reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Mayor Craig Schubert addresses the board, expressing concern about educators distributing inappropriate material in classrooms. He mentions speaking to a judge who confirmed this issue. The mayor presents the board with a choice: resign from the board of education or face charges.

A parent and advocate for student safety is deeply troubled that a fifth-grade teacher at Beatty Gullet Elementary School was allowed to resign rather than be terminated after engaging in serious misconduct with her 11-year-old daughter and other students. The teacher's actions included inappropriate physical contact, boundary violations, a grooming letter, harassing notes, forged documents, misuse of technology, and unauthorized video recording. The parent has a copy of the grooming letter given to her daughter during PE. She questions how the district and board have protected the affected children and demands transparency and accountability. A guardian flagged surveillance video showing the teacher leading the speaker's daughter into his classroom alone for 45 minutes on Valentine's Day, which was reported to the district on April 11, but the parent was not notified. The speaker's daughter has been deeply affected, experiencing nightmares. The parent believes termination was the necessary response and urges the district and board to prioritize student safety over administrative convenience.

According to the speaker, all teachers, counselors, principals, and other staff in Chippewa Valley School District earn over $100,000 annually, except for the lunch ladies. The superintendent's salary is almost $400,000, similar to that of the US president. Despite these high salaries, the district's proficiency scores are as low as 20%, and the high school is ranked poorly among Michigan schools. The speaker questions why the superintendent is still in his position and why he controls board meetings, suggesting that the board president should take charge. The speaker urges the district to prioritize student success and follow proper procedures in meetings.

Speaker 0: "This board delivered on all fronts, and as such, I am thrilled today to introduce to Des Moines Public Schools, the Des Moines community, and the state of Iowa, Des Moines fourteenth superintendent, doctor Ian Roberts." "On behalf of my board colleagues, thank you all." "I am pleased to welcome doctor Ian Roberts to Des Moines And Des Moines Public Schools. Doctor Roberts." Speaker 1: "Thank you, madam president. I stand here this evening before you with immense gratification and certainly a sense of pride and humility. I am incredibly grateful for the vote of confidence that the board has shown."

The speaker discusses a wave of firings at Turning Point USA (TPUSA), claiming that 40 employees were dismissed “just like that,” with the rumor that they were let go because Erica Kirk believes some of them are moles. The speaker references a video shared by Candace Owens showing one employee being fired and explaining she had just finished two weeks of 80–90 hour work weeks around AmFest and after Charlie Kirk’s assassination in September, describing her as a stellar employee who was shocked and confused by the abrupt termination. Two central questions are raised: (1) what direction TPUSA is now going in under Erica Kirk, and (2) why certain individuals remain employed or are promoted despite controversy. The speaker highlights several individuals: - Andrew Covet: described as “a mole” who has allegedly leaked information to Candace Owens, implying he should have been fired but was not. - Mikey McCoy: portrayed as Charlie Kirk’s best friend who allegedly failed to act appropriately during Charlie Kirk’s public assassination, including footage of him being inches away from Charlie and then calmly walking away. The speaker notes that McCoy claimed Erica Kirk was the one he contacted immediately after the incident, but Candace Owens and others pressed him to show his phone logs. It later emerges that McCoy reportedly called his wife ten minutes after the incident, not Erica, according to a phone call record and Erica supporting this account; this discrepancy is presented as a point of concern. Despite the questions raised about his conduct, McCoy remains employed. - Dan Flood: head of Charlie Kirk’s security team, who was reportedly near Charlie at the time of the shooting; the speaker argues that Flood should have been fired but was instead promoted, with Erica Kirk maintaining leadership of TPUSA’s security. The speaker notes a contrast between the firings and the continued employment or promotion of these individuals, arguing that the 40 fired employees were “stellar” and the removals appear inconsistent with who remains or advances. The video and narrative emphasize that the publicized shooting of Charlie Kirk and the reactions of those closest to him have created ongoing suspicion about leadership decisions at TPUSA, particularly under Erica Kirk. Throughout, the speaker repeatedly questions: what direction TPUSA is taking under Erica Kirk, and why figures like Mikey McCoy and Dan Flood are retained or elevated while others are dismissed. The overall tone asserts that the firings reflect an unclear strategic direction and raise doubts about internal accountability. The closing statement reiterates the uncertainty about TPUSA’s future path under Erica Kirk, implying it diverges from what Charlie Kirk had envisioned.

We are here to address the rise of antisemitism in schools, holding district leaders accountable for failing to address the issue. Jewish students face harassment and abuse, and it's time for change. We will continue to push for a safe learning environment until changes are made. Thank you for shining a light on this important issue.

Mayor Craig Schubert addresses the board, expressing concern about educators distributing inappropriate content in classrooms. He mentions speaking to a judge who confirmed this issue. The mayor presents the board with a choice: resign from the board of education or face charges.

Speaker 0, an employee at Ace Hardware in Seattle, confronts someone and tells them to leave. The speaker expresses frustration and uses strong language. They mention having recorded the incident on video. The transcript is filled with profanity and aggressive language.

The speaker explains how they confronted Mr. Cuffy about his lack of leadership and unrealistic plans for a specific grant. They were then taken off projects and falsely accused of not doing their job because they questioned him. The speaker also mentions that Mr. Cuffy is dangerous to the administration and shares a personal opinion about him. They express feeling unsafe and not having a good relationship with their supervisors. The speaker is reassured that they are safe to go to certain places.

A man at the podium criticized the audience for unprofessional behavior, specifically calling out a husband for his actions. He expressed frustration over past issues, suggesting that the board has a history of ignoring serious matters, including assault and sexual misconduct. He highlighted that significant amounts of money have been spent to cover up these problems, indicating a lack of accountability. He urged the board to address these issues rather than bury them.

Speaker 0 launches a confrontation about books, insisting that new books should be purchased and that she must get rid of “the 500 filthy books that you have.” She says she will read one aloud and warns that if there are children in the audience, they need to leave. Speaker 1 interrupts, stating this is a public hearing and that the book content must not be read if it is not appropriate in public. Speaker 0 objects, asking why the content is in schools, claiming the content is in public schools. Speaker 0 continues, asserting, “This this book your time,” and references DeBakey, Furr, and Heights High School, saying, “His cock was enormous.” Speaker 1 responds firmly, declaring that this is not allowed and that Speaker 0 is out of order, issuing a first warning and threatening removal with one more word. Despite the warning, Speaker 0 persists. Speaker 0 then describes explicit actions connected to the content: “She wrapped her hand around his cock.” Speaker 1 reiterates that it is not permitted and maintains the order that Speaker 0 is out of order. Speaker 0 further describes explicit sexual action: “head tongue sliding into the small slip,” continuing to read or reference the material in a manner that violates the presiding rules of the public hearing. Speaker 1 again instructs that if the content is not to be allowed, it should be removed, so that the children do not have access to it, and warns that Speaker 0 is being removed, thanking the people present and acknowledging the authority to remove them. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 muttering, “My name is,” before the transcript cuts off, leaving the final identification incomplete. Summary of key points: - Speaker 0 demands the purchase of new books and the removal of “500 filthy books,” and declares she will read one aloud, telling children to leave if present. - Speaker 1 enforces public hearing decorum, arguing some content is not appropriate for public display in schools. - Speaker 0 references sexual content tied to books allegedly in DeBakey, Furr, and Heights High School, including explicit phrases: “His cock was enormous.” - The exchange escalates with explicit descriptions, and Speaker 1 issues warnings and orders removal to maintain safety and propriety for the audience, especially children. - The session ends with Speaker 0 interrupted before finishing their identification.

Speaker 0 expresses frustration about having to stay overnight and drive back to Houston due to filibustering. Speaker 1 threatens to sue if their child is taught CRT or SEL, and encourages others to do the same. They argue against the need for CRT, SEL, and sexual expression in schools, referencing the Bible. They criticize teachers for lying and leaving due to uncomfortable situations. They reject emotional support learning and assert their identity as a mother. They vow to fight against these issues. Speaker 2 thanks them for their testimony. No questions are asked.

The school district has a troubling history with pedophiles, raising concerns about student safety. Questions are being asked about what measures are being taken to prevent these incidents and how staff have allowed this culture to persist for years. There is frustration over the continued presence of individuals with questionable backgrounds, such as a wrestling coach still interacting with students. As a parent of two daughters, one currently attending the school, there is a strong desire for assurance regarding their protection. The community seeks accountability and transparency in addressing these serious issues.

If you live in California, pull your kids out of public school because it's unfixable and will worsen. In one district, dozens of girls reported being assaulted on campus. The board of education members belong to Project Indivisible, so change is unlikely. The speaker worked for the district for two years and witnessed unbelievable things. After speaking out at board and city council meetings and meeting with the district office, the speaker was stalked, harassed, and chased off the road. The speaker advises, "These are not seeing people you're dealing with. Pull your kids out."

The speaker accuses the board of inaction regarding student bathroom policies and Title 9. They claim the board can allow girls to use the staff bathroom, but hasn't. The speaker's daughter doesn't want boys watching her in the bathroom, which the speaker deems inappropriate. The speaker alleges a board member admitted their public views differ from their personal ones, calling the board unfit. They criticize board members for claiming bathroom policies aren't their job. They warn of potential dangers if boys follow girls into bathrooms. The speaker proposes creating a new bathroom or using the staff bathroom for transgender students. The speaker challenges the board to allow them to watch the board members' wives use the bathroom to expose their hypocrisy. They accuse the board of being cowards, fearing loss of federal funding. They praise one board member for standing up for the people and kids.

I, Craig Schubert, the mayor of this city, want to address the board. It has come to my attention that the educators in our schools are distributing material that can be considered child pornography. I have consulted with a judge who has confirmed this. I am giving you a straightforward choice: either resign from the board of education or face charges. Thank you.

A speaker expresses concern about a controversial incident involving a fourth-grade student. They believe that the situation goes beyond perversion or grooming, describing it as mental rape. The speaker blames those who support and allow such incidents in schools, accusing them of mental assault on children's souls and hindering their understanding of sex and life. They criticize the board members, particularly Democrats, for pushing leftist ideologies on children. The speaker questions the educational benefit of the incident and concludes by stating that they will vote against all board members.

The transcript captures a heated HOA meeting where a homeowner (Speaker 0) rails against the lack of ballots and proper elections for the board. Speaker 0 states, “Not one person in this area has gotten a ballot to vote anybody in. I have been here eight years,” and repeats that at no point has anybody received a ballot to vote for anyone. They urge consultation with “the attorney for the homeowners,” asserting that board members are to be voted in and have a one-year term, insisting, “Not at any point in time. Does anybody here Did you get a ballot to vote for anybody? No.” Speaker 0 demands to finish their point and asks others to stop interrupting. Speaker 1 attempts to clarify, and Speaker 0 challenges their authority, asking, “Are you an attorney?” Speaker 1 acknowledges involvement since day one and asserts, “Since day one of this association, there’s never been an election,” and reiterates, “No. An election.” Speaker 0 adds, “And with that being said,” while Speaker 2 interjects with a question about current actions. Speaker 0 contends that although there may not have been an election, the current group “chose to put yourself on the board,” and claims they will move to a joint meeting and end the matter, but is interrupted. Speaker 1 insists that the meeting is not the appropriate forum for this discussion, stating, “The meeting has started to address what it was here today,” and that it’s a separate meeting if a different discussion is desired. Speaker 0 pushes to proceed immediately. Speaker 2 offers historical context: “If there’s never been an election, there were some board members appointed in the very beginning. Raylon turned it over to a couple people. Then those people just decided … I’m gonna add you.” Speaker 0 emphasizes that by law, board members must be elected, not appointed, and questions the legitimacy of the current board’s authority. “By law, read your laws, go to an attorney. By law, you have to be voted in.” Speaker 1 responds, asking Priscilla what she wants to do, noting that there are four ex-board members in front of them and asking if they should be asked about their elections. Speaker 0 acknowledges they were elected previously but complains about being told they were appointed. They insist on sending out a ballot and state, “Ballot. You are welcome to put yourself up to be on the board,” while indicating that the current board claims there will be no election until April. Speaker 1 suggests that the proper process would involve a formal meeting with notice and decision, while Speaker 0 asserts the desire for the current board to step down, mentioning ongoing issues such as a $100,000 irrigation problem and unresolved bills. The exchange then pivots back to attempting to resume a formal meeting, with Speaker 1 declaring, “We’re back to the meeting we have today.” In sum, the speakers clash over whether elections have occurred, who appointed board members, the proper legal process for board selection, and the appropriate timing for any future elections, with requests to suspends the current board and to conduct formal ballots.

We are the statistic. Our teachers and staff, once trusted, are now among the least trusted. We need to take accountability and work to restore that trust. If we allow our children to be victims, we are complicit in the abuse. I urge everyone to reflect on what they can do to create a safe and supportive environment for students. If you cannot contribute to this change, consider stepping aside for someone who can. Actions speak louder than words, and simply sending messages to parents will not resolve this issue.

We need to adhere to established policies and procedures. If anyone can't follow our guidelines, we'll ask them to leave. We're here to conduct our board meeting and handle our business. They're just leaving. How do you just walk out of a school board meeting like that, especially with a packed room?

Speaker 0 says, 'I know that big picture, we're all over the place, but I also know that on a community scale and what we're doing for the kids is what's most important.' He continues, 'I miss the mark on the board' and, 'I miss the mark as a as a representative of the board.' So if it's okay to pause on that one, 'I hear you all. Thank you for being honest.' He adds, 'I know this was not easy.' and concludes, 'And yes, I will step down with the board.' The remarks emphasize prioritizing the community and kids, acknowledging mistakes, and the intention to resign from the board.

Jennifer Kennedy, an attorney, urges the board to end the COVID vaccination mandate and reinstate all employees with full back pay. She accuses the board of stealing livelihoods and causing harm to families by enforcing a mandate that she claims does not prevent infection or transmission of the virus. Kennedy criticizes the board for not providing unemployment benefits or medical care to the fired employees. She questions the timing of the mandate and accuses the board of gaslighting the public. Kennedy also mentions the district's actions towards students and charter schools, claiming that they were forced to comply with the mandate. She concludes by calling the mandate "stupid and cruel."

I demand their firing. I demand their immediate firing because your lack of action, when this has been brought to your attention, that some would wish the death upon others. And you're okay with this. Dude, that's what this says to people. This LGBTQAI plus nonsense and people wishing death on us, the Christians. And you're pumping that shit into kids' heads. Your teachers are pumping that shit into kids' heads. I demand counseling for the kids that were hurt by Charlie Kirk's death that he dissed. This is he can't can have free speech. He just can't have a job on taxpayer money. Mhmm. He needs to accept himself and correct himself and get rid of him. It is the will of the people, and we are done with you with your rules. You're a foul and evil woman. You're a coward. Why don't you look at me? When did you know? Friday. We're taking it. We're doing the best we can. We're too slow. The world is moving on way too fast for you, old man. I'm serious. Are in recess. Can I have three or four more public comments slots? All of those in favor of adjournment, please.

Elon Musk and education expert Corey Gilangelis are here, along with a board member from a neighboring district, to address the ongoing issues in our school district. The situation has been deteriorating for decades, particularly at Edgemont Elementary, and little has been done to improve it. Despite repeated concerns raised over the years, the board's actions resemble chaos. Attempts to silence students and limit discussions are unacceptable; the First Amendment guarantees their right to speak out. It's crucial to address these issues seriously before the situation worsens further.

The superintendent announced that the state board of education will review Mr. Richardson's teaching certificate at the upcoming meeting, likely leading to its suspension. Currently, no students have reported any inappropriate behavior involving their former teacher.