Would you support a referendum for AC in 204

Not if the district spends $30 million on land for the third school.

You're kidding me right? How about we let them figure out how to dig us out of their land deal first. This Board appears to have some difficulty at multi-tasking and I wouldn't want them to become "over taxed".

I would be hard in my opinion to see 17 - 25M pulled from the bond interest and land donations account to make Metea on the BB land possible. Then have the district come back in a couple of months and ask for $35 million for A/C. I realize the 17 - 25M can't be used for A/C unless it is re-allocated via a referendum. However, it would be an easier question to ask for re-allocation of funds rather than additional new funds. We have a rather full referendum coming our way given it will contain the operational budget for Metea and I speculate a few capital expenditures that could not be covered by the original 125M.

I am not really debating the need for the A/C just the timing is rather unfortunate in light of current circumstances. Taxation is not an unlimited tool and it looks like some creative thinking and trade-offs are required.

The short answer to the question is NO this is not the right time and the current solution set seems a bit thin.

I would support any complete solution to improving indoor air quality. If D204 is a model for other districts especially with their Supported Education program, then their facilities should be up to snuff.

I would keep the HS land issue separate where it belongs and treat this issue independently and vote YES for it since it stands on its own merits for health reasons.

Dear Joe,

Why is it that you are in favor of EVERYTHING the board wants to do and never seem to question anything? Are you on the board's payroll? What is in it for you? Are you related to a board member? Are you a board member?

As for the board coming back to the taxpayers for yet more money, why are you always willing to give them any money they want? Do you have an unlimited source of funds? Do you benefit financially from any monies they raise?

Just for the record, I support upgrading the schools with air conditioning. It was a stupid decision on the part of earlier boards to not build it during construction in the first place. Upgrading to air conditioning does two things.

First, it allows the schools to be rented out at any time of year without concern for heat in the summer. Second, it makes the buildings much more attractive to future commercial buyers when the school board will want to sell the buildings in the future when they are not being used or needed.

DB,

So, you agree with me. Good.

I support the SB when what they ask for is truly needed. If they asked to fund a continuing supply of ice sculptures for the NVHS front entrance I would vote NO in a heartbeat.

You agree this is needed, you also agree a HS is needed. We disagree on where it's needed.

To answer your pointless questions: No, there is no board payroll that I know of, not a board member, not related to one, not benefiting one bit financially from anything the SB does and as far as unlimited funds... as long as I am able to work, I consider that answer to be a yes.

I just know the right socially responsible thing to do when I see it.

Same questions, back at you.

Ah Joe,

"I just know the right socially responsible thing to do when I see it."

Is that sort of like the Supreme court's definition of pornography?

"The right socially responsible thing to do" is only in the eye of the beholder. No one gets to be the ultimate arbiter, not even you, Joe.

As for your unlimited sources of funds, please let us know, in this weakened economy, where, one may find this limitless source so that the rest of us may utilize it as well.

DB,

My vote counts the same as yours. I proclaim to be no ultimate arbiter.

If you're going to bring porn into a school discussion, count me out.

As for funds, try spending less time posting inappropriate material to a blog and go get a job.

Dear Joe,

Whatever are you talking about? Pornography? I was only alluding to a famous Supreme court decision/opinion of which you must not be aware.

Come on, are you that devoid of knowledge and wit that you need to fall to that level? Really Joe!

Regarding jobs, I have many, including looking out for my childrens' best interests. And protecting them from the likes of people like you and your related actions, falls into that category.

But Joe, your relentless personal attacks are wearing thin, please, for the sake of this blog, try to keep your comments on target and not personal. Otherwise, the bad old Dough Boy may have to return.

TTFN

DB,

You make two good points. I can even buy into the students needing a climate controlled environment. I have three separate AC zones in my house and I would not have it any other way.

However, I am unable to look at the current capital project situation (Metea) and feel confident we were able to really scope out the exact cost/approach for this project (A/C) in such a short time. Also, without knowledge of the current tax increases we are up against it’s tough to feel confident about funding a new project.

(As for the other guy, just let him dither. Some just need the last word.)

I'd say why are we talking about this now? Why weren't the air conditioners put in when the schools were built? After all, it's not like AC was just invented. Is it because we're in northern Illinois? That doesn't wash either because, as we all know, it gets pretty hot during the summer. And what about the teachers? Don't people realize they spend the whole month of August in those sweltering classrooms preparing lessons? As for a referendum, no way. Too many of them floating around these days. Let the kids and teachers tough it out or go to Costco and buy some wall units.

DoughBoy first sets up a false argument: because Joe agrees with Air Conditioning, DB says he supports "EVERYTHING" and accuses him of being related to a Board member. If DB paid any attention he would know that school board members are unpaid, and spend many hours each week away from their families trying to do their best for the community. They are required to sign statements of independence, and cannot work for or do business with their district. Rest assured, if there is a call for AC in the schools, it is parents and teachers asking for it. With each year topping the last as the hottest ever, trying to educate in non-air-conditioned schools gets harder and harder. As for the moronic suggestion to "buy wall units" - it would end up costing way more to start with, cost more for energy, and they would not last as long. As with any project, doing things right does not cost, over the long run it pays for itself over and over.
Like the high school controversy in 203, doing it right (starting over with a new building) will almost certainly cost less over the long run.

Unlike Joe, I AM related to a board member. I have no problem with disagreements with things that occur. That's the American way.

However, I have a big problem with people who suggest some big "payroll" as explaining board decisions and considerations. In my experience, those comments come from people who spend no more than about 10 minutes a year doing something for the schools, but find themselves self-righteously unhappy about something that is going on.

I hope most people would know this, but let me be clear. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS GET NO PAY ... NOTHING. They put in long hours. When taxes are raised, their taxes are raised too. It also costs our family thousands of dollars a year in lost work/income based on time lost from work necessitated by school board commitments. Of course, that's a choice our family made, so that's fine. But to those of you who find a need to support your opinion by attributing greed to those board members who may not do as you wish, how about you make better use of your 10 minutes for that year by spending it on some other school matter instead, ok? And I only ask that future anonymous envelopes with letters suggesting that school board members should refund their pay include a self addressed envelope and I will send the "refund" personally to them.

As to the real A/C issue here, there are good arguments both ways. Who knows what will happen with taxes given what is going on in Springfield, and there are unanswered questions about Metea, so maybe now is not the time to be adding this cost. And maybe without unlimited resources the cost is just not worth it for the number of hot days during the school year. On the other hand, the issue was raised by a large number of concerned parents, so it would probably not have been appropriate to just ignore their concerns (ignoring them would be a decision in itself, and might have some of them wondering how board members are lining their pockets by keeping the schools hot). The temperature concern is certainly legitimate - buildings are very hot sometimes, and we all know how it is difficult to concentrate in such conditions. The simple fact is that, as with most contentious issues, there are plenty of arguments on both sides.

In the end, I suggest this (for this and every other school board matter): start with the accurate presumption that the school board members have the best of intentions, whatever side of an issue they may be on - and leave out the phony dark motives as used to dishonestly tarr those who disagree with you.

We've got a great community here, and that did not all come to pass randomly. A lot of people have selflessly worked in the best interests of the community for many years to build what we have. Have a little faith that it will continue to happen.

How many complainers here were here 20 years ago as I was as this district was being built ?

Casimir - the reason there is no air in the schools is because we were the fastest growing district in the state and one of the fastest in the country for 10 years. Those of us who were here took on that task to build this district and it did not come cheap. There was only so much money -- look at the whining now over MV - which is itme value of money still comes in far cheaper than Neuqua even with the cost of BB land. If we listened to the nay sayers - most of which have an alternative agenda to put the new school in their back yard with a Naperville address - NV would never have been built.

Also attend a board meeting - window units are not an alternative - least efficient - loudest ( already noise an issue - especially for hearing-impaired kids ) - security issues in the windows etc.

As for db -- are you sure you aren't Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore ? Why introduce pornography into this discussion, then try and pretend Joe even recognized your silly attempt to link the two together. We know why you want the school where you do - $$$ for you. You have been very clear on that.
The decision will not be made with your personal finances in mind.

and db - renting the schools out -- are you going to pay for the liability insurance that goes along with that.

Would this referendum in any way involve this SB, this excellent management team, buying land? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...................

Perhaps we should make sure we have ALL the facts this time.

Uncle Buckeye,

Of course A/C for existing schools would not involve new land. Thank you for using your 10 minutes this year to self-righteously come up with that witicism.

But since you raised the point, the price of the BB land was agreed upon at a much lower price than currently faced. Then the first referendum failed, in no small part because people wanted to be sure of what school their kids would be going to, and used their votes as leverage to get what they wanted. Because of that, the original agreement for a reasonable price for BB was lost, and the certain price of the land was lost and thrown open to a jury.

So on this point, I suggest that instead of self-righteously mocking the SB and others who volunteer hundreds of hours doing what has to be done, take a look at those, perhaps like yourself, who caused the BB price to go up so much because of their own selfish interests.

You don't have to fool me even once for me to say, "Shame on you, Uncle Buckeye".

As someone who attended 9 years of public school without air conditioning (Only the high school in my district was air conditioned in my day.) I'm going to have no problem voting NO to this referendum. I don't buy all this phony baloney "expert" testimony about all the dangers associated in an environment that isn't kept at a perfect 70 degrees with an exact 35.00% humidity level. I'm guessing everyone posting in this thread right now went through the public schools sans air conditioning and honestly, how much did it ruin your life?

Not at all? That's what I thought. There are many viable solutions to this "problem" that will cost a hell of a lot less than $35,000,000... (And I'm guessing that isn't even taking in to account the increased operating costs of powering these massive air conditioning units.)

A lot people I know who did not have it in places where it was needed grew up to be bitter people. I'm sure blog comments hold more credibility than professionals who work in the field of allergies, special education and pediatrics.

The survey and proposed referendum are a knee-jerk reaction by a board that has proved itself to be less than effective, given the current situation with the land for the 3rd high school. Yes, the majority of residents do blame Mr. Crouse and the board for their arrogant attitude over their "right" to buy the land cheaply. I have no doubt that a/c would improve air quailty, as well as the quaility of teaching and learning during those first few weeks of school. But, the board is not taking enough time to truly study this issue; simply giving a group of parents what they want is not the answer.

Yes, SB members can get "perks" from all this Land acquisition !

a. Mark metzger is an attorney - who gets clients for his legal practice thru his contacts for ALL SB Matters.

b. There have been major land developers who FUND the 204 "citizen" groups efforts on Tax payer referendums over the years. Why? Well for a 25,000 contribution to help ""sell" us poor tax payers on voting yes, values of their developments goes up in MILLIONS of dollars.

c. The AC referendum is a maneuver by 204 supporters of Darlene Senger to help boost voter turn out to help get her elected as State Rep so she can continue to be a an elected lobbyist for 204 interests. Care to verify ? Just read the Glancer magazine where Senger states that SB member Jeanette Clark is the person behind her running for public office.

d. Run a D2 at the State Board of elections on 204 support groups of Tax referendums - Fancy Dinners, Trophies & awards are given to these people, mostly paid by for by MAJOR Firms who benefit from school buildings. We pay the taxes and the land developers & builders and financial institutions benefit.

Britt - So far as I understand, there is not yet any referendum, nor has a board vote on whether to approve a referendum even been proposed, let alone taken. I seriously doubt that studying of the air quality issues began the day this was first reported in the media, but in any event I see nothing to indicate that studying of the issue is nearly complete. Therefore, I think it is a little premature to conclude that not enough time is being taken to study the issue or that some group of parents is simply being given what they want.

I think the board would be remiss if they did not consider serious concerns brought up by parents and non-parents alike. Considering people's concerns and given them what they want without sufficient study are two different things. At this point, it seems to me they have only done the former. Besides, even if they approved a referendum, in the end it would require the voters to approve it anyway.

Anon:

Apparently there was no “agreed upon” reasonable price for site selected, the one owned jointly by both the Brach and the Brodie land trusts. Had there been such an agreement the IPSD SB would not have had to file their Dec. 22, 2005 lawsuit seeking to purchase the 55-acres via eminent domain condemnation. I’m no legal scholar Anon but I must believe that if there had been any binding agreement SD 204 would not find themselves now so deeply mired in this predicament.

For this SB, or any SB to be so pretentious to believe that their desire is tantamount to the rights of others, the owners, is unbelievable. The recent court ruling established that the estimated value of the land made by the IPSD legal team was substantially inadequate, period.

I in no way wish to demean this SB and their investment in time and dedication, although subsequent posts do make me wonder, but they did make a mistake. To couch this in any other way would be absurd. Their task was difficult at best and I certainly would not at this point discredit their sincere efforts. It is apparent though that the credibility of this SB has been seriously damaged and that virtually all large expenditures made will now, as they should, receive much closer scrutiny.

I do disagree with your characterization of why the first referendum failed: “because people wanted to be sure of what school their kids be going to”. The “brutal boundary battle” that ensued was over just which students located in the newly defined confines would be stuck going to the “undesirable school”. Shameful perhaps, but factual. This issue allows me total pragmatism - no children involved.

Bottom line, I would suggest that the voter not allow a terrible situation to get worse. No student will be denied an education or die if everything is not “measured twice” this time, and that includes A/C. Anon, I do disagree with your cynicism directed at the SD 204 constituent at the exclusion of this SB.

By the way Anon, I would venture to bet that I have accumulated many more volunteer hours in community service in my life than you, and have unequivocally the utmost respect for those that elect to make an investment in their community.

If it is your decision to be a lemming Anon, shame on you.

Calm down, NaperMan, and worry about the issues on their merits without the ridiculous secret motives for everyone.

a. Metzger is the only attorney on the board so far as I know. What are the other 6 board members getting?

b. Even if "major land developers" benefit, exactly how is that a SCHOOL BOARD "perk"? Some board members, like Jeanette Clark, have spent a lot of time fighting developments and developers to keep schools from being overcrowded. Have they been rewarding her with a cut of their profits for making their jobs more difficult? (I'd like a little more "verification" on that kind of a charge than some indication that she was seen with them at city council meetings - arguing with them).

c. Using a referendum to boost voter turnout for Darlene Senger? Are you kidding me? You've "verified" that convoluted theory by some Glancer article that says Jeanette Clark knows Senger, who was active in 204, and has been supportive of her in the past? If we discovered that they supported Bush, would that verify that they were part of some 9/11 conspiracy too?

d. Not merely dinners, but "Fancy Dinners"! And "Trophies" and "awards" too!! Let’s not forget the hundreds of unpaid hours spent, and the income lost because of those commitments and responsibilities, to say nothing of the slander and abuse they take from uninformed people who are mad for their own selfish reasons but need to invent conspiracies and attribute ridiculous conspiracies and selfishness to board members to hide their own selfishness!!! It sounds great. In fact, it's all so great I'm wondering why you haven't signed up to run. Think of the riches that are there for you!!!!

There a lot of people in the world with their own interests, some of which might be called selfish. But between the school board members and you, NaperMan, I vote for you as being the selfish one.

I believe our understanding of the facts differ on a couple of points, Uncle Buckeye.

First, my recollection is that there was an agreement in place with the BB property owners - an option to buy the land for a specific price when the first referendum was voted down. In fact, part of the property was bought for that price. However, that option expired after the first referendum failed, and the SD lost the contractual right to buy the property at the original price. When the second referendum passed, the BB owners were asking for about twice as much as they had agreed to a short time before. Had the original referendum passed, the BB property would have been bought at the earlier agreed price.

Second, the boundary issue was decided before the second referendum based on surveys after the failed first referendum which said that a lot of people would not vote to build a new school until they knew which school their kids would go to. In fact, my understanding is that threats to vote against the second referendum if certain areas did not get their way were prevalent throughout the consideration of boundaries. Whether to build a new school, and who to send to what school, are certainly different issues, but in this case they were inextricably entwined.

Anyway, thanks for all your volunteer work, and sorry if I took too much offense at your original post. But I'd take your bet. :-) I just wish we all could agree to disagree on issues without the need to twist or even invent facts and motives to show that those who disagree with us are evil and ignorant.

Anon:

You very well may be correct that there was a lapse of contract to purchase the additional 55 acres within a specified time. I find it difficult to understand how this would have been permitted given the 25-acre parcel already owned by the IPSD but money and lawyers sometimes cause unpredicted things to happen. Anyway, I found my research unfortunately to be very limited because of the age of this subject and since I have been unable to locate any documentation significantly different to what you have presented, I will accede to your comments.

I do recall the school boundary discussions as you describe: if children went to the wrong parent determined school they would indeed punish the SD by voting against a new school entirely. In point of fact, some of the lessons learned by the student as they observed these "adults" were ones better not learned in my humble estimation.

I completely agree with your suggestion that people need to discuss topics civilly in forums like this and allow minimally an open mind to approach these issues with the same facts. What I do find frightening is the numbers of people unconcerned and willing to permit others to make determinations without any personal thought or involvement. We are without doubt no longer the country we once were, and that is truly sad.

Good day Anon

No.

Let them open the windows like we did when we were kids. We made it through and survived. Another alternative would be to fire a couple of the school board administrators with the six figure saleries and golden parachute plans, then we would have enough money to fix the AC.

While District 204 is slowly squandering the last $125,000,000 they borrowed on quick-take, lobbyists and attorneys, they are already planning to fleece you again.

District 204 officials wants to spend $17,000 of your hard earned money and blow it on a survey to determine if they should push yet another referendum. This time they want to borrow $45,000,000 to install air conditioners at 19 elementary schools that don't have them. Remember the schools are closed during the summer months.

According to Frigidaire.com, for this same $17,000 the district wants to spend on a survey, one could purchase 53 12,000-BTU air conditioners.

The features include electronic controls with remote control, ionizer/electrostatic clean air filtration and temperature-sensing remote controls.

A real business person could probably get a discount on that price or get additional units for free due to such a large bulk purchase, but not district 204.

And the district wonders why voters don't trust them when they want to spend $45,000,000 on a problem that could be solved for the cost of their $17,000 survey.

Does this sound familair to the $140 million they are going to spend on a high school that will never be needed?

Ladies and Gentlement, welcome to District 204, now hand over your wallet!

YES! YES! YES! I would support this allllllll the way. The children need AC. I am a volunteer at a D204 school & it's bloody hot in there. How can these poor children concentrate on their school work when they have sweat dripping down their heads & faces? This particular school is sooooo old & has NO cross breeze what so ever...& don't get me started about the windows. They only pop out so far, how are they supposed to even get a breeze? For the people who "suffered" thru all their years in school w/out AC, that was then this is now. Just b/c you "suffered" doesn't mean our children have to. Please consider for health purposes to put AC in all the elem. schools! Thank you!

Why would anyone in their right mind pay for air conditioning that is used for only a few short weeks a year? I lived in a dorm in Atlanta, GA w/o A/C and survived. I didn't even know the elementary didn't have A/C until this year -- my kids never complained about the schools being too hot.

Maybe instead we could get rid of all the 'building articulation' and 'conference' and other 'in-service' days, start classes a few weeks later/get out earlier and the problem goes away.

(But that's not how our schools work -- remember the idiotic proposal last year to have kids go to school a 1/2 day each week so teachers could have more time to drink coffee -- oops, I mean 'plan')

The poor kids and all the heat that is thrust on them for one week in September....Has anyone ever heard of FANS? a good alternative and a LOT cheaper. As for JOE...Three cooling zones in his house? Must be HUGE! No wonder he wants all the levies to pass, he's made of money!

AR, Brad204 has 3 zones. Not I.

Please check your facts on this page before you attribute information to the wrong person again.

Does anyone else see the paradox created by the IPSD cry for air conditioning in their elementary schools? This SD, the one that begat Neuqua Valley High School, an edifice of pure opulence to be rivaled by few in the educational world and revered by all, is now asking for something as mundane as air conditioning! Golly, ain’t life sometimes just too ironic to believe?

If schools were built without air conditioning, why were the windows not designed to permit for sufficient classroom ventilation?

If fans were used, could not the hearing impaired (common argument employed about fan use) sit in the front of the classroom?

Hey, Metea will have a planetarium won’t it? President Metzger did say "We believe the community expects Metea to be a full-featured facility, ………." I love hyperbole don’t you?

Uncle Bucky - You sound like a shill for the 204 "Tax& spend" gang -I saw the State of Illinois Elections financial D2's when Ken Brissa was on the 204 board ! and yes Fancy Dinners & awards plaques for those people who were selling us Tax payers Down the river. Or Maybe your a Teacher in the 204 system - wow those Union PAC's always donate to those whom support TAX Increases for 204 to fund those $$100,000.00 a year admin. salaries that abound in 204. Clark is incompetent & so is Metzger - LOOK at the 15 years of poor planning in growth projections !! Metzger gets plenty of business contacts by being on the board and so did his former law firm. I have lived her 30+ years and seen the arrogance of the 204 boards. I've seen verbal fights break out in parking lots between anti-204 people and Senger. WE NEED A REFERENDUM TO RECALL THE 204 Board clowns who put us in this mess. 203 is the same way look at NUPACE run by teacher unions they gave thousands to elect the 203 Tax & Spend school board OVER a Tax Payer friendly slate !!! Now the Nupace Chairman Dianne Mcguire is running for the State House like Senger. More pay for teachers and more tax hikes for schools -

NaperMan,

Since you obviously feel a poor job is being done in many positions around town, then please volunteer your time and run for those positions and show everyone how perfection is done.

This suffering town anxiously awaits your announcement for candidacy so that you can implement your solution to all of our problems. If your solutions make sense, I'll even vote for you.

Joe.........TYVM - I already have been on many citizen task force groups: Transportation, Park district and was nominated for TAB and have held public office. Might run for 204 board with some Tax Payers who are fed Up. By the way One 204 referendum FAILED in WILL County........narrowly won in DuPage County there is disseniion over the 204 board.

But Joe.......... I will give you the point about Clark battling developers I remember her years ago @ Council meetings always piping up when she was with NAHC as VP & Then Pres.(?). Looking to limit density in subdivision changes that developers tried to sneak in at those midnight Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz sessions.

Mr. NaperMan:

I’m not sure your comment was directed at me but please allow me to assure you that I am not “a shill for the 204 "Tax& spend" gang”. Had you accused me to be the contrary you would have been correct. I don’t believe that I harbor the degree of animosity that you do but I certainly understand your feelings. I too no longer want to hear about underpaid teachers because at least in SD 203 and 204 that would certainly not be true. Has the IPSD administration been guilty of poor management and planning, I think so. If Neuqua, aka “The Peacock”, was built subsequent to all these schools “recently” found to be without AC, there is a problem. If Metea, as proposed, is as pretentious as Neuqua, there is a problem.

To subscribe that the problem lies solely at the feet of the IPSB would be unequivocally incorrect – we do have voters involved do we not? Of those eligible SD 204 voting in the 2005 IPSD SB election – 23% participated. Not bad considering that SD 203 had a whopping 15% turn out that same election. The 2007 consolidated election saw a whopping 10%, that would be TEN per cent of ALL potential voters able to find away to the polls! Yup, me thinks that an amazing amount of voter apathy played a role in the predicament now presented. Could this now be the proverbial wake-up call?

I just received an email re the new HS location. Given the high costs for the new school (now over $146 million, plus additional finance costs and operating costs of nearly $200 million) it looks like they are using the money that might pay for AC, to make up the difference from the original referendum of over $124 million. Can that be legally done?