Judge halts Cobb County's iBook program

I think an apple ibook program is a good idea. But you cannot do it via fraud.

what a lesson to teach the kids.

how about every teacher, and the parent of every student, puchase an ibook.

> how about every teacher, and the parent of every student, puchase an ibook.

That's a brilliant idea.

Even better, scratch that and just buy your kids some paper and a textbook.

let's just take the money and build another foorball stadium

Where's the fraud?

I suggest you amble over to wikipedia.org and look up the meaning of the word.

I note that Butch Thompson is a a "former" Cobb Commissioner, any guesses as to the circumstances of his "former-ness"?

>how about every teacher, and the parent of every student, puchase an ibook.

Yea, that brilliant since obviously every teacher and parent of every student can afford to do that.

' I suggest you amble over to wikipedia.org and look up the meaning of the word. '

Yes, well, perhaps YOU should look that up too:

"fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them — usually, to obtain property or services from him or her unjustly." ('him or her' would refer to the voting public in the case)

It also refers to "bait and switch", which was specifically referred to in the judgement.

Well, according to the news reports I've read, the money was supposed to be used to 'refresh computer workstations'. Now it seems to me that laptops are 'computer workstations' (maybe they weren't a few years ago, but these days they are) and 'refreshing' surely means putting new ones in place. So where's the fraud? Perhaps the judge interpreted 'refreshing...' here to mean only giving new ones to staff/students that already had a 'workstation'? Or am I misunderstanding something here?

Then read the article. Refresh means "refresh", not 'obtain additional new'; and it clearly states, among other things:"Provide a computing device for every teacher" only - I do NOT see any "Provide a computing device for every student" in there.

Furthermore, the article lists the other things the money was supposed to be for, but then wasn't going to be used for (district equipment); it wasn't just 'workstations'.

So, with a little actual reading, you can clearly see why it's considered fraud, and why the judge criticized the board, short of calling it fraud (and then, see definitions). Perhaps the judge didn't call it fraud yet because the money hadn't yet been misused.

Oops, sorry, my mistake. I didn't actually follow the link above as I had read several reports on this and thought I had already read this one, which I hadn't. However, as you indicate, the MDJ link has lots more info.

Anyway, it seems to me that 'Refresh and enhance mobile computing access district wide' could be interpreted to include the laptops for students, altho I'll agree it's a stretch. But it's probably best not to argue about this anymore as it looks like the case will hinge on various details about what language was used where, how to interpret it, etc.

I do however think that 'fraud' is too strong a word for a situation where, as far as I can see, the people making the decision did not personally benefit. Malidministration, maybe; failure to follow instructions/procedures, maybe; perhaps even negligent use of funds, but not really fraud.

One more thing, you say the term 'bait and switch' was used in the judgement. I can only see the lawyer Barnes saying that...is that what you meant or do you have a link to the judgement?

It seems to me that Mr. Thompson has an axe to grind. Is it sour grapes for now being a "former" commissioner, or does he have some financial interest in having someone else provide the laptops other than Apple?

Or perhaps he's just being "Bitch" Thompson, the troublemaker, and likes to see his name in print.