Well, we're sorry to lose your vote, Ms. Nash.

Denise, I'd also advise you to go one step further -- vote FOR Roland Hwang.

Well, we're sorry to lose your vote, Mr. McCauley.

Joseph, please take a close look at Roland Hwang -- I think you'll like who he is and where he stands.

Well, I'm sure "AlexFranklin" is crying crocodile tears about losing your vote, Mr. or Ms. Voter.

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance."

That was more parody than ad hominem, "Alex."

That you somehow believe my comment WAS some sort of unfounded, personal hit, rather than a callout to the last two "concerned" replies you posted to other voters...well, what's Latin for "thin-skinned?"

Since I wasn't clear earlier, let me repeat what I just posted to Demise and Joseph: Vote FOR Roland Hwang. Roland is emphatically NOT a "union buster."

A parody is an ad hominem attack, Mr. Helzer. Now you can question my screen name or my sincerity, but I am going to continue to talk about Prop 2. I'll certainly respond to you if you do the same.

What would you like proven?

What needs to be "proven" is the ridiculous claims that are being made by groups, like Mr. Wilk's, that oppose Proposal 2. There is NO WAY that outrageous claims that are being presented will ever come true. Districts allowing sex offenders to work in schools, bus drivers with DUI convictions still driving busses...these statements are being made to specifically incite fear into parents who are unwilling to educated themselves about this issue, in an effort to grab some votes based on emotion alone. Teachers will STILL be unable to strike, unlike what some of the TV ads (I know Alex, Wilk doesn't pay for those...but he sure uses them on his website!) are showing. All Proposal 2 does is give people the right to collectively bargain their working conditions, things that directly affect students in a positive way. It provides a system local control, rather than a state legislature dictatorship...isn't that what Republicans are all about, less government interference and more local control?

What about Wilk's statement, "We're not in the pocket of special interests?"

Because such a coordinated disinformation campaign requires one or more deep pockets.

SMF19, you make two points here, and I would like to address them separately. First - people already have the right to collectively bargain. This Proposal is not a referendum for collective bargaining or right to work. It is a constitutional amendment enshrining collective bargaining, which is a significant difference. It removes any check or balance our government has against it.

Second - the point about the outlandishness of the ads - well, this might surprise you, but I completely agree. I joined this group to get away from exactly that. We are a non-funded, completely volunteer group. When I helped to design the site, there were relatively few articles discussing it. As you can see, those articles are all from early September. So consider your point made - I have already contacted our developer with new slides that more accurately represent who we are. It probably won't happen today, but it will get done.

Mr. Helzer - I can guarantee that neither Mr. Wilk nor I are receiving any funding for this campaign. It is irresponsible for you to insinuate otherwise.

"Boiling," to vote for our childrens' future, be sure to vote FOR Roland Hwang -- not merely AGAINST Matt Wilk.

Emily - I am truly sorry that you feel that way. But I would like to clarify a few things about Prop 2. One, Mr Wilk is not responsible for the advertising you see on TV. This group is not funded by any special interests, so there isn't any influence or connection to those other groups. Two, a vote against Prop 2 is NOT a vote against collective bargaining. It is a vote against enshrining that as a fundamental right as part of the Michigan Constitution. Finally, you might be surprised of the union heritage that Mr. Wilk has. I beg that you research this a little further.

If Mr. Wilk "has a union heritage," then his actions are a betrayal to those proud men and women who made it possible for Mr. Wilk to be where he is today.

Wilk may have built his professional "house" -- whatever it might be -- but the FOUNDATION under it was laid by others. Union members who fought for the right to collectively bargain, if "AlexFranklin" is to be believed.

Mr. Helzer, I respectfully disagree. Because one is part of a union does not mean one cannot be opposed to any of its actions. And Prop 2 is bad law.

In this case, we are NOT talking about the opposition to collective bargaining. Prop 2 is not a referendum on collective bargaining - it is an amendment to the Michigan Constitution that would enshrine collective bargaining rights. This difference is important - NO other state has this. It removes checks and balances. It invalidates 170 laws. It fires recently hired Northville teachers. These aren't opinions, these are facts.

Is your name actually Alex, or is the lack of a space an intentional attempt to hide your true identity with an assumed screen name?

All I'm seeing in these comments are your "apologies" and concern-trolling for everyone upset or angered by Matthew Wilk's clear conflict of interest -- running for Board of Education while leading an effort that would result in the weakening or outright dissolution of the unions he'd have to negotiate with (should he be elected).

Of course, the best concern-trolling is done under the veneer of anonymity.

Like I posted to the others, Emily -- don't just vote NO on Matt Wilk...vote YES for Roland Hwang.

Concerned, if you want to see a "bipartisan" board with a balance that would serve all of Nothville -- parents, students, teachers, administrators and interested bystandcers alike -- then vote for Roland Hwang!

Proposal 2 isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative, which is to let the republican legislature continue to attack public employees in general, and teachers in particular. For any board member to so publicly align himself to this issue seems foolish. At a time when no one else seems to be on the teachers' side, surely the school board needs to be?

There are two false dilemmas here - one, a vote against Prop 2 is against teachers. That isn't true. Below, I show a very real situation in which teachers will be fired with the passage of 2. Two, you have more options than voting for 2 and disagreeing with the Republican approach. This is my major complaint with Prop 2 - it is too far an overreach. It bypasses the legislature, the executive, and the judicial... basically our checks and balances system.

At this point, if Proposal 2 fails on November 6th, I guarantee that Republicans in the state Legislature WILL introduce "right to work" bills in early 2013 -- or in the lame duck session THIS YEAR if Democrats manage to take back the Michigan House.

A YES vote on Proposal 2 maintains the status quo that served the State of Michigan well until Republicans interpreted their 2010 victories to mean it was time to PUNISH their political opponents.

The overreach, the arrogance, the presumption that the citizens of Michigan WANTED these attacks on public sector workers or a return to the "culture wars" of the past decade...this is why we fought so hard to put Proposal 2 on the ballot, and why it must pass. To return sanity to the workplace, and restore the balance that has been lost.

even if you aren't in a union -- I've never been a member -- it would behoove you to understand that the existence of collective bargaining helps EVERY WORKER, and that losing that right will inevitably, inexorably eat away at wages, benefits and working conditions...up to and including the 40-hour work week, paid overtime, workplace discrimination and rules against exploitation of child labor.

Do understand that "inevitable" and "inexorable" mean that the loss of our rights and privileges won't happen this year, or next. It won't be all at once. But one day, you might wonder why you or your kids can't get the kind of job or career you once had...then sadly and grimly shake your head.

Are you concerned about class size in general, or is there a specific class you are referring to? If there is something about class sizes you wish to know more about, or about his position, then I would be more than happy to refer your comments to him.

You may disagree with his position on Prop 2, but I will guarantee that he is open to discussion about the matter. If you would like to contact me, please email alexfranklin24@yahoo.com. I will do the best I can to serve you.

When my wife and I attended the open house at Northville HS last month for our stepson (a senior this year), we were dismayed to find that his SMALLEST class has 39 students.

If that doesn't dismay Mr. Wilk, then he has NO BUSINESS on the Northville Public Schools Board of Education.

That's a big concern and I think that would be an appropriate item to bring up to the school board.

That doesn't mean, however, that Prop 2 is about guaranteeing class size. And with the passage of 2, 10 teachers will be fired from the savings of the invalidation of SB1040. Class sizes will get bigger. If that is your concern, it would make more sense for you to be opposed to 2.

With all due respect, SMF19, passage of 2 will have quite the opposite effect that you suggest. A law was passed that required employees to pay 3% of their healthcare expenses. With those savings, Northville hired 10 more teachers. With the passage of Proposal 2, that law will be invalidated. Those new teachers will be fired. The class sizes will rise.

This isn't lying or scaremongering. It is fact. Feel free to research this on your own.

AlexFranklin, I think it is you that needs to do the research since I have no seen you defending this on Mlive as well as here. The 3% pay cut you refer to is for retiree healthcare, part of the MPSERS program. This has never been a part of negotiations and never will be. This 10 teachers talking point that I have now seen is complete fearmongering, nothing else...the 3% will continue to be taken out and SB 1040 has resolved many of these pension issues for now. SB 1040 WILL NOT be affected by Proposal 2! You referred to Mr. Wilk's "union heritage" here in a previous response. According to his FaceBook page (much of which is public) he has no loyalty to unions because of this, and in fact cites the work of unions past as irrelevant to today's issues. Let me say this again...Proposal 2 will allow teachers to bargain for issues that will protect safe learning environments for students, quite the opposite of what is being presented by the other side. It will also keep people with NO EDUCATION background from making decisions that will be forced upon school districts. Vote YES on Prop 2!

You read his personal Facebook page, with family pictures and the like? Just because it's public doesn't mean that's fair game for these discussions. Let's keep to the public positions and leave the personal life out of it.

As to SB1040 not being affected by Prop 2, I don't wish to make this more confrontational, but you are just wrong on that. There is no other way to say that. Right now, teachers have the right to collectively bargain. Prop 2 isn't about allowing it, it is about enshrining CB as part of the Michigan Constitution. Again, that isn't a debate - that's a fact.

SMF19, I hope you'll take your concerns to the next level, and take a positive step this November 6th -- by voting FOR Roland Hwang. There are three seats at stake on the Board, and five candidates. Mr. Hwang deserves one of those votes every bit as much as Mr. Wilk deserves to be sent packing.

It's not false. Tell me one way that SB1040 will be affected, just one. Pension issues have never been bargained because it is an agreement between the State and the teacher. Bargaining only pertains to the agreements between districts and the teacher.

SMF19, I don't see that as a partial truth, but that is an unnecessary semantic argument. I think we both understand what each other is trying to say. The outstanding question is whether or not Proposal 2 is the best approach. Whether anyone likes it or not, that is current law. I don't believe the correct course of action is to change the Michigan Constitution when a law we don't like has been passed. That is why we have elections for the executive, legislative and judicial. This Proposal takes that system out of the equation. And this would be unprecedented - no other state has this.

Alex let me first say I have appreciated the civility of this thread. The link you posted has nothing to do with Prop 2, and it's not mentioned in the context of that page at all. Prop 2 ONLY affects issues that have been collectively bargained, or prohibited from collective bargaining. 1040 was never a local issue, it wasn't ever bargainable (if that's a word) and therefore will not be impacted whatsoever by Prop 2. What will be affected, is the law that mandates 20% of health care premiums...that would be repealed and and sent back to districts to negotiate. I think what it comes down to is what you have said about should it be an amendment or not....Romney even said on NBC news during the Education Nation Summit that collective bargaining is a right all Americans should have. I think it should be as well, you don't, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Good luck in November!