Hi Paul,

Thanks for your question. There is not a “set” criterion for an event such
as this.
A School Board is clearly within their authority to make decisions which
they believe are in the best interest of the district.

We have had such an outcry from literally hundreds of patrons concerned
about the showing of the welcome back to school talk that we were taken by
surprise.
Had there been time to functionally inform parents of their choice to let
their kids view this or not, I believe that would have been done.
The choice to opt out would have been a valid option that would have met the
desires of parents on either side of the issue by allowing those who wanted
to see it to do so, and those who didn’t, to opt out. Logistically it would
have been a nightmare to do this adequately.

We truthfully didn’t receive an official announcement of this until last
night. The Board made the only decision they felt would be responsive to
both groups, with the understanding that anyone will be still able to view
the speech at home in various forms after the speech is given.

I would also tell you that independent of the decision, I personally would
have not blinked if my own kids watched the speech. But viewing it on my own
is a fair alternative.   But for good or bad, and many times for both,  A
Board must make a decision that they feel is responsible and fair. I believe
given the parameters of this situation they have done their best to do just
that.

I certainly understand that there will not be much you will not agree with
concerning this reply, and I truly respect that.

I am adding a copy of the memo that we sent out to our schools.

Sincerely

Chris Sorensen

MEMO

DATE:        September 3, 2009

TO:        Principals

FROM:    Supt. Sorensen

RE:        Video feed of President Obama speaking to school children.

State Superintendent Larry Shumway sent official word on September 2, 2009,
announcing “President Obama’s back-to-school message to school children.”
Supt. Shumway’s message says “the decision to watch (or not to watch) the
President’s speech should be made by each [district] LEA.  There is no
requirement from the USOE, the U.S. Department of Education, or from the
President that any student watch.”

Given the late timing of the announcement, Nebo District has decided that
district students will not participate in watching this speech at school.
The tight timeline presented two main concerns:
1)    With respect to parental responsibility, Nebo District would have
given parents the right to opt out of having their student watch this
speech.  This would have been difficult to appropriately accomplish in such
a short time.
2)    Adjusting for established school and class schedules, technology
availability, and previously planned activities on such short notice would
have created administrative and curriculum challenges for schools.

Parents who wish to watch the speech live next Tuesday can find it on C-SPAN
and on the internet at www.whitehouse.gov.  We would encourage parents who
desire to have their student watch the speech outside of school time on the
internet.

Last year Chris Buttars refered to a bill in the legislature as a black baby, an “ugly black baby.”  What the hell is up with this?  I thought the church was over institutional racism.  This guy used to be a Bishop in the LDS church?

Now I am sure there are those who would say that an individual member of the LDS Church do not speak for the Church, and in fairness Buttars does not represent an offical position in the LDS Church.  However, I remember this little concept they used to teach me in sunday school: “Every member a Missionary.”  By virtue of Buttars political position, and his known history for offensive statements, he should be much more cognisant of what he says.  If Buttars is a missionary, he is a piss poor one.

The Salt Lake Tribune has an interesting application that allows you to search for donations to the Presidential candidates here.

Part of the problem has to be the single party dominance in this state. People just think that one party is the way is has to be.  AAAHHHH.  Makes Paul mad!

On a much more promising note, Barack Obama won in my home state on Tuesday.  Good times!

Next on to Abortion.  Here is where the flip flops began.  Romney became very uncomfortable, and began using very complex descriptions to talk his way out of changing his mind.  His policy beliefs on Stem cell were somewhat more straightforward. 

Next, gun control, a careful bit of dancing and spin by Romney.  He did a better job of dancing, but was ultimately uncomfortable.

Next on to illegal immigration.  Russert brought up some statements by Romney showing strongly implied support for the Bush / McCain comprehensive immigration reform proposals.  Romney began dancing away from his support of this position.  Instead of focusing on his exact beliefs and policy decisions on illegal immigration he started to focus on employment verification.  That is all good and dandy, but it is very wishy washy.

Towards the end of the interview Russert pulled out the full flip flop smack down.  Abortion, gay rights, health care, gun rights, ect.  Russert asked a very telling question:  Would you be elected Governor of Massachusetts with your policy beliefs today?  We all know damn well that the answer is a huge NO!   

Ultimately Romney did not end as strong as he started.  I think the net effect of this interview is zero.