Dethroned Miss Oregon's dad: Dana Phillips approved her
The director of the Oregon pageant gets a blast from Rachel Berry's dad, here.
"The unfortunate thing here is that there are other people who should be stepping up to claim responsibility for this unfortunate situation," added Berry. "It is downright shameful that they are not doing so. They should have said 'we messed up' and '(Rachel) relied on us.'"
It's also unfortunate that our local media, which dutifully reports Miss Oregon's doings every year, aren't asking any questions. Especially since the road map is so readily available here.
| Posted at 9:23 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (10)
As it has been said before on this subject, rules are rules. Just because someone inadvertently approved something does not make it right.
This is a great example of the current American mind set.
"I was wrong, but someone allowed it, so I shouldn't be punished!!!"
In America, accountability for ones own actions is for chumps.
Posted by Brian | July 28, 2012 12:37 AM
I understand and appreciate Mr. Berry's defense of his daughter, but there are some inaccuracies in this news story. Rachel was not Top 10, she was Top 12 at Miss CA, which may not seem like a big difference, but is, especially in CA where there are 50+ girls competing for the title. Saying that she was cleared to compete by Oregon officials also does not fly because the girls competing for these titles know full well the rules. Rachel had to follow those rules in CA, yet somehow felt they would be overlooked in OR.
Posted by Knowstoowell | July 28, 2012 1:20 AM
Just because someone inadvertently approved something
I'm failing to see the likelihood that anything inadvertent happened in this case.
Rachel had to follow those rules in CA, yet somehow felt they would be overlooked in OR.
The father says that Phillips told Rachel everything would be o.k. The next question is whether Rachel made full disclosure to Phillips.
Posted by Jack Bog | July 28, 2012 5:15 AM
Pageant hopping!
Can't break into the top 10 in a larger state, "come on up here to Oregon, dear. We can make it all happen for you here."
Rachael is NOT a child. She is a 23 year old woman, who should have known better. I would guess she knows better now.
Her pageant days are done; now she needs to find a real job and get on with the rest of her life.
Posted by Portland Native | July 28, 2012 6:35 AM
THE quote of interest in this article is,
"...well before she entered the local pageant, a determination of her eligibility to compete was sought, and approved, by the Miss Oregon Organization Executive Director.”
It is very unusual for a state executive director to approve a contestant's eligibility for a local pageant. No wonder the local director did not question Rachel's eligibility.
I have no doubt that Rachel should have been fired but why would the state executive director approve a contestant's eligibility for a local competition? The only answer that comes to my mind is that she knew Rachel's eligibility would be questioned without her imprimatur.
Posted by Caliguy | July 28, 2012 7:37 AM
"imprimatur"? Nice. Callguy, from downtown with the vocabulary.
Posted by Bill McDonald | July 28, 2012 8:45 AM
I thought the mom's quote in that article was also interesting:
"Rachel, although initially upset, is ready to move forward, knowing without a doubt that God has a bigger and better plan for her and she completely believes His word and promises," her mother wrote in an E-mail to the Northwest News. "She knows the truth and so does God and to her that is all that matters."
The dad defended her in a pretty straightforward, common-sense manner. Mommy plays the God card and makes it all better. Love it how Bible-thumpers always know their wrongdoings will be forgiven.
Posted by jkf | July 28, 2012 10:59 PM
Since Mr. Berry seems to have some insight, perhaps he can tell us which date of residency Dana Phillips approved. Was it a date prior to October 21, 2011? Was it the date of her lease, January 1, 2012, or was it some date in February 2012, which appears to be Rachel's ACTUAL move date based on tweets, Facebook posts, etc.?
Posted by cb | July 30, 2012 7:52 AM
I think there needs to be a distinction between Dana Phillips giving the behind the curtain nod to Rachel Berry to enter illegally, and Dana Phillips and the local directors accepting Rachel's paperwork at face value.
If Rachel and her father can produce proof that she indeed was winked through the state residency rule and allowed to run illegally, then I will turn around and support her 110% and ask for the executive board to step down immediately.
If, on the other hand, the board just took her signature as her word, and did not hire a forensic scientist to prove her residency on the local, and then state, levels: then I still say the organization was at fault for not doing their homework (especially on a girl they KNOW ran in another state) but the fault still would be on Rachel Berry for signing a document she knew was knowingly false.
I'd really like to know where the truth is on this.....
Posted by Suzy | July 30, 2012 9:48 AM
Obviously Rachel's entire family knew from the very beginning that Rachel had not moved to Oregon until Feb 2012. What is "shameful" is the fact that they are pleading ignorance and placing the blame on the paegant directors. Yes Rachel does know the truth and so does God. The truth is she lied so she would have better odds of winning the crown. Shame on the entire Berry family.
Posted by tdb | July 31, 2012 6:34 AM