1. Part of the set of qualifications for in house security job was having a concealed carry license and being qualified to use a taser. I am no gun nut, but there is something about having District employees whose job included toting around a firearm in the gun-free zones that are our schools doesn't quite sit right with me.…
1. Part of the set of qualifications for in house security job was having a concealed carry license and being qualified to use a taser. I am no gun nut, but there is something about having District employees whose job included toting around a firearm in the gun-free zones that are our schools doesn't quite sit right with me. Past that, does the District own a taser or were our security people bring one from home?
2. The lease certificates for Foster School were supposed to be "cost-neutral" - the transportation savings were supposed to fund them. What you are describing here was also pitched to be Board as being cost neutral but has proven not be. How many times did the Board fall for this line of BS?
Two thoughts:
1. Part of the set of qualifications for in house security job was having a concealed carry license and being qualified to use a taser. I am no gun nut, but there is something about having District employees whose job included toting around a firearm in the gun-free zones that are our schools doesn't quite sit right with me. Past that, does the District own a taser or were our security people bring one from home?
2. The lease certificates for Foster School were supposed to be "cost-neutral" - the transportation savings were supposed to fund them. What you are describing here was also pitched to be Board as being cost neutral but has proven not be. How many times did the Board fall for this line of BS?
It's interesting, if you read those RT stories, the Board at the time seemed pretty lukewarm on the whole scheme .. but they ultimately let him do it.
Very good questions and very disturbing. These would be good questions for district 65