State Senator weighs in

Page 3 of Thanks Bert...that is a very interesting historical storyline. The consternation over this was due mainly to the backroom approach taken which cunningl... 55 comments | 2185 Views | Go to page 1 →

  1. #31
    02Ram54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 04
    Location
    Teddy 4 Heisman
    Posts
    19,296

    Quote Originally Posted by ram95
    Please refrain from this type of post. There is no reason to get personal. 02Ram54 is a man not a kid, nor is he crazy and if you want to debate him then I am sure that he will be more than happy to comply. I assume you meet your own requirements.
    Thanks ram95.
    Advertisement

  2. #32
    TonyDanza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 04
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    19,003

    Quote Originally Posted by 02Ram54
    Thanks ram95.

    Your welcome.....oh wait you weren't talking to me

  3. #33
    02Ram54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 04
    Location
    Teddy 4 Heisman
    Posts
    19,296

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyDanza
    Your welcome.....oh wait you weren't talking to me
    I thank you ALL the time... it was ram95's turn.

  4. #34
    TonyDanza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 04
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    19,003

    Quote Originally Posted by 02Ram54
    I thank you ALL the time... it was ram95's turn.


  5. #35
    gametime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 02
    Location
    Big O > Every Wildcat Ever
    Posts
    88,522

    Quote Originally Posted by 02Ram54
    Look up at NKY right now, where the influential are working to get their neighborhood 'annexed' a different school system that is perceived to be superior.
    TIME OUT! Please know the case before you make such a wild reply...

  6. #36
    ram95's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 01
    Location
    Louisville KY
    Posts
    11,659

    Quote Originally Posted by StThomasMore
    I am pleased that Sen. Shaughnassy has taken an interest in this matter and I hope that others in state government do so. I believe there is an element of bigotry involved although I don't necessarily believe it is aimed at Catholics. Instead, I believe the bigotry is being levied against private schools and their students per se.
    As I read the posts in many of these public/private threads, I am amazed at the hostility posted by both sides but particularly by many public school supporters against the Catholic schools of Louisville. The conclusion is obvious. These publics are jealous of the success of the Louisville Catholic schools. Of course, the obvious solution is for the publics to work harder and produce better teams. However, in this day of political correctness, social promotion, and no child left behind, the solid principle of hard work to earn success is no longer a part of the public equation.
    In the end, why do the publics want proposal 20? It is the quickest and easiest way for them to "succeed". After all, if you can't beat them, outlaw them. "Dumbing down" is much easier than striving to raise your standards. And that, fellow posters, is the real reason for proposal 20 because it has nothing to do with imaginary "unfair advantages".
    First of all, I am Catholic and I agree with you I doubt very much that this has to do with anti-Catholic bigotry.

    And I agree that we don't need prop 20 to beat the Catholic schools. However I disagree that the obvious solution is to "work harder". The Catholic Schools are not out working the public schools, they are out spending the public schools. I grant you that some public schools have been able to raise money and can compete in that as well, but the sad fact is that most public schools do not have the same amount of alumni support as do the privates. But it is not like the Catholic school kids are out working the public school kids. They are OUT DRAWING the public schools in terms of sheer numbers of athletes. The tradition and facilities that they have built there are having the desired effect and that is where the football players are going to. Look at Iroquois weigh room and then look at St. X's. That is a real advantage. Not imaginary. Again I agree the answer is not for the public school to take there ball and go home. But they are not making up imaginary excuses, there are real advantages to going to Trinity and St.X as far as sports. I am not saying they are unfair. But they are real. Again I agree with you about the political correctness and watering down the championships, but let's be honest here the publics aren't just making up excuses because they want to be lazy and not work hard, there are real factors that tip the scale in the Catholic schools favor. They aren't unfair, but they are real.

  7. #37
    Oxnard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 01
    Posts
    6,684

    Quote Originally Posted by ram95
    First of all, I am Catholic and I agree with you I doubt very much that this has to do with anti-Catholic bigotry.

    And I agree that we don't need prop 20 to beat the Catholic schools. However I disagree that the obvious solution is to "work harder". The Catholic Schools are not out working the public schools, they are out spending the public schools. I grant you that some public schools have been able to raise money and can compete in that as well, but the sad fact is that most public schools do not have the same amount of alumni support as do the privates. But it is not like the Catholic school kids are out working the public school kids. They are OUT DRAWING the public schools in terms of sheer numbers of athletes. The tradition and facilities that they have built there are having the desired effect and that is where the football players are going to. Look at Iroquois weigh room and then look at St. X's. That is a real advantage. Not imaginary. Again I agree the answer is not for the public school to take there ball and go home. But they are not making up imaginary excuses, there are real advantages to going to Trinity and St.X as far as sports. I am not saying they are unfair. But they are real. Again I agree with you about the political correctness and watering down the championships, but let's be honest here the publics aren't just making up excuses because they want to be lazy and not work hard, there are real factors that tip the scale in the Catholic schools favor. They aren't unfair, but they are real.
    Ram, I have tried to stay on the sidelines of this discussion for a long time, because I think the lines have long ago been drawn in the sand and further debate only leads to personal attacks. Nonetheless, I feel that I must wade in here to counter one of your major points above. We are out drawing the public schools in numbers of students who participate in athletics (although the publics should have no excuse for not matching our percentages to total students), but we do not out draw the public schools in terms of students with high athletic potential (mainly because most are non-Catholic and cannot afford the tuition even with 50% financial aid). This is a real life big disadvantage for private schools. I will speak no more on this.

  8. #38
    ram95's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 01
    Location
    Louisville KY
    Posts
    11,659

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxnard
    Ram, I have tried to stay on the sidelines of this discussion for a long time, because I think the lines have long ago been drawn in the sand and further debate only leads to personal attacks. Nonetheless, I feel that I must wade in here to counter one of your major points above. We are out drawing the public schools in numbers of students who participate in athletics (although the publics should have no excuse for not matching our percentages to total students), but we do not out draw the public schools in terms of students with high athletic potential (mainly because most are non-Catholic and cannot afford the tuition even with 50% financial aid). This is a real life big disadvantage for private schools. I will speak no more on this.
    Well I think we do have more "star" athletes sometimes but I would venture to say that we don't have near as many kids that had played ball before grade 9. A good percentage of those kids seem drawn to the private schools. And to be honest I would rather have 5 decent guys that know how to play ball then one star athlete. But I agree with you on the premise.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Dec 69
    Posts
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by All Tell
    State Senator Tim Shaughnassy stated that if the KHSAA does indeed approve Prop 20 that he will investigate legislative remedies to stop it. He said that private school students have the right to compete for championships against the highest level of competition.
    This was from the opening thread.

    The problem is, the public schools are admitting that they are NOT the highest level of competition. If the public schools thought they could compete, they would not raise this whole issue.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Dec 00
    Location
    Louisville, Ky USA
    Posts
    4,519

    Quote Originally Posted by ram95
    Well I think we do have more "star" athletes sometimes but I would venture to say that we don't have near as many kids that had played ball before grade 9. A good percentage of those kids seem drawn to the private schools. And to be honest I would rather have 5 decent guys that know how to play ball then one star athlete. But I agree with you on the premise.
    I think you are right. The public schools have a lot more top athletes. Schools like Trinity or x have a whole lot of kids that become fair to good high school players. Just look at the UofL roster. How many Male players do they have? The CSAA is a big reason for the success at T and x.

  11. #41

    Join Date
    Sep 02
    Location
    Time and Relaive Dimensions in Space
    Posts
    16,904

    Quote Originally Posted by H
    I stand corrected on my comment that St X's new capital project has Archdiocese funding. However, Trinity has received $4.8 million from the Archdiocese for its capital projects according to multiple reports in the Courier-Journal. Although that money is earmarked for property acquisition and to construct academic buildings, given the fact that DeSales and Holy Cross appear to be in much greater need of upgrade, I find it curious that such a large sum would be given to Trinity--a school that can evidently raise millions privately for discretionary purposes like athletic facility upgrades.

    Sources: Courier-Journal articles dated September 10 and December 10, 2003.

    Those funds were never used for athletic facilities. Those funds were directly funnelled into the new Duerr Hall(more classrooms), improved technology throughout the school and numerous updates that were sorely needed in older parts of the school. None of that went to athletic projects. The fact that the Archdiocese donated money to Trinity does not put Trinity under Diocesesan control. Trinity is a separate entity plain and simple.

  12. #42

    Join Date
    Nov 02
    Posts
    55,091

    Quote Originally Posted by PepRock01
    Those funds were never used for athletic facilities. Those funds were directly funnelled into the new Duerr Hall(more classrooms), improved technology throughout the school and numerous updates that were sorely needed in older parts of the school. None of that went to athletic projects. The fact that the Archdiocese donated money to Trinity does not put Trinity under Diocesesan control. Trinity is a separate entity plain and simple.

    Actually, (and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong), but we were LOANED the money, not GIVEN the money.

  13. #43
    Oxnard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 01
    Posts
    6,684

    Quote Originally Posted by rockmom
    Actually, (and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong), but we were LOANED the money, not GIVEN the money.
    Initially the money was given to trinity by Archbishop Kelly following a private request from Dr. Mullen which did not go through the normal review procedures of the Archdiocean Finance Committee. After some procedural objections were put forth, the Archbishop withdrew most of this offer, and the needed funds were then raised by the trinity community.

  14. #44

    Join Date
    Nov 02
    Posts
    55,091

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxnard
    Initially the money was given to trinity by Archbishop Kelly following a private request from Dr. Mullen which did not go through the normal review procedures of the Archdiocean Finance Committee. After some procedural objections were put forth, the Archbishop withdrew most of this offer, and the needed funds were then raised by the trinity community.

    Thanks for the info....which further validates my feeling of pride in what we accomplished without "outside" help.

  15. #45

    Join Date
    Aug 02
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    8,525

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxnard
    Initially the money was given to trinity by Archbishop Kelly following a private request from Dr. Mullen which did not go through the normal review procedures of the Archdiocean Finance Committee. After some procedural objections were put forth, the Archbishop withdrew most of this offer, and the needed funds were then raised by the trinity community.
    You are partially correct Ox. Here is what I was told from numerous Trinity alumni on why the Archdiocese gave Trinity those funds.

    Back in the early 50's when Archbishop Floerish was working on getting Trinity started, he assigned Monsignor Steinhauser to be the founding principal and told Steiny (as he was often called at Trinity), that Trinity would be started on the old Holy Trinity parish grounds. Archbishop Floerish acknowledged that the old Holy Trinity parish grounds were very limited size wise for a High School so he told Steiny that if Trinity could get off the ground and out grow its current campus, he would allow Steiny to build a new school a few block down the road on some property the archdiocese owned that was much larger than the Trinity's original campus.

    Well, the years went by and Trinity was growing and space was starting to become an issue so Steiny or Duerr (not sure which one was principal at this time) contacted Archbishop Floerish about that promise of allowing Trinity to move. Well, I am not sure about the entire story but, it appears the Archbishop was caught in a tight spot because the Archdiocese needed to sell that land and use the proceeds from the sale for some parishes. After considering his options the Archbishop contacted Trinity's principal and sincerely apologized to Steiny or Duerr (again not sure which one was principal at that time) telling them that Trinity would not be able to move to the mentioned property and would have to make due with what land they had and try to buy land surrounding Trinity, which Trinity did by purchasing the old Armory building. The property Trinity was promised to get was sold and the St. Matthews Sears, Roebuck and Company was built there.

    After delivering the bad new to Trinity, the Archbishop promised Trinity's principal that once the funds were available, the archdiocese would give Trinity funding approximately equal to the value of the land to assist Trinity in buying land surrounding the campus to build on. Well, it took a heck of a long time but, two archbishops later, the archdiocese kept its promise by gradually paying Trinity back when Trinity purchased the Courtesy Cadillac dealership with some help from the Archdiocese. However, at this time, Trinity was still owned by the Archdiocese and no one blinked an eye at Trinity receiving these funds. In 1995 when Trinity was spun off from the Archdiocese, Archbishop Kelly mentioned he still intended to keep Floerish's promise as time and funding permitted.

    Then, in the case you mentioned in your post, the rest of the money was pledged to Trinity by Archbishop Kelly. Part of the pledge had been given to Trinity when the building of Duerr Hall went into effect. Unfortunately, the rest of the pledge did not make it when the archdiocese was hit with the $25 million settlement a few years ago. While technically the Archdiocese still "owes" Trinity the rest of the pledge, I do not think Trinity expects the Archdiocese to pay the rest and has "forgiven the debt" so to speak.

    So, while many have viewed the money given to Trinity as unfair, technically it was keeping a promise that was decades old. And now you know the REST OF THE STORY.

Top