Newspaper - Conflict of Interest? Schools & Kids, posted by Mike, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I know why Jeb is censoring items against the parcel tax and why he is in support of the tax. Jeb's wife works in the office at Foothill High School and she received one of the pink slips. Her job could be saved with a parcel tax. Talk abuot a conflict of interest!
Posted by Sensibly Save Our Schools, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 9:56 pm
I don't know whether to start laughing or crying!
For those of you out there who are saying "no way," go to www.pleasanton.k12.ca.us, click on Foothill High School, then select Foothill Staff and you will see that Jan Bing is listed as a counseling secretary at Foothill High School.
Well, that certainly explains why Jeb Bing is in favor of the parcel tax. He has a personal financial interest. What it doesn't explain however is why Jeb didn't disclose this information in his editorial.
It would be appropriate for Jeb Bing to do what others have done in similar situations - recuse himself from the discussion.
Thanks so much Mike for sharing this information. Now let's see how long this thread stays open!
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 10:19 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Ya know... sure why not? :) On the other hand, I think it is common knowledge that almost no newspaper would ever dare to not endorse a school parcel tax. Same with businesses. No business or newspaper wants to be perceived as being anti-children, as the proponents of Measure G characterize anyone who dares to raise questions. It is safer to be seen as anti-taxpayer.
Posted by Sensibly Save Our Schools, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 10:21 pm
I should add that parcel tax or not, it's questionable whether Jan Bing's job would have been saved....according to the Cabinet Identified Possible Reductions for 2009-10, 2 high school counseling assistants were identified as being on the list of possible reductions.
But counseling assistants aren't on the list of staff/programs that supposedly the parcel tax will save.
I say supposedly because as has been said many times before - a parcel tax isn't what's necessary to save teachers' jobs or key programs - good fiscal management, responsibility and integrity are what's needed.
PUSD needs to manage the funds they have well, they need to be responsible in the decisions they make on how and on what they spend taxpayer money on and they need to have the integrity to cut the fat.
I continue to be appalled that our fine teachers were even asked to sacrifice any pay while administrators continue to deposit monthly car allowance checks ranging from $600-$1,000 per month, and as taxpayers, we're asked to fund a $150K per year cell phone bill and foot the bill for district issued gasoline credit cards.
Posted by Jeb Bing, editor of the Pleasanton Weekly, on Apr 3, 2009 at 7:42 am Jeb Bing is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Just a reminder that we are restricting all posts related to the June 2 parcel tax measure to registered users of the Pleasanton Weekly Town Square forum. We have found that this keeps the conversations more civil and focused without any restriction on what posters say or the opinions they express.
Posted by Sensibly Save Our Schools, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Apr 3, 2009 at 8:18 am Sensibly Save Our Schools is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
The Pleasanton Weekly kept a thread open that contained a parcel tax opponent's full name in the topic line, but as soon as Mr. Bing got up this morning and discovered he was a topic of discussion, he closed off the thread to any but registered users.
Mr. Bing has never disclosed his personal connection to PUSD - a disclosure which would be in keeping with journalistic ethics.