smitty

OK, folks, Danaher is a good one. But, he's pretty much a "3 yards and a cloud of dust" coach also.

Stop it! You're drooling all over my keyboard. Ha!

Hey Coop, was Bolton at Bay City? Just curious. Also, wasn't he at Bridge City at one time?

I believe you may be right.

No, don't do that! Ha!

Remember, there was another Mike Long that applied at LC-M.

It appears Danaher is the cream of the crop here.

Who's the 4th one? He's the 4th best one on this list?

So, you are saying there is no difference between 1-A ball and 5-A ball, competition wise? Looks like this guy can't coach 2007 18-AAA 14 0 0 Jerry Vance 2006 18-AAA 13 2 0 Jerry Vance 2005 27-AAA 10 3 0 Jerry Vance 2004 27-AAA 12 3 0 Jerry Vance 2003 25-AAA 11 2 0 Jerry Vance 2002 25-AAA 10 2 0 Jerry Vance 2001 26-AAA 5 5 0 Jerry Vance Flawed logic. Success is success at any level. You still have to win the games.

Did a great job doing what? They accepted applications then they tried to hide the names. Then the AG forced them to release the list. So explain what great job they have done.

There's a lot of difference between 3-A ball and 4 and 5-A. I'm sure one can find good records in 1-A. Well, you get my point. Looks like this guy can't coach 2007 18-AAA 14 0 0 Jerry Vance 2006 18-AAA 13 2 0 Jerry Vance 2005 27-AAA 10 3 0 Jerry Vance 2004 27-AAA 12 3 0 Jerry Vance 2003 25-AAA 11 2 0 Jerry Vance 2002 25-AAA 10 2 0 Jerry Vance 2001 26-AAA 5 5 0 Jerry Vance

With the exception of Danaher, not a real glowing list. I can now see why they want someone else.

Those elected officials that are for keeping this private will need to be defeated at the next election. If they aren't, then what else will they be willing to hide. And is this acceptable?

It's amazing how some equate open government and responsibility to taxpayers to being a hater. Not sure I see the correlation, though. I would figure the evil would come down on the side of anti-openness by those that might be abusing the taxpayer's dollars.

Was there any doubt?? Well, maybe some are still confused. But the AG straighten all that out.

My question again: What are they hiding?

I'm getting curious why you are so against open information when taxpayers dollars are concerned? You got a dog in the fight? 10 days from the letter received. So, January 31, after they have chosen a new head coach! So; therefore, the point is moot.

Again, obviously it's not a secret. So why are you acting as if it is? Let us know, if you know. you're such a tease! Not teasing.....there are a few people on here that can vouch for me on the fact that there is one guy on that list that is interviewing at PNG this week. Yes... a tease because you lead us on and don't give any info. I promise...if I could, I would. It wouldn't matter if I told you. You'll figure it out next week!

Hogwash? Are you sure?

If you know and other people know, then it's not a secret. So, who is it? you're such a tease! Not teasing.....there are a few people on here that can vouch for me on the fact that there is one guy on that list that is interviewing at PNG this week. Yes... a tease because you lead us on and don't give any info. I promise...if I could, I would.

But if someone wanted to, they could. \ Yes, I Get it, you want to skirt the law. If it was a physics teacher list, PNG would turn it over in a heart-beat. I got hired at PNG this year and nobody filed an FOI for the list of applicants for my position or my salary.

Let me rephrase your first sentence for you: Not all of the "screening" or "interviewing" committee are elected. Now, it's a true statement. But I would have to say that all of them are being paid by the taxpayers. Those that actually do the hiring and have the final say are "elected." Again -- and I don't mind saying it again -- it has to do with taxpayer's dollars.

You talking about the lack of experience with those doing the hiring? Then they will all be griping about who was hired...based on lack of experience!

It's really Civics 101.

Another excellent article!!