en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/7957613 Comments by P2PParent http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment787597573 You want to go there again, Mr. 22%? Wed, 22 Jan 2014 18:27:30 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment787597573 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment787205912 They did. They answered the questions that were at the candidate meeting only a small portion of which were about the recall. It's obvious you didn't go. You're also being disingenuous about second guessing them. The methods used in the recall were all justified and only narrowly missed. I don't have a problem with having a high bar for recall, but when 63% vote in favor of it, this was hardly a small minority of parents that were upset as you've tried to paint them. Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:06:10 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment787205912 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment787176390 You're being extremely disingenuous. You pretty much implied that a minority of parents supported this by using the 42% non vote. I pointed out using the same math you could say that only 22% voted against it. The 42% doesn't matter. They chose not to vote, either from apathy or not sure what to think. You never get 100% participation in an election and this was a huge increase in participation from other board elections. Had this been a normal board election it would have been a landslide for the replacement candidates. I will bet the two replacement candidates will run in the spring and they will win easily. Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:41:22 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment787176390 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment786128405 Totally agree. Sorry I just love having fun with this fool. You just have to hand him a shovel and he starts digging his own hole. I wish I could have gotten Halo to post more often leading up to the election, the recall would have easily sailed past 66%. Sat, 18 Jan 2014 22:29:37 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment786128405 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment786127624 Well said. And welcome to the school. Don't let the trolls on here fool you, it's a great school with great teachers. I just hope the teachers don't leave over this. Sat, 18 Jan 2014 22:26:08 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment786127624 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment786127008 217 out of 1000 equals 21.7%. I was being kind and rounding up to 22% for you. Buh-bye! Sat, 18 Jan 2014 22:23:30 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment786127008 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785742875 still more than the 22-24% that voted against the recall. Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:17:33 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785742875 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785730272 You should go tell Mitt Romney he is really President, because 93 million registered voters didn't vote in 2012. Fri, 17 Jan 2014 21:29:31 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785730272 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785610681 Time for some Halo logic. Only 217 out of 1000 eligible voters, voted against the recall. That's only 22%! ONLY 22% OF P2P VOTERS AGREE WITH HALOBUFF! Hey halo, need some cream for that BURN?!!!!! Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:19:21 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785610681 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785438453 LOL! You post the BOD spin job as your defense? Keep enjoying the negative votes, you apparently love negative attention. Fri, 17 Jan 2014 03:57:41 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785438453 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785437269 The turnout was about the same as any other board election. Nice spin job. Fri, 17 Jan 2014 03:53:17 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785437269 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785378438 No you didn't. You said 1200, you made that up, just like you have every other thing you spouted on here. Like Matt Hill only running because he was sore that he lost last year (when he'd never run for the board before). I'm not running any smear campaign, anyone can view your post history. They can see you lied about Matt, that you lied about the petition not having enough signature to start an election. I'm just pointing out the facts. I still can't believe you're counting people who were too apathetic to vote as supporting your side. Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:22:02 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785378438 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785376986 I didn't get that impression from anyone running in the recall as replacements. Are you implying they were? I thought both spoke very intelligently that this was about losing teachers. I hope all of those replacement candidates run in the Spring, I voted for Hill and Sicker, and I would do so again in a heartbeat. Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:16:00 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785376986 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785369827 You're right, it doesn't make sense, yet it's something I heard someone say that the recall would cause instability in the school and be viewed negatively by college recruiters. It was rigged in that the Parent group running the recall had to do everything door to door and word of mouth. They had some email lists, but not to everyone. The board blasted communications to the whole community. It was not a level playing field, add to that the 66% threshold. Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:47:40 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785369827 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785366632 halobuff as usual is having difficulty telling the truth. I got a staff email forwarded to me that had the correct election results. There are not 1200 voting members, there's only 1000, and only about 59% participated in the election. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are the results of the 2014 Peak to Peak Recall Election. There were 589 total Peak to Peak community members who participated in the election. This included 189 paper ballots and 400 electronic ballots (189 + 400 = 589). This equates to 59% voter participation. Peak to Peak has 1,000 community members. We have a community membership of 890 families + 110 staff (181 staff (does not includes coaches, substitute teachers/substitute paras, and mentors) - 71 (staff who are also parents) = 110) = 1,000 ballots. For the recall election, the Peak to Peak ByLaws require a quorum of 30% (or 300 ballots) of community membership. Since the total ballot count was 589, the election met the Peak to Peak By Laws quorum requirement. For Ballot #1 – the Recall for Greg Richards, 578 community members voted. Ballot #1 results for were 361 for the recall and 217 to retain. This equates to 62.5% (361/(361 + 217)). This does not meet Peak to Peak’s By Laws requirement threshold of 66% for a successful recall. Therefore, the recall fails. For Ballot #2 – the Recall for Thomas Willetto, 577 community members voted. Ballot #2 results were 339 for the recall and 238 to retain. This equates to 58.8% (339/(339 + 238)). This does not meet Peak to Peak’s By Laws requirement threshold of 66% for a successful recall. Therefore, the recall fails. The Election Committee would like to thank all of the candidates in this election and all of our community members who voted. Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:35:40 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785366632 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785364488 Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. In case you'd like to be enlightened, here are the actual results from the election committee: Here are the results of the 2014 Peak to Peak Recall Election. There were 589 total Peak to Peak community members who participated in the election. This included 189 paper ballots and 400 electronic ballots (189 + 400 = 589). This equates to 59% voter participation. Peak to Peak has 1,000 community members. We have a community membership of 890 families + 110 staff (181 staff (does not includes coaches, substitute teachers/substitute paras, and mentors) - 71 (staff who are also parents) = 110) = 1,000 ballots. For the recall election, the Peak to Peak ByLaws require a quorum of 30% (or 300 ballots) of community membership. Since the total ballot count was 589, the election met the Peak to Peak By Laws quorum requirement. For Ballot #1 – the Recall for Greg Richards, 578 community members voted. Ballot #1 results for were 361 for the recall and 217 to retain. This equates to 62.5% (361/(361 + 217)). This does not meet Peak to Peak’s By Laws requirement threshold of 66% for a successful recall. Therefore, the recall fails. For Ballot #2 – the Recall for Thomas Willetto, 577 community members voted. Ballot #2 results were 339 for the recall and 238 to retain. This equates to 58.8% (339/(339 + 238)). This does not meet Peak to Peak’s By Laws requirement threshold of 66% for a successful recall. Therefore, the recall fails. The Election Committee would like to thank all of the candidates in this election and all of our community members who voted. Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:27:33 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785364488 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785363366 The only ones spinning are the ones stating that 37% represents a majority that don't want change. Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:23:43 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785363366 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785361471 63 and 59% of people voted for change. The people that voted against this will be gone next year. Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:16:50 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785361471 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785358729 Exactly, and from the numbers in this election, I'm sure if Matt Hill and Lisa Sicker run again, they will win in a landslide. Plus there's another open seat for another parent upset by what happened. Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:06:49 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785358729 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785358032 They did vote for it, a majority voted to recall both board members. It was not a 2/3'rd majority. I'm looking at the numbers and if I'm reading this correctly the turnout is actually above what was in last years board elections, so counting non-votes as votes of support is silly. Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:04:12 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_24925865#IDComment785358032