PTA Responds to CRC
You will remember that the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, in their last gasp effort to interrupt the pilot testing of the new Montgomery County Public Schools sex education curriculum, sent letters and postcards and also robo-called homes of families with children in the test schools, trying to convince people to keep their kids out of the test classes. They got the names, addresses, and phone numbers from PTA directories.
When the CRC pulled something similar a year or two ago, the Montgomery County Council of PTAs passed a resolution demanding that they stop. The resolution had no effect on the group, who feel that their mission is too important to be bound by common decency.
We have just learned that the PTA sent an official letter to the CRC this week. Here is the text of it:
The CRC has made a database of information from these directories, and I'd be pretty sure they aren't going to delete it just because the PTA asked them to.
When the CRC pulled something similar a year or two ago, the Montgomery County Council of PTAs passed a resolution demanding that they stop. The resolution had no effect on the group, who feel that their mission is too important to be bound by common decency.
We have just learned that the PTA sent an official letter to the CRC this week. Here is the text of it:
April 16, 2007
John Garza, President
Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum
P.O. Box 183
Damascus, MD 20872
Dear Mr. Garza:
The Montgomery County Council of PTAs is aware that your organization has misused the property of several PTAs in the county. Specifically we are referring to your organizations’ use of the Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Westland, Sherwood, Julius West, Watkins Mill, and Beall PTAS/PTA directories.
Washington Post reporter, Daniel DeVise, informed us that Ms Michelle Turner stated on the record that the CRC used the directories because it had no other way to reach parents.
Many of these PTSAs have written directly to your organization and other PTSAs wrote to you in 2005 to protest your use of their directories then. MCCPTA wrote to you in 2006 to inform you that your use was improper. You are well aware that these directories are the property of their respective PTSAs and that your use of them constitutes misuse as defined within their disclaimer which appears in their directory.
Please cease and desist immediately and destroy all information obtained from these directories.
Jane de Winter
President
The CRC has made a database of information from these directories, and I'd be pretty sure they aren't going to delete it just because the PTA asked them to.
posted by JimK at 4:43 PM
19 Comments:
How interesting. The CRC repeatedly and willfully chooses to disregard the eighth commandment "thou shalt not steal" while insisting that everybody else must follow every Biblical rule.
HYPOCRITES!
Oh Daisy dear, lighten up...
And remember,
Hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue.
Franois, Duc de La Rochefoucauld
All CRC needed is for one parent at each school to volunteer their copy of the directory. To assert theft is such an overreach that it nearly makes me laugh...ok, but it did put a big smile on my face.
Look Daisy, Jim, et al; you won, enjoy your victory...goodness, you remind me of that comment that prudes live in fear that somewhere, somehow, someone else is actually enjoying sex...
Daisy isn't *asserting* that it's theft. The PTA considers it theft. It *is* theft. People at the schools submit their names in good faith, expecting the PTA to protect the directories from abuse. Clearly, the PTA isn't willing to actively protect the families, but instead passes resolutions and sends letters, knowing that that CRC won't respect families' rights.
"All CRC needed is for one parent at each school to volunteer their copy of the directory."
No Orin, you are mistaken. The use of every MCPS PTA directory is governed by rules that prohibit the use of the personal information in the directories by non-school groups. CRC may use "MCPS" in the title of it's website in hopes of fooling people that it is part of the school system, but it is not. Parents who "volunteer" a copy of their directory for use by anyone other than a school entity are violating PTA rules.
There are plenty of parents of kids at MCPS schools who work with political groups, run their own businesses, etc. If every parent with ideas or products to present to the public used the PTA directories like CRC does, we'd be innundated with junk mail. That's why the rule prohibiting use of the information by non-school groups and entities was written.
A couple of years ago, a local business owner and MCPS parent used the PTA directory to advertise his business at my kids' school and was informed by the PTA that it was a violation of PTA rules. He ceased, desisted, profusely apologized, and has never misused the directory again. Not so for the CRC. Even after being told by MCCPTA in writing that it is a violation of PTA rules to use the directory as they did in 2005, they went ahead and did so again in 2007.
Get real Orin. MCPS parents do not want to be bothered with junk mail and intrusive phone calls businesses or lobbyists from school directories that are SOLELY for the use of the PTA.
The problem with the PTSAs' enforcement system is that it assumes that the directories have been misused by someone who actually does want the goodwill of the school community. A real estate agent or accountant or baker needs that goodwill. The CRC doesn't really seem to care about the families they alienate, much less about the PTSAs themselves.
These resolutions are a version of the "mom voice" or the "librarian voice." Usually that's enough. The CRC doesn't care who respects them and who doesn't, so the "mom voice" doesn't work on them.
Anonymous writes,
Daisy isn't *asserting* that it's theft. The PTA considers it theft. It *is* theft.
They can consider it theft all they want, but until they (or any of you, for that matter) can cite any state law governing this "egregious" violation, I will be left with the impression that this is simply alot of huffing and puffing (phew, good thing 4/20 is now past tense) by them and by you.
I am trying to understand the psychology behind a group exhibiting sour grapes in the wake of such a victory, but I will admit that it is puzzling...
People at the schools submit their names in good faith, expecting the PTA to protect the directories from abuse. Clearly, the PTA isn't willing to actively protect the families, but instead passes resolutions and sends letters, knowing that that CRC won't respect families' rights.
Well, herein you and I differ, as I would be forever grateful to be informed of such actions taking place. This is not like getting a call from someone wanting to sell me a product or service, or even a way to make "thousands from home" (name your least favorites Multi-level Marketing gimic).
MCPS Mom writes,
Parents who "volunteer" a copy of their directory for use by anyone other than a school entity are violating PTA rules.
Wow, that really frightens me now?...what are they going to do...send a couple of PTA thugs out to confiscate my PTA directory? The directory *IS* being used for a purpose directly related to the functioning of the schools...you, TTF and the PTA simply do not like that because you do not agree with their agenda.
Sour grapes are not being exhibited here. Facts are being reported.
The fact being reported is that the CRC will stoop to ANY tactic, fair or unfair, allowed or not, to further their misinformation campaign.
I think of the time and effort it must have taken someone to enter the thousands of addresses and phone #s of families into a database (or is there a technology they could have used), for so little return (I believe about 30 parents opted there students out). I wonder if CRC hired someone to enter the names. It would be very expensive to enter the entire county into a database, even if they were able to acquire the directories at all the middle and high schools in Montgomery.
rrjr
"The fact being reported is that the CRC will stoop to ANY tactic, fair or unfair, allowed or not, to further their misinformation campaign."
Mom
Don't you see how bad it looks for you to be seen trying to suppress the free interaction of ideas among parents?
It's the liberal syndrome manifest:
Win by cutting off debate. The ideas can't stand without this suppression.
Outside of the stray TTFer, no one cares that they got a letter or a phone message. Try as you may, that fact won't change.
From Andrea- not anon
I would say people do care that they got a phone call and letter- parents cared before when they got Jamison's rambling "piece of work"(just one more reason to question lawyers). I obviously don't like CRC's ideas or tactics but even for parents who didn't particularly care about CRC's agenda- they felt this misuse targeted their minor children. TTF must have a lot more power than Anon gives us credit for -if so few people objected, why did the MCPTSA main board issue a second letter of reprimand to CRC?
Andrea
MCPS Mom writes,
Sour grapes are not being exhibited here. Facts are being reported.
Pluezze! Ok, facts and sour grapes are being exhibited here. Is that any better?
The fact being reported is that the CRC will stoop to ANY tactic, fair or unfair, allowed or not, to further their misinformation campaign.
And again I wonder...why all the huffing and puffing? That leaves me with the impression that for a group that so believes the "facts" are on their might be concerned that their facts just might be beliefs, and mistaken ones at that...any chance of that being the case?
Anonymous writes,
Outside of the stray TTFer, no one cares that they got a letter or a phone message. Try as you may, that fact won't change.
Exactly, thank you.
"if so few people objected, why did the MCPTSA main board issue a second letter of reprimand to CRC?"
Appeasing a squeaky wheel with a resolution that has little effect. It's a way of covering themselves in the remote chance that TTF is successful in their desperate attempt to convince parents that some egregious violation has taken place.
Happens all the time.
Andrea- not anon
So Anon admits that CRC is just a squeaky wheel(albeit with some rightwing money). Funny that people who are ostensibly so concerned about other people's children(their own are not in our schools) and what they are learning- that their own parents approve of-they are not concerned about violating the privacy of these kids. Maybe we will see Johnny Garza trying to reach MCPs kids on FACEbook or My space next.
Andrea
"So Anon admits that CRC is just a squeaky wheel"
I was referring to the county's pre-eminent squeaky wheel, TTF. They're the only ones pip-squeaking about the PTA directories.
"Funny that people who are ostensibly so concerned about other people's children(their own are not in our schools) and what they are learning- that their own parents approve of-they are not concerned about violating the privacy of these kids."
That you twist an act of notifying parents of a curriculum change into violating the privacy of children shows how crazed you are. If privacy means parents can't know how to contact other parents, why have the directories at all? They are obviously produced for the purpose of inter-parent contact.
This isn't a case of inter-parent contact. This is a case of a political advocacy group contacting parents of MCPS students by violating MCPS students' privacy -- stealing private data from PTA directories -- after they'd already been told to cease and desist.
Letters and robocalls were directed to parents/guardians of minors by using stolen data from private information compiled by PTA volunteers into PTA student directories. Contrary to the assertion that "no one cares" about these violations, there is evidence that the CRC's invasions of privacy and theft of private information were scorned by members of this community, namely the letters to the editor in the local press and complaints sent to various PTAs and the MCCPTA.
Replace the Christian-based CRC proclaiming their desire to add "gays can change their sexual orientation" to the curriculum with an African Muslim-based group proclaiming their desire to add "female circumcision supports marriage" to the curriculum and tell us you support both groups' right to invade MCPS students' privacy by stealing compiled private data from PTA directories.
"This isn't a case of inter-parent contact."
CRC didn't break into offices and steal this information. Parents who wanted the truth about the curriculum conveyed to other parents asked CRC to send them the information.
"This is a case of a political advocacy group contacting parents of MCPS students by violating MCPS students' privacy -- stealing private data from PTA directories -- after they'd already been told to cease and desist."
In a democratic society, there must be a way for those with common interests to communicate. PTA is way too closely inter-related with the government. They should try some parental advocacy themselves and distance themselves from the establishment.
Meanwhile, has any private information about any student been made public?
"Letters and robocalls were directed to parents/guardians of minors by using stolen data from private information compiled by PTA volunteers into PTA student directories."
Oh dear. These poor individuals must have suffered a momentary inconvenience. To think they picked up their phone and a robot told them something they didn't know. What a cruel world it is.
"Contrary to the assertion that "no one cares" about these violations, there is evidence that the CRC's invasions of privacy and theft of private information were scorned by members of this community, namely the letters to the editor in the local press and complaints sent to various PTAs and the MCCPTA."
Any chance these complaints were instigated by TTF.
NAAHH!
"Replace the Christian-based CRC proclaiming their desire to add "gays can change their sexual orientation" to the curriculum with an African Muslim-based group proclaiming their desire to add "female circumcision supports marriage" to the curriculum and tell us you support both groups' right to invade MCPS students' privacy by stealing compiled private data from PTA directories."
If I got that call supporting female circumcision, I'd hang up, with the assurance few would agree with the point. Big deal. As long as it didn't become an incessant event, I'd really have no problem with someone expressing their viewpoint
LINCOLN, Neb. — State investigators here are still trying to figure out who sabotaged Scott Kleeb’s campaign for Congress last November with a barrage of automated telephone calls to voters. The unauthorized calls, officials said, distorted Mr. Kleeb’s views and even used a recording of his voice — sometimes arriving in the middle of the night — with the greeting: “Hi, this is Scott Kleeb!”
Several Nebraska state lawmakers were so outraged by the shenanigans that they are pushing legislation that would impose some of the country’s most restrictive regulations on prerecorded campaign calls, both bogus and legitimate ones. Similar bills are in the works in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin and at least a dozen other states, prompted in large part by telephone calls authorized by campaigns during last year’s elections.
“Get rid of them,” said Stan Jordan, a Republican state representative in Jacksonville, Fla., who has sponsored a bill there. “When they first started, this wasn’t much of a nuisance. But it’s epidemic-level now.”
...Courts have already upheld some state laws restricting the use of automated campaign calling. In Indiana and Minnesota, for instance, laws have withstood challenges and are cited as models for the new wave of legislation around the country.
Last year, a call center based in Virginia challenged the Indiana law, which was enacted in 1988 and requires consent from the person being called. (Consent can be obtained via a live operator introducing the prerecorded message or another means worked out in advance.)
The company, FreeEats.com, had sought a stay and an injunction.
In his order denying both, a federal district judge, Larry J. McKinney, wrote, “The government interest served by the statute is the protection and preservation of residential privacy.”...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/us/politics/25calls.html?hp
It's odd that the NYT fails to mention that Scott Kleeb was a Democratic candidate, but only identifies a Republican who says he wants to get rid of these techniques.
Well, not that odd.
JimK
It *is* odd.
Maybe the Times didn't want to appear to be piling on by pointing out yet another dirty trick used by the GOP to sway a local election, in this case Nebraska's 3rd district Congressional race.
Think about it though. In 2006, the GOP had to stoop to use annoying bogus robocalls in Nebraska, a Republican and conservative stronghold, which hasn't given an electoral vote to a Democrat for US President since Lyndon Johnson.
The times they are a'changing!
Post a Comment
<< Home