“To oppose corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism.”
Submitted by Name: Judy
Comments: Wouldn't that be a class action suit?
Added: April 26, 2017 08:06:32 PM
Submitted by Name: . From: Madison
Comments: Sounds good if it is possible. But is it?
Added: April 26, 2017 07:41:01 PM
Submitted by Name: Wondering From: Madison E-mail: Contact
Comments: Why can't we as a community sue the 3 school board members, Bolinger and Frazier for misuse of Taxpayers funds?
Added: April 26, 2017 05:28:09 PM
Submitted by Name: JB
Comments: Let us give ole Carl a break. He is a sad-sad old man and a sad old Veteran trying to play the game of saving his name.
We can beat on him all day, say bad things but in the end he will most likely be know as a disgraced Veteran throwing our children to the wind.
It can't be blamed on booz or skirts but just a disgraced old man.
Of course I'll probably take some heat for eluding that ole Carl may be a disgraced Veteran. All Veterans took an oath to protect and defend, which included protecting our children and their school. Ole Carl will never be able to say he did this or that for the betterment of our children, their schools and their country that was handed to them. The End.
Added: April 26, 2017 11:38:00 AM
Submitted by Name: For Carl
Comments: Carl your drinking isn't a discussion you want to get into. But if you want to talk about allegations that Frazier was caught using school employees to work at his business then let's talk. But I see no reason to worry about someone dropping a truth bomb about you when you won't even stop looking up and don't care the harm your causing on the school board. It's past time you started thinking for yourself instead of makings fool of yourself. By the way you ran for public office so get over the public calling a spade a spade be it on this page or at the board meetings.
Added: April 26, 2017 08:01:51 AM
Submitted by Name: Red Flag Mindset
Comments: I do know that when ol' Carl worked the polls a few years back he stated he did so because he had ran for school board prior and wasn't elected...and he stated he was going to work the polls because he knew the election process in Jefferson County was rigged and he was going to make sure the election was ran right or know the reason why. That right there is indicative that he has no faith in the legitimacy of the local electoral process. Who runs for office if they feel the system is already rigged against them, unless they already have a back alley plan to counter the rigging? From my experience, people that feel that way also often feel that they can't win unless they also break the rules or take shortcuts. Does that mindset extend to a lot of players in this school mess? Maybe people are in office due to shady wheeling & dealing. Either that or the majority of the citizenry that doesn't like the elected officials simply don't vote when it counts.
Added: April 26, 2017 07:39:07 AM
Submitted by Name: Elected officials From: Tami
Comments: Character traits & personal reputation are key criteria for voters. Elected officials are often criticized & resign from office following revelations of public drunkenness, extramarital affairs, bribery, "consorting" with minors... Candidates, who in the past or present, have associated with or members of the KKK and other hate groups have difficulty being elected. Character has always played an important part in politics & we need only look at the recent presidential elections to realize how important character is & how openly it is discussed. No one was sued over calling Trump the tangerine racist nor was anyone fined for calling Clinton a greedy b!tch.
Still the post "The Facts" is correct, the important part of slander/libel/defamation is whether or not the statement can be proven true or false. Is it nice to call Carl a drunk? My personal opinion is no. Have people witnessed certain elected officials Intoxicated in public - absolutely - and whether politicians like it or not, the public has a double standard. Jane and John Doe can get tipsy or drunk at the local bar but let one politician over indulge & start swaying or slurring speech and it's all over town. We know who they are, we aren't blind & we don't like it.
The bottom line is elected officials who are drunk or under the influence in public cast doubt on their decision making abilities. What does it take for an incumbent to arrive at the courthouse appearing severely intoxicated - slurred speech, unstable walk, tearful & anxious about whether or not s/ he will be re-elected? What does it mean if the same person called a citizen & was so drunk he was unable to finish the conversation & he seemed to pass out while on the phone? What happens when an inebriated elected official shows up at your business asking for a favor? What does it mean if a candidate has done all these things or only one?
Character matters and local voters have learned the hard way that voting for a sweet old man who wouldn't raise his hand to swat a fly- might mean he also won't raise his hand to vote against an incompetent superintendent. Voters have learned that electing that nice lady that goes to church on Broadway Street & takes care of her mom might also mean she will only listen to the people who go to her church, only take care of people she loves and refuse to care about the needs & desires of protesting students, frustrated teachers & enraged parents. Those who voted for one of their favorite teachers from days gone by probably realize now that just because they liked her as teacher doesn't mean she likes them now or that she even cares what they have to say; she might even hate them enough to abide their trust, waste their money and plot to intentionally destroy public assets through neglect.
You bet character matters. More than whether a person is nice or what Church they attend or whether or not they were an educator.
finally, I am often alarmed when people "run to their buddy's defense" by claiming others have "no proof" or the statements are false. It seems foolish to ask people to tell their stories about the last time Carl was drunk or drinking in public. If one wishes for the conversation to shift away from hard topics- then drawing attention and igniting the debate is a poor strategy especially on a news outlet as well read as the Free Press.
Added: April 26, 2017 06:41:09 AM
Submitted by Name: * * * for tat
Comments: Alcohol & drug testing for school board members seems like a wonderful idea! If it's good enough for the students, it's good enough for the so-called leaders.
Added: April 26, 2017 06:32:23 AM
Submitted by Name: The facts
Comments: Slander = to speak a false statement about someone which defames their character or person.
Libel= to write and publish a false statement about someone that defames them.
The key word is whether the information stated or written is FALSE. Just because someone doesn't want their drunken behavior talked about doesn't make it false. And telling the truth isn't attacking someone.
Added: April 26, 2017 05:40:50 AM
Submitted by Name: John Scott From: Hilltop E-mail: Contact
Comments: I dont think its right at all to call Mr. Carl Gleasing a drunk! Is there proof of this or is it because you do not agree with his voting on the school board! Might I suggest that ALL school board members before each meeting take a breath test for Booze.This sight allows some people to attack other people! I do believe in freedom of speech as do I also believe its illegal to Slander someone in public because I do not agree with that person. Thank you