The argument is now officially done and the apologists have now officially lost the debate. That's one of the rules of the internet. Game over, hit the showers kids.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


To "I wonder" (or others concerned with the boards consideration):
What do you see as the appropriate limits for agenda item approval? The proposed benefit would be that all elected trustees would be allowed greater guarantees for discussion of issues important to them. This would be especially valuable to those representing minority/dissenting opinions (and mirrors central tenets of the American ideology). The downside is the loss of protection for agendas from being flooded with unsupported, poorly timed, or just plain silly items distracting the board's attention and energy. Considering the current membership of the board and the several important issues in front of them, this could be a real threat. Should we be limiting the board president or others on how agendas are set?

As for his ugly way of getting attention: agreed. If he has a beef with his agenda items (supposedly) being ignored for months, he could have found a more civil, adult way to bring that forward. But, if we all just keep agreeing on that, how does that help us analyze and give input on what the board is already considering?

<TWEEET!>
Inferred name calling. Another identifying aspect of someone who has lost the argument on all fronts.
Points to the home team, ball to be placed on the 20 yard...Oh wait, as predicted, Steve Nelson just picked up the ball and is running away with it! Apparently he'll ensure nobody can play if he doesn't get his way! Vegas was sure right on this one!