I don't know, specifically, what's happening for my neighbors to the North in Waukesha. I *do* know that both Governors Walker and Kasich have significantly cut funding for education. I don't think that's a way forward for either state.

In the ad she was identified as a school board member, and she used the words 'we' and 'us'. Any normal person watching the ad would assume she was speaking for the board. Rajnicek is either disingenuous or clueless.

I am so thankful that we have someone on our school board who is willing to stand up for what she believes and the issues she ran on and not be bullied by fellow board members or the media. It is about time! Keep it up Karin, you have much support.

much ado about nothing...

Karin may have been speaking as a board member, but not as a board member of Waukesha School District. She didn't use her name, school district or anything else that identified who or what district she was talking about. Nobody who saw the ad, other than maybe a few people in Waukesha actually knew she is on the WSB. That is of course until now, when everyone other than Karin starts trying to make something out of nothing.

This is a classic non-story, story.

This is just a couple of School Board members, who are wholly owned by the teachers union,bullying someone who does not toe the union line. Keep it up Karin and continue to be an independent voice. Don't be intimidated by the hissy fit that continues to be thrown by the greedy teachers union!

the 'sha guy, you think we're stupid -- or you just didn't watch the ad, or you can't read the words "School Board Member" right there on the screen? Of course, anyone who actually knows anything about Waukesha schools could be confused by seeing this woman who looks like their school board member but must not be talking about the Waukesha district, since we don't have 25 schools, as she claims. . . .

And to those of you who think that her violating the district policy was just fine, reread the story and realize what that means: district policy, not just board policy, so required conduct of all employees in the district. You think that this is just fine for her to do? Then picture the recall ad with another school board member or a principal or a teacher violating district policy by doing this to call for Walker's recall. You would be screaming bloody murder about it, so don't think that you fool us, either.

District policy is district policy. It has nothing to do with free speech. Yikes, you people who elected her are proud of her refusal to follow policy, when she serves ont the policy committee, and of her weaseling about it? Please. Have some pride.

Her use of the words "we" and "us" was the problem. The problem existed in the first Walker Advertisement and subsequent Ads were done without using those words. In addition she is no longer referred to as a Waukesha School Board member in the Ad.

Karin is correct in that she is entitled to appear in Advertisements for Scott Walker. However, she used poor judgement in using the words "we" and "us". As for the policy violation, I still do not see it as a violation but more as ignoring the very clear advice stated in the policy regarding exercising caution in avoiding representing yourself as speaking for the full board.

We the People are the Government. We the People have a Constitutionally Protected Privilege to Speak Freely. Permission to Speak Freely is unnecessary and a Restriction on the Constitutionally Protected Free Speech Privilege. The Public Square is a Free Speech Zone. No Exceptions. The Cure for Bad Speech is not Restricted Speech, but More Good Speech. God Save the Constitution.

Gee - Nice try. Even the former Waukesha school board member who posted above does not believe this is a policy violation!

To your point about it being a district policy for boards, principles and teachers though...
I didn't hear all the Waukesha teachers in Madison starting their chants by saying.... "In my opinion, Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Scott Walker has got to go, In my opinion, Hey Hey, Ho Ho..." I did not notice their picket signs saying, "In my opinion Recall Walker! or, In my opinion this is Fitzwalkerstan!" Do their yard signs say, "In my opinion Walker must go!?" I don't see their bumper stickers written with, "In my opinion Recall Walker!"

I hope you get the point because this is a classic non-issue, issue being played out in the media.

Phil Scarr: Please enlighten us all on which restrictions are placed on Waukesha School Board member's speech. I am only aware that there seems to be a false notion running around the country that only "politically correct(ed?) speech" is allowable. And thanks for informing everyone on the obvious, known restrictions on Free Speech; it wasn't really to the point of the matter; I hope you'll apologize on this forum for going beyond the limits I personally feel are "hurtful" to my "feelings." Second thought...never mind. I'm bigger than that and my ego will heal.

Above, St Swithin tells Erin, " Erin, the issue is speaking for others without their permission." Thus was accurately described the fall of Western Civilization.

Here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson, who speaks for me, and is appropriate to this issue:
" To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Individuals may belong to groups and still speak opinions in opposition to that group. That was kinda the whole point for the Founding of , for instance, America. Money is an extension of a person; it is his or her property, a natural right. When the govt uses the taxes they are given in ways not acceptable to a citizen, they may protest freely, and express support for those who speak for them...they're called Governors, Legislators, Presidents....see how this works?

Hey Doc. The Jefferson quote is actually "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." (http://bit.ly/qG0tg) That quote comes from a bill introduced in the Virginia Legislature to ensure religious freedom for all Virginians. In context, Jefferson is referring to the implementation of a state religion and his objection to the joining of civil society (i.e. Government) with any one religion (i.e. Christianity).

This statute is one of the items Jefferson was most proud of and he actually had inscribed on his tombstone (http://bit.ly/hxHNFW):

Author of the American Declaration of Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom and Father of the University of Virginia.

I know this because I lived in Charlottesville Virginia, Jefferson's hometown, for 15 years and went to graduate school at the University of Virginia. Jefferson and Paine are my personal favorite Revolutionary War Action Figures.

Phil Scarr: Exceptions without sanctions aren't exceptions, apparently, because only " politically correct speech" is now allowed, and violent threats like Richard Trumpka trumpeted on the Capitol grounds are allowed to pass.

Forming a mob into a civilization is a tricky business, and we really don't want to chew that gruel again. The real issue here is just like it was then: can a person who is in a group be compelled to withhold opinion on anything held by the group, when speaking publicly. The restriction on speech you cited is unconstitutional, and I think it's obvious to any Free Thinking individual that it is.

The Revoultion continues; we haven't yet formed that "more perfect union" our Founders were striving for. I know that, because the blood that flows through my veins I share with those that fought in the Revolution, Pickett's Charge ( "June" Kimble, 14th Tenn Volunteers), the Alamo ( Geo Kimble, of " The Immortal 32") ), WW II ( both parents), and Viet. Nam, (yours truly).

Mobs are thin gruel for Patriots.

" There are no wise few. Every aristocracy that has ever existed has behaved, in all essential points. exactly like a small mob."
~ Gilbert Keith Chesterton~ " Heretics", 1905

" How can you thank a man for giving you what is already yours? How then can you thank a man for giving you only part of what is yours?"
~ Malcom X ~

" Therefore it is necessary to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the cause."
~Machiavelli~

" It is thy very energy of thought/ which keeps thee from thy God."
~ John Henry Cardinal Newman ~

Since the policy is created and ultimately enforced and sometimes modified rather than enforced by the board, it is a matter for the board to decide as they wish. As a matter of clarity, Phil Scarr's posting of the policy does lead me to a conclusion that there was a violation of the policy.

As for the "free speech" debate, I find that more interesting. Will those who defend the free speech rights of a school board member also criticize Governor Walker for his most recent attempt to suppress the free speech rights of protestors in Madison?

Is it the idea of "free speech" that is important or is this just a discussion between backers of Scott Walker and critics of Scott Walker?

Phil Scarr:
Please state your sources for the record.
"She was deemed by the majority of the board to be in violation of this simple policy."
I haven't read this anywhere.

If the ad said that Walker's reforms did nothing, I doubt that anyone would be complaining!

Simply put, what she said was factual.

If it were merely a matter of states, or groups, giving us our rights, based on whatever is required for peace, tranquility and social order, then of course Karin spoke out of order, because everyone must have the same rights as every other one, or social justice would be disordered in favor of one group, or person, over all the others.

But states, or groups, or individuals, don't give us our rights. If they gave, they can remove.In a free and just society, laws must recognize commonly held rights that are prior to governments. First things must always come first, or society becomes dis-orderly.

Freedom to speak freely from one's own conscience is a "first thing," it existed before human governments. In fact, speech and conscience separates humans from other breathing creatures. If ideas and speech are suppressed, it enables those who wish to create a new social dis-order, not based on "first things," from dominating over a free society. It prevents "new things" from dominating over " first things."

" New things" may be such things as: will to power, mischief, social experimentation, or error of judgment.

Phil Scarr:
Please state for the record your source to defend the actions that the committee chair had the authority to make a board determination as you state, "The fact remains that she was deemed to be in violation of the policy."

Correction:Awkward sentence, third paragraph, second sentence, should read:
It enables those who wish to create a new social dis-order, not based on "first things", to dominate over a free and just society.

Sheeze, people. A simple thought experiment is needed here -
Let's say you are part of a group - school board, knitting circle, whatever. One member of your group appears on television with the label "Member of Group ___". Then she says "We love President Obama. We think he's doing a wonderful job." N o where does it state she is expressing a personal opinion.
What would you think of this ad and this person?

Apples and oranges. The ad stated that Karin was an officer holder, not a member of a group, specifically not the Waukesha School Board. "We" clearly meant her loving husband and 3 wonderful children and the funding cuts by the state were going to have an impact on her children's education.

KARIN
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0EfMhiE9E0

The problem is glaringly obvious, but without a "keen grasp of the obvious", and a simple mind, I suppose it's difficult to discern for some here, so please allow this simple mind to speak for Karin here, though I'm sure she is quite capable of explaining and defending her comments in the ad.

We have been deceived. We have been deceived into believing that a Christian who is part of the civil government can be many persons at the same time. Simply put, it is acceptable to be "double minded", and be a Christian at one moment and a non-Christian the next, especially when dealing with governmental matters. This idea first was set forth by President John F. Kennedy, and later picked up by Mario Cuomo, and then, of late, by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

When Karin said "we" she meant all those whom she knows, but especially her family. I don't think that there is a "we" for this and not for that. But we have come to assume the words spoken can mean anything "we" wish them to mean, or think they mean, or find it politically correct to mean. Anything but what they really mean.

Se who "we" are?

Confucius was once asked what would be the most important thing to do to reform society. He said, " Return words to their true meaning."

Well, Kurt, it comes down to her admitting she didn't foresee others reading her mind for her, and her apologies for that. That's what this looks like to me. If you don't think so....than don't think so. I don't own anyone's mind but my own. I am getting tired, however, and I think a lot of other people are getting tired in this country, of other people thinking they can coerce 'politically correct" speech to be the only speech that is allowable.

I still think Karin was within her Constitutionally protected rights to speak her conscience in the ad, and I am glad she had that small window of opportunity to speak her conscience, before the naysayers had a chance to nit-pick and parse her words for her, based on an unconstitutional , and I believe an unnatural and impossible policy that exists within the structure of the School Board. If people chose to apply their meanings of her words as if they could read her mind, then ...let them. But the policy is as I described it.

I think she spoke for her natural fear of the results of making a bad policy move, and was expressing her gratitude to Gov Walker for preventing failure. Nothing wrong with that. I applaud her,and thank her and Gov Walker.

Kurt O'Bryan:
According to this article the candidates in a public debate (you) violated policy 8300. Is that true? It states that the policy chair says so.

There are rules and laws and then there are other rules and laws. By not following the natural rules and laws that exist concerning how to create wealth, what responsibilities and restriction states have in spending taxes, and other laws that pertain to God's relationship to the state, men have found themselves in a deficit regarding our children's future.

Respect? Really?How much respect do you think the children who are at this time growing up to maturity will feel for those who hold responsible positions now? We still have time to fix things, if we all have respect for the natural laws of the markets, and understand how out of control and illegal it is to spend money by printing it, only to run out of money, and then print some more, based on promises that future generations will have to keep.... We can make the changes necessary to make Wisconsin Great Again, and we can do it within a correct moral framework. Not allowing people who are in control of School Budgets to speak freely in a public forum is a bad moral framework.

Kurt, I join you in wishing Karin the best in her duties, and I have a sense that she is just what the School Board needs. I, however, don't see why you're confused about how natural law, printing and spending, etc don't have any relationship to the topic. It's because those topics were "off the table " for so long that we've found ourselves in this fiscal mess we're in.

The best government is the least government. and lower governments shouldn't be unduly burdened by higher governments. In fact, setting priorities from the bottom up ensures a better result. The hardworking private secor tax payers have been ignored, and the spend a taxpayer's buck to get non-taxpayer's vote mindset only enriches the ruling elite classes, puts a large group in a dependent state, and ruins our future. Targeting Karin's remarks based on a faulty policy only reinforces the mood that responsible, concerned authority figures, who try to prevent fires from happening, are unwelcomed in their concerns. Well, when the fire starts consuming everything in it's path, it'll be too late to worry about what coulda been. It will be what it is.

All elected officials at local, state and national levels take an Oath of Office wherein each person elected by the public swears to uphold to all laws, rules and policies related to their specific office. This is the responsibility of a public official.

Ms. Brzenk
According to this article the candidates in a public debate (you also) violated policy 8300. Is that true? It states that the policy chair says so.

Mr. O'Bryan:
Is this 'assumption' specifically written as an exception in Policy 8300, or, is this an opinion made when speaking to the media by Ms. Langill? If the later, isn't this a violation of policy 8300?
Let me ask you the same question that Phil Scarr didn't answer:
Please state for the record your source to defend the actions that the committee chair had the authority to make a board determination as you state, 'The fact remains that she was deemed to be in violation of the policy.'

There appear to be different rules for different people. A letter from Ms. Langill appeared in yesterday's local paper.Ms Langill stated " I would like to commend Karin Rajnicek for now conforming with School Board Policy #8300, and publicly indicating she speaks only for herself and not for the board." NOW conforming??? Did the School Board conclude that Ms. Rajnicek violated policy #8300???

It makes me wonder, is Ellen Langill the spokesperson for the Waukesha School Board or is MS.LANGILL in VIOLATION OF POLICY #8300 by making the above statement??? She signed her name to the letter Ellen Langill, Policy Committee, Waukesha School Board. Ironic isn't it!!!

Interesting how the Patch filed this article in the UL address;" Waukesha School Board Member Taken To Task By Boards Policy Committee".

Seems Ms Langill plays fast and loose with the things she says at meeting and in letters. I almost laughed out loud when I read her statement that it is 'generally assumed that what is said by the candidates isn’t the opinion of the full board...' Really? Generally assumed by whom? Obviously, the policy doesn't apply to her. Why am I not shocked?