Cleveland Board of Education v. loudermill is an interesting case. It’s a legal case where the Cleveland Board of Education (CBE) was sued because they claimed that the board had been “loudly” reprimanded by the Cleveland Board of Public Hearings (BPH). The trial court agreed with the board of education, but the appellate court disagreed.
You’re probably familiar with the idea of the school board’s “public hearing,” where they give out a list of complaints and then allow the public to express their opinion about those complaints. The BPH is the body that decides what the public can say. In this case, we were given a list of complaints concerning what the board wants to do with the money that the department has given the school, and a public hearing to discuss them.
In the end, the public hearing was more a display of power and control than a proper discussion of the issues. It was clear that the school board was more concerned with getting the money than actually listening to the public.
The public hearing was a very good attempt at a “what’s in it for me if I can’t hear?” type of discussion. It was an attempt to put the school board in the position of making a decision, not having to justify that decision to the public. Instead of being presented with the most difficult decision that the board has to make, the public was presented with a list of complaints and then given the chance to air them.
The board’s position was that the money should be used to improve things that were already working well. It should be used to improve the school’s finances, not to expand or build new buildings.
It’s a lot like a government making decisions about the size and scope of a police force. The government is presented with two choices, either make a decision based on how the public feels about the result or not make a decision at all. This is all fine as long as the public feels the same way about the result, but a government is also supposed to have a point of view that makes the public feel different from the government which is a whole different issue.
Again, this is the government’s decision to make. I think this is the thing that really sets this game apart from other games in its genre. This is how we decide what to build and what not to build in a city. Not only is it the government’s decision but its based on the citizens feelings. A government building and a police department deciding what to build.
I agree with this. If you have a city that has a lot of government employees, then it is easy to see them as a large group of government workers. It is a given that they will have their own opinions and that they are not going to agree with the government if they think it’s wrong. This is how the government should act.
In Cleveland, the school board decided that the city needed a new building. The school board wants the building to replace an old building that no longer meets the needs of the city’s children. The school board believes that the building needs to have the same amenities as the old building, such as a gym, auditorium, cafeteria, etc. However, the school board believes that the building should be larger, so that the children can have greater freedom of movement.
The school board is saying the new school should be bigger, but how big? How large of a building should it be? How much should it cost? What kind of amenities should be included? That’s where things get complicated, because the building already has the gym, cafeteria, auditorium, etc., but the school board wants to keep them all. So the city is forced to pay for the gym, cafeteria, auditorium, etc.
