Groesser.com

Friday, September 14, 2007

Entry for September 15, 2007

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/news/557602,3_1_EL14_A1CONNIE_...

ELGIN -- Elgin School District U46 officials are defending Superintendent Connie Neale and the employment contract they signed with her earlier this year, saying she abided by all physical examination requirements and signed the document in good faith.

Neale announced Monday that she is taking a medical leave of absence starting Sept. 21. Neale last spring negotiated the controversial contract with the district that provides her with lifetime medical benefits with no deductible for herself and her family, more than 430 days of sick leave, money for the purchase of extra disability insurance, and money for long-term care insurance should she retire.

"Dr. Neale has complied with all physical examination requirements outlined in her contract," district spokesman Tony Sanders said Thursday.

"She has also provided the board of education with proper documentation from a physician regarding her need to take medical leave."

Neale's contract states that she must "submit to a comprehensive health examination by no later than Jan. 15 of each contract year. Such health examination shall include tests deemed necessary by the doctor or required by the board" of education.

This health exam for U46 superintendents is a routine process, Sanders said.

"It has been a standing practice for the superintendent to undergo a physical examination like any other employee upon being hired," said Sanders. "It is done to ensure the superintendent is able to fulfill the duties required by the position.

"Dr. Neale and past superintendents have been asked by the board to also submit to annual physical exams," Sanders continued.

"Pursuant to the contract, and state law, the reports are treated as confidential information by the board."

Illness not disclosed

Due to the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations, as well as state personnel laws, the district says its cannot comment on Neale's illness, nor when it began. Neale did not say what illness prompted the decision to take medical leave when she made her announcement Monday, although she was seen last week using a walker at a district function.

Neale's latest contract included a $20,000 raise and a 10 percent tax-free bonus, pushing her total compensation to more than $400,000 next year, including use of a cell phone and car, health benefits, a contribution to the state Teachers' Retirement System, and other benefits, according to school board documents. U46 is the largest district in Illinois outside Chicago.

Many of the clauses that were modified in Neale's latest contract revolve around insurance benefits, sick leave and disability.

Her original contract with the district in 2002 stated, "The board shall provide full hospital, surgical, major medical, and dental insurance coverage for the superintendent and eligible dependent members of the superintendent's immediate family during the term of this contract."

Now the contract not only states this, but it also has added a clause stating, "The Board shall provide the Superintendent with an allowance of Four Thousand Eight Hundred and No/100 ($4,800.00) Dollars per year, paid to her in lieu of reimbursement for her long-term care insurance. Upon the Superintendent's retirement or the end of this Contract, the Board shall continue to pay the allowance for long-term care insurance to the Superintendent and also shall pay the cost of full hospital, surgical, major medical, and dental insurance coverage for the Superintendent and eligible dependent members of the Superintendent's immediate family until her death."

The 2002 contract stated, "the Superintendent has accumulated 50 days of sick leave. For each subsequent Contract year, the Superintendent shall be granted 12 days of sick leave annually, the unused number of which, when combined with any of the foregoing unused sick leave from the previous contract years, shall be accumulated without limitation."

Sick days added

The 2006-07 contract states the same benefits, except it has upped the number of sick leave days. It states, "the Superintendent has accumulated 430 days of sick leave."

In Neale's 2005-06 contract, a clause was inserted stating, "the Board shall provide the Superintendent with a payment of Four Thousand Eight Hundred and No/100 ($4,800.00) Dollars per year, to contribute towards her purchase of extra disability insurance," and the amount is "to be allocated among the Supplemental Retirement Plans as described therein."

It goes on to state, "Further, these provisions regarding extra disability insurance shall be retroactive to July 1, 2004, such that the Board will contribute the disability insurance payment for the 2004-2005 Contract year to the Supplemental Retirement Plans." This clause has remained in place since 2005-06.

Ken Kaczynski, board president, said Neale was unaware of her medical condition when she signed the changes to her original contract.

"I was not a board member when she signed her original contract" in 2002, said Kaczynski, who became a board member in 2003, "but there is no doubt in my mind the subsequent amendments she has signed while I have been on the board were signed in good faith."

I can't tell you how outrageous this is. What kind of money are we paying this woman? This is a failing school and we are giving her $$$$$!

Monday, June 11, 2007

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Blogging the Qur’an

I'm going to try and track this blog. At least keep links for my further reading.

Lousy Immigration bill

Yet another reason this is BAD legislation.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007705.htm

I have gone through immigration for my two children, both Guatemalans. I don't appreciate being called a racist by senators on this issue.

I can't disagree more with the president on this issue. I am not sure how his presidency will be seen in the future but I have some real problems with it.

Friday, June 8, 2007

Battlefield Earth

I just finished "Battlefield Earth" today. Let's just say that it wasn't really like the movie.

I wish I had a lot to say after such a long book, one that has sat on my shelf for so many years. Alas, it was quite forgettable. Too bad Mitt Romney called it his favorite book. It seems that the first was a story told in Cambellian style. Earth prevailed, all is well. The second is more a governmental creation and intrigue. (?)

The ending is more in my mind at the time. It explains why that bad guys were called Psyclos. The were originally "circus workers" whose studies surrounded the mind. This is an obvious reference to Hubbard's view of psychology. I can only point the reader to "Dyanetics" for those views.

I can't recommend the book unless you have a lot of time or have nothing else to do. The first part of the book is decent, and the second part is good only in that it answers some questions still open in the first part.

Thursday, June 7, 2007

Entry for June 08, 2007

Do Senators want to enforce laws?

Michelle Malkin: Does your senator support enforcing our laws? Shamnesty on the Senate floor, Day 3, Take 2 Specter/Reid vs. Sessions; McCain/Graham suck up to Kennedy Reid once again calls on Bush to bail out shamnesty 6:23pm Reid: "No tricks."

This is one for the ages, senators not willing to enforce the laws already passed.

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Some cross posts

This morning our son decided to have a tantrum over his socks. He pitched a fit and I could see that the problems building up all morning were finally being released.

I went out to put the other kids in the car. When I finished strapping them in, I turned to see my son being carried over my wife's shoulder with his shoes in her other hand. Various punishment threats were involked. The ride to church was uneventful and the service was interrupted for us by trips to the bathroom and for calming the children down. When all things settled down again, and just before the younger children were to go to the front, my son hands a scribbled red heart on a piece of paper to my wife and says "Happy Mother's Day." She fought crying for the rest of the service.

When my wife and I talked about our life the other day, I told her that our lives were indeed changed when we took in the kids. Our retirement will be very small, the cruises won't happen, our time together will be short between the last of the kids' leaving and going to meet our maker...etc.

I hope to say that it will all be worth it. All the work that goes into parenting should have some payoff, if not in this life, the next. I know that this is the party line from my church. I certainly hope it is true. I do thank God each time I have to leave home to go to work, so thankful for my time I can spend with these minions of the netherworld that confuse my life so. How and why I miss them, I'll probably never figure out. The overwhelming urge to go back home and just hold these children is sometimes so strong that it is hard to concentrate.

I think sometimes I know why God so loved the world, that he gave his only son. We are, after all, in the words of Paul, his children.

2nd Post

I have a couple of RSS google searches set up on my computer. One is for blogs and board for things LDS. I waded into that territory this week, mostly because a minister in Florida had pronounced that all Mormons are going to hell and that a vote for Romney was a vote for Satan.

Some of the most bigoted comments came from some of those postings. It doesn't do me any good to see such judgemental attitudes in Christianity. I know I haven't experienced them from the regulars here, at least not in the posts. Perhaps you do harbor those thoughts.

I get so tired from the comments on theosis..."Do they really think that they will be like God?" Well, our take on theosis might be a bit different than others, but not that much. I see comments like that as being ignorant on RCC and EOC doctrines also, the largest chunk of christianity. We just speculated a bit more on what it really means to be a "joint-heir" with Christ, as the bible teaches.

"Do they really think they will rule their own planet?"
No. Well, some do but I can't change what some believe. I will be happy to just be with Christ and my family, thank you very much.

Don't these people have lives?

Some have mentioned that LDS have some universalist ideas, in that we don't throw everyone not like us under the bus. Most people will be in some level of glory in the afterlife and even at that, only LDS have the knowledge and covenants to really qualify for Hell. While I hold strong conservative political views, it is kind of disturbing to me that my religious views are extremely liberal. Still haven't figured that out.

3rd Post

I just wanted to post some very well thought out posts from another board

A Question For Those Like Grant Palmer - Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board

Quote:

I have a VERY strong academic orientation, and I have taught a course in early Mormon history at a midwest university. I am well familiar with the basic issues and controversies. Although I sometimes claim to be an unorthodox Mormon, I strongly believe in the fundamentals of the Church.

For example, I could never believe that nearly everyone on earth is going to hell because they were not Christian or did not have a chance to be baptized. Consequently, I believe in the purpose of LDS temples.

I think Joseph Smith (and other prophets) have recognized that all revelation is a mixture of the human and the divine. He recognized that the Bible has significant translation & transcription problems, a fact verified by standard scholarship (Ehrman, 2005, "Misquoting Jesus"). He recognized that there was a general apostasy or splintering, a fact consistent again with modern scholarship (Ehrman, 2003, "Lost Christianities").

Regarding the Book of Mormon, the issue for me is not whether the book is a 19th century product, but whether it is scripture. To me, the book is worthless as an archeological guide. On the other hand, it is priceless as a guide for life. Most Mormons would admit, I think, that Joseph Smith's imprint is all over the Book of Mormon. At the least, the book was a mix of his language with that of the King James Bible.

I do not read the Book of Mormon, D&C, or PofGP for their historical claims. I read them for their doctrinal claims. (I disregard many of the historical claims of the Bible too).

Joseph Smith's first vision accounts changed between 1832 and 1838. So what. Do you tell the same story the same way? No one does. Joseph was NOT a professional historian. He told stories to build faith with all the incumbent motivations. If he did not understand his first vision experience completely, then I am sure we cannot either.

Did the concept of priesthood change between 1830 and 1835? Yes. I am unsure of why this fact bothers people. Revelation and inspiration imply change. In the beginning Joseph Smith had little concept of priesthood, let alone any understanding of the difference between Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods. He clearly had to learn and figure things out. In Mormonism, God does not hand doctrines on a silver platter. One has to study, ponder, and pray over time, even years. The main point is that the priesthood was restored, even if we do not have all the historical details we would like have.

Did Joseph Smith practice polygamy? Yes. Did he practice it well? I don't think so. But, I have no need for Joseph Smith to be perfect. My belief system does not require that.

Was Joseph Smith flamboyant with a strong ego? Yes, I think so. He had to be that way to start a religion with staying power; write books of scripture; design temples and ceremonies; build cities; move peoples; publish papers; give numerous sermons; and so on and so on. No subsequent President of the LDS has accomplished more or even come close.

I like Grant Palmer as a person. His book raises some good issues, but his stance is more academic than religious. Any religion can be chipped away by academic hatchets. Ultimately, acceptance of any religion boils down to faith. Faith in Christ is fundamental, and all else is nearly incidental if not completely so.

Non-LDS academics (and some LDS ones) seem to think an essential element of Mormonism is revealed in the Mountain Meadow Massacre (MMM). But, the reality is that if you could read the Mormon mind, it would never be thinking about the MMM. It would be thinking, "It is the end of the month and I still haven't done my home teaching." The real dilemmas of Mormonism are more like the latter than the former.

Despite the misunderstandings of the public and some academics, the Mormon people and their religion is good. Its fruits are overwhelmingly good. Yes, there are flaws, but Mormons also believe in true improvement.

I hope this helps some. In any case, I appreciate getting a few thoughts off my chest.

Here's another one, and I'm sure it could be applied to other belief systems as well.

Quote:

I am not like Grant Palmer, I happen to believe in the authenticity of the claims of the LDS Church. I will offer a few free words of advice. (Just remember...advice is worth what you paid for it.)

You seem like a nice and genuine person who is considering making a deep and personal spiritual committment in trade for a wonderful young woman and a loving family. It seems that you are willing to make this committment by compromising your religious beliefs. You seem willing to quite literally participate in a religion that you do not believe.

A couple of words of advice. Be honest.

The very last thing this young woman wants is for you to lie to her about your religious beliefs. Assuming she is a faithful LDS member, she has dreams and desires regarding the spirit and ritual of an LDS marriage. For a believing Mormon, love and shared-beliefs are the foundations that feed an LDS temple marriage. Being a Mormon is more than simply getting baptized and attending a few meetings. It is very, very hard to live a complete and authenic LDS life without believing. You will be asked to accept callings, have family prayer, give blessings, attend church, attend meetings, accept callings, go to the temple, have family home evening, pay tithing, etc. etc. etc... Can you do all that willingly and without deception for something that you do not believe?

If you are a non-believer, you will have to lie in order to be married in the Temple. Because of the deep spiritual significance of the temple rites, this would mean that your marriage would be based on a deception. You will be expected to have a baptism interview. The only way to be approved for baptism would be to lie your way through it. The only way you could enter the temple would be to lie about your beliefs in the truth of the Church and your acceptance of the prophetic leadership. In the temple, you will make covenants to God and your bride that promise your complete -- emotional, temporal, and spiritual -- fidelity to your wife and the building of the Kingdom. The temple presumes genuine heartfelt belief in Mormonism. To make these covenants to God without sincere belief is lying to God himself.

With no harsh judgement or intent...I sincerely and kindly suggest that if you enter into marriage and membership in this Church on the basis of deception, you will break your heart and hers.

My advice is to be true to your beliefs. I'd love for you to be a believer and to have a wonderful life as a Latter Day Saint. If not, take your time and find a wonderful woman with a wonderful family with whom you share the same spiritual beliefs. When you are in love and you want something badly, it is hard to believe that an even better relationship can happen...but it can.

I wish you all the best.