Messages

I've got to visit Tucson someday. Fer reals.

Sprouts are delicious on sandwiches.

However, eating mainly sprouts seems like it would clean your system out in a fairly violent fashion, on an unpleasant level.

So the school wants the kids to get out after school's over?  I don't quite see the big deal.

Taxpayer money pays for the playground.  The kids aren't doing anything wrong.

But I suppose it WOULD be better if they went and hung out in a non-public place, right?  

Behind the dumpsters at the 7-11, maybe.

The more I find out, the more indicates that this policy, if it exists, would be illegal. Oregon, and Portland in particular, has pretty unique laws about public spaces, and school playgrounds are zoned "OS" for "Open Space", same as parks. The only restriction is that during school hours, the grounds are for school use only... and at many schools here, even that is not the case because the playground is on Park & Rec land.

I am rather expecting a carefully-drafted email on Monday, explaining that the secretary was "mistaken".

I'MA GET POLITICAL ON THEIR ASSES.

I just thought they wouldn't want to be held accountable for kids after 3:15.  Would they be, anyway?

I'm still waiting for answers, but for children over the age of being allowed to "sign themselves out", no. Younger children have to wait for a parent or other designated person to officially pick them up. However, as far as I can tell so far, according to the law, once the child is officially discharged from the school session, whether by self or by parent, depending on age and what waivers the parent has signed (I had to sign a waiver to let my kids walk home), the school cannot prohibit children from playing on the playground, either supervised or alone, as long as they are over the age at which children can be left at home alone, which is 10 in Oregon. If they are under age 10, playing unsupervised, it could be considered neglect and would be a police matter, not a Portland Public Schools matter. Further, children age 12 and above who are legally allowed to supervise younger children can, well, supervise younger children. There are, of course, additional laws about how many younger children and how young they can be, but in this instance they are not relevant.

Blogger dude posted a slightly earlier version of my letter:

http://bojack.org/2010/04/schools_over_for_the_day_kids.html

Useful comments, especially from the lawyer. I was also really happy that Jack provided Oregon's legal term (Open Space) for the zoning of parks and playgrounds, because that means I can look it up and, if this supposed school policy actually exists and I am able to get a copy of it, I can check to see if it conflicts with the law.

I got a call from the school saying that my kids "have been hanging around the playground" after school with some of my oldest girl's friends, and that, apparently, is Not Permitted as All Students must be Off Campus by 3:15.

So, to recap: children are not allowed to play on the playground after school.   

My oldest daughter calls me every time (from the school phone, in fact) to ask me if she may, and tells me who is there and how long she will stay. I know who these kids are, they are good kids and it is all 100% parent-approved.

I called the school to find out what on earth the story was, and the secretary made some comments about "unsupervised children" so I said "To clarify, we are talking about 12 and 13-year-olds, with cell phones, who are legally allowed to babysit or be out and about on their own" and she said "if the parents allow them to be running around unsupervised that is a family issue" in a tone that implied that letting young teenagers have any responsibility is Bad Parenting. Needless to say, I have pretty strong feelings about the entire interaction.

It may just be the secretary trying to bullshit me, in which case I am overreacting, but if this is actual Portland Public School policy, it will not stand. I have requested a written copy of it.

This is a modified (names removed) version of the letter I sent to the principal, the school board, a local community-activist blogger, and KATU channel 2:

I'm an ACCESS Academy parent and, as other parents are, since my oldest daughter turned of age to babysit and the weather warmed up, I have been allowing her to stay on the playground for a little while with friends after school, to play. The school is about eight blocks from my home, in a safe neighborhood, as you know - most neighborhood parents have their children walk to school - and of course, many people use the field and playground during off-hours.

My daughter is 12-1/2, recently completed CPR training, and her friends are between 12 and 14... all good kids with involved parents, about whom I have no concerns in terms of getting into trouble. My son, 10, likes to play ball and have races with his friends in the field.

However, today I received a phone call from the school secretary saying that children are not allowed to play on the playground after school, and that she was calling all the parents of the offending children to let them know. I asked her if that was a Portland Public Schools policy or just our school's policy, and at first she said she could only answer for our school, but later, when I stated that I was asking for clarification, said it is a PPS policy that applies to all schools. I found the conversation very upsetting and discouraging. My son stayed after school with friends to play in the field frequently last fall while he was still attending Sabin, and I was never notified of this school district policy.

My question is, is this a common policy nationwide? Is it a new policy? Is it something that I, as a parent, should already have been aware of? The secretary was very critical and gave the impression she believes I am a stupid, terrible parent for letting my children play "unsupervised" on the playground, but, while I realize that we live in a culture of protection, at 12 years old a child is legally (and this is widely socially accepted and practiced, not a mere formality) capable not only of supervising themselves, but of supervising younger children. Because of this, I do not see the logic behind not allowing children of this age to play or supervise younger children on the playground after school hours. I am also curious whether this is a pervasive or common policy, as it is new to me. The playground has baseball diamonds, a large field for running, as well as swings and a basketball court. I have often seen young neighborhood residents skateboarding or playing ball there during off-hours.

When I asked if the playground and fields are not public property, the secretary told me that the children can go to a public park, but must be off school grounds by 3:15pm, which did not answer my question. I was under the impression that the playground is also a public park. If the playground is a public park, is this policy legal? If it is not a public park, why is it open to the public off-hours for basketball or dogwalking? At what point after school hours do the children attending school cease being under the rule of school policy and become "neighborhood residents" to whom general use of the public areas is available? It seems to do children more harm than good to shut them off from it, as it offers them one less option for healthy, outdoor, non-troublemaking fun. I also wonder if that policy means that children will not be allowed to use the playground during the summer. Will school-age babysitters be allowed to bring their younger charges to the playground, or will that be against the policy?

Clearly, as would any parent, I want to know if my children are causing problems. I rely on the communication network of my fellow parents, as well as the tattletale instinct of other kids, to inform me if this happens. I need to know so I can discipline them for inappropriate behaviors, as well as reward them for behaving socially and responsibly. My children have a cell phone with them. I feel that I am taking a reasonable balance between teaching them caution and giving them the appropriate freedom to develop responsibility, self-awareness, and independence. The idea that children of an age to legally supervise themselves and other children may not play on the public, publicly-funded playground after school seems contrary to the statement that it's for safety reasons.

I have asked the principal for a copy of the policy so that I may better understand it. I think this is a serious issue for parents, especially in an educational climate where things like tag, hugging, and swingsets are being banned from schoolyards.

In Oregon, school playgrounds are public property weekends & after hours... people take their dogs there to play, use the basketball court, etc. I believe the posted rule is that you can't use it after dark, which is also true of other public park areas. I will find out exactly what the laws are for public use of school playgrounds, and whether a public school in Oregon can legally set a policy for students that prohibits them from the normal use of school playgrounds that all other residents are entitled to.

From talking to a few people so far, it sounds like the secretary was overstating the school's authority, and the policy (which is surely insurance-based) cannot cover the playground because it's open to the public after hours. I will find out for sure soon enough.

Oh, and a close family friend just happens to both live in my neighborhood AND be on the State school board, so I sent a copy of my letter to him.

I think I just became a "community activist"...

Now that sounds HOT.

The thing I wanted to say before I left to go hang out with my girlfriends, which is only tangentially related to this thread but is triggered by something posted in it. And here perhaps I will sound like a Roger fanboi, but I still want to say it, is that as emotionally volatile as he is, as crazyfuckingwhoa as he is, on the subject of him having my back and how grateful I am of it, is that he is the guy who called me every fucking day, sometimes twice a day, when I was at my very worst times, when I really was losing my fucking shit over my divorce and my breakup with Boots, to make sure I was OK.

And that is a person who really fucking has your back.

Day in and day out, even when we were fighting online, just to make sure I was feeding myself and working and to pep/shit talk me through another fucking day. So even if this whole thread is a pile of shit, just to say, fucking hell, a bunch of pixels on a screen really came though for me there, and if I lost my shit for a few days in January/February or whenever that was because I thought I had fucked that up, well you know, it's not easy to lose your goddamn Spiritual Advisor. And as long as I am, to borrow some words from Christianity, right with Roger, I know I'm right with the world. So it is good to be right with Roger.

That guy, who tried to drive me off and made me cry (IRL OMG) in my first couple weeks here, is the reason I stuck around in the first place. Not because of the power of his mind-rays, but because here, I thought, was a place where people spoke their minds and if you felt a little fragile you put on a fucking hat... and also a place where people are treated as more than just "pixels on a screen". Having a bad day? Be a cranky dick, just be overt about it. Having a fragile day? Be a fucking piece of porcelain, just be overt about it, because one thing I noticed is that people would accept aggressive hyperbole as aggressive hyperbole and fuck you back and laugh it off, but if you were actually honestly in need of kindness, you would get kindness. Or if you just wanted to spew, that was OK too. And creativity... that shit was out of bounds, kind of in the way that's only OK in mental wards. Good shit.

You know who else? There are some fucking upright human beings here. Yatto, after being sent through the hazing gamut, sent me fucking TEA, which he knows through paying a touching kind of attention (and I mean that in a non-creepy way) is practically my lifeblood. So many other people here have been amazing, fabulous, supportive human beings, and if we fight we fight in the way I do with my actual in-person friends; nobody rips up the fabric from another person's life and flogs them with it, with very few exceptions. So for the most part, I don't think the forum is fucking broken, and I am going to put Roger at the headmast of why it's still afloat, after donning my tinfoil hat and my hive-mind controls. It's basic humanity, love it or loathe it.

4 bars!  And now my complete drama whoring contribution.  I've spent the last 2 weeks getting about 20 different tests including, but not limited too, MRI, Lumbar puncture, 37 vials of blood, cat scan etc....


I was diagnosed with MS today on top of the RA.  So just how important is this ppetty bullshit in the scheme of real life?


I'm not a real content poster so my absence hasn't been noticed. I came on tonight for the distraction of my friends. May as well have watched American Idol....


Someone pop me an email when this latest version of bullshit hits a dead end.  Love you guys but I have enough fighting IRL. I can't do this anymore!!!


XOXO Drama Queen.....





.......making the thread all about her ITP!!!

Jesus fuck. I'm sorry.

TTM AND NIGEL INADVERTENTLY AGREE IN SEPARATE THREADS!

Building bridges through bestiality.

It would appear that nobody really gives a shit about what you're saying and you're the first person to ever have any complaints about my modding. You have completely failed to show any case where I intentionally abused my abilities as a mod.

I guess you're just going to take a pass on the whole "proper argument" thing eh? I don't blame you, you're fucking terrible at it. All you can to is try desperately to cause as much drama as you can when you're in one of these moods.

A proper argument about what? Pick something, start a thread, and if it's something I care about I'll give it a shot.

I think I completely showed where you intentionally abused your abilities as a mod, and I suspect people would complain about you a lot more if you ever did anything besides post links.

We all go through crazy times, Nigel appears to be going through one right now.

Anyone have a number of the number of meltdowns Nigel has had in the last year?

I'm not having a meltdown, silly goose. It's simply that poking your repulsive existence has the same gratifying effect as shooting a BB gun at a dandelion puff.

the having-my-back thing, after all the shit we've gone through, is a factor I cannot express deeply enough my appreciation for.

Can't blame you for January/February.  If it were me, I'd have done the same thing.  I was a little bugshit.  And, by a little, I mean "I accused Maria and my daughter of plotting to kill me".

I started off angry (not to mention confused!) but got pretty fucking worried pretty damn fast. Wish I'd known better, sooner. But I'm glad Maria PMed me that night and I was able to bounce some thoughts off her... otherwise who knows if she would have forced you to go to the hospital in the morning? Shit, man. I am not trying to take credit for that, but by that point I was seriously convinced that there was something going badly wrong and I was wracking my brain for what could have caused it.

[either]

Oh yes, here:

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=24595.15

Originally re-titled by you "New Forum Rule: Don't post about any Hobbies that Nigel doesn't share"

Which, since I could, I renamed "Topic: ITT Faust abuses his admin powers"

Because you were being a dick. As I said:

It's pretty obvious from the original title that you modded me out of spite, because you don't like me personally, and I think that's pretty weak.

No it was reflecting what you said in that thread. And I don't care if you think its punitive or not, my mistake was splitting it, the thread title is up to the digression of the person who splits it, I am not completely objective nor will I ever be. I apologised for splitting it, Now you say a mod shouldn't mod their own thread, so I am going to assume you are talking horseshit at this stage.

Listen. My thread title change was in response to your split thread title. It was a deliberate attempt to piss you off in return for what appeared to be your deliberate effort to piss me off. We both succeeded in pissing each other off. I accepted your apology for splitting it, no hard feelings on that front, all right?

No, I'm NOT saying that a mod shouldn't mod their own threads, I'm saying that a mod should either be as objective as possible or get someone who is to do it for them. I think that's pretty reasonable.

I'm ALSO saying that TTM is a shitty mod and I don't understand why he is one at all.

the having-my-back thing, after all the shit we've gone through, is a factor I cannot express deeply enough my appreciation for.