Cast your vote in our 203 referendum poll

Nope!

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Yes, Proudly!

Dan D: I had a feeling you were going to vote that way. It's fine on the blog but I urge you to use the poll box on the home page as well. That way we can record all the yea and nay votes. Thanks.

It's the right thing to do. Vote YES.

Yes, yes, yes and yes!!! Of course, we moved here for the schools.

Absolutely. Schools are why we moved here.

As presented - I think NO!

I voted early and the vote was NO!

Not enough solid information to support this -- the schools need work but we need more definite information about what is going to be done

absolutley NO

Approx 78% of our real estate tax goes for the school system. Each year our assessments have gone up by 9,7 and 9% respectively even though housing appreciation has gone down during the same period. How much is enough for these people. We are suppose to be cost effective conservatives in this town. Take the money spent on bell towers and BMW test tracks and give it to the schools!

YES!!

I don't know. It needs to be done but with all the foreclosures and people losing their jobs, I don't know if I can do that to them. More taxes in the financial crises we are heading into doesn't sound like a good thing. The condition of NC didn't stop me from moving here. It is really about the education itself. They should have upgraded years ago, when the economy was better. I don't want someone to lose their home because I want my kids to sit in a nice room. I won't vote, I'll let you decide.

"Not enough solid information to support this -- the schools need work but we need more definite information about what is going to be done"

Have you gone on any of the school tours, or checked out the District 203 website? I'm not trying to convince you to change your vote, but I'm curious as to what additional information you think needs to be provided.

I've decided to vote yes---though it took me longer to come to this decision than it normally does for school funding measures.

When will we get a school board that tells the truth and can be trusted? Nice summary at the below link.

http://www.hold203accountable.org/Opinions.html

No...and btw, when are teacher's contracts coming up for negotiation again? Please stay on point - just a date will suffice.

Thanks.

Jay

I was part of the Facilities Study Group; I have followed closely all of the information put forth by 203 and followed the 203 blog on the Sun's website - kudo's to Thom Higgins for the straight forward analysis he has presented and the research he has done. However, when it comes down to it - I will vote YES for a very simple reason: I moved to Naperville for my kids, I moved here for the 203 schools. I may not agree with the 203 BOD for all their past decisions but as a whole 203 does a great job and I will trust they will continue to do so. I will support 203 and urge all to do so!

To Sandy Weber

Truth? The website is Mike Davitt's. Please see my post of 1-27-08 at 7:08 Am on the Sun's School District 203 page, "How will you vote on d203's referendum" thread, where I expose him for this site, and his other anonymous website. This truth tellers response?

Having respect for eternity, I'll only respond to one point within Higgins' endless rant. For the record, I don't hate teachers. I despise them. (I do though hate liberals who think money grows on trees; who equate money with education; and who resort to bullying on blogs). I have a problem with 75% of the teachers who threatened to strike in 2005 because they were not getting 5% raises. I have a problem with the teachers who were caught campaigning during the last school board election using school resources in violation of the state's Ethics & Gift Ban law. But then again, the end justifies the means for this group. I have a problem with a former teacher and union president (now running to fill Joe Dunn's seat) who produced ads implying I wanted to hire sex offenders for bus drivers and custodians. I have a problem with a certain girls basketball coach coming before the board saying "Central is a dump, and should be torn down." The money's been going to striking teachers, coach (would you volunteer to free up some of your strike-gotten gains for facility improvements for the students?). I have a problem with administrators who rate 75% of tenured teachers as "excellent." That's one hell of a public sector bell curve, and pure B.S. And I have a problem with enablers of this militant out-of-touch union. I hate to ruin my reputation, but I actually wrote a letter to one of my children's teacher's this semester complementing her for her hard work and creativity work. Not as creative as Higgins' rant though. Posted by: Mike Davitt | January 27, 2008 09:22 AM

Please realize this is the person you are attaching you name to.

Jay,

Teachers contract will be up for the 2010-2011 school year.

A word of warning to our 203 friends. Be sure to ask if the bond amount on the ballott is the amount you will be paying back. We approved a $124,660,000 bond amount for the third high school.

The district issued the bonds at an unfavorable interest rate for an 8M cash payment at issuance. Kind of like the opposite of paying points for a more favorable interest rate on your mortgage. So us taxpayers get stuck paying more than we approved and our "new" budget for the high school is now exceeding $140 million.

This practice has been outlawed in other states but is still "legal" here in Illinois.

Sad in 204

It sounds like you are talking about a Bond Premium.

203 is on record indicating that the issuance will be for $43 million, with no premium.

Actually we have the opposite situation. As of yesterday, before todays Fed announcement, the interest rate used for the projections was 1.5% higher than the current interest rate.

If that holds, and it may go lower yet, the cost to the taxpayer would go down.

Sad in 204

Guess I should have checked the news before posting. We are now 2 full percentage points below projections. This means if the bonds were issued today the $82.39 would decrease to $75.80

See link pg 39 for more information

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/PlanforUpgradingFacilities2007%2D2012%2Epdf

Thom -
Good for the residents leadership in D203 for stating up front that there will be no bond premium.

Lesson learned for 204 residents. A little too much trust on our part on the front end.

Will that be in the referendum wording, in other words is it legally binding? Another place we got into trouble here, anyway. They will not keep their word on anything that was not legally binding in the referendum language.

To Sad in 204,

Our school board has not said no to premium bonds, they laughed during the presentation on the cost to the taxpayer.

Thom Higgens said there would be no premium bonds. He is not the school board. We are in the same boat as you.

And remember, they took $1,250 ANNUALLY instead of $511.

Personally, I still support building a new school. Fixing up Central is like putting lipstick on a pig - except it'll cost a lot more - kind of like it already has (remember, originally the reason the Task Force recommended the renovations was because they didn't think a referendum would pass - at least that's what Principal Caudill said during the tour). A new school could be built where the current Administration building and football field are now. NCHS could borrow NNHS's field in the interim. (For example, several High Schools in Peoria share the same stadium - it can be done.)

Also, with all the teardowns, homes in my neighborhood, more than I can count, are generating 4 to 5 times more real estate taxes than they used to. I think the money is already there.

Plus, no one has justified to me why we're spending $3M on Astroturf? Or are they going to raise ticket prices too? What other fluff is in there?

So I'll vote "No", because even if the referendum doesn't pass there will still be renovations and perhaps the Board will focus on what's really needed and drop the fluff.

Thom Higgins -

Since you don't believe that certain critics of 203 represent the mainstream ideals of the district, just what makes you think your ideals are in the mainstream? I’m not trying to be judgmental, just letting you know it sounds elitist.

I'm not a big Davitt fan, but in between some of his overblown rhetoric he makes some good points (emphasis on some). Taxes just keep increasing and increasing. At some point, the district has to learn to live within its means.

I understand that $72 million is available from other sources and $43 million more is sought. Was a study done about what could be done for the cash available right now? This is still a staggering sum.

And don’t tell me how it’s only $82 a year, or one Big Mac a week, bla bla bla. I’m tired of getting nickel and dimed to death.

T.B.

No.

Did anyone else actually look at the wording of the referendum? Tehre is nothing in it to preclude bond premiums.

I took several tours, and I bnelieve there is work to be done.

However, I also believe the $72,000,000.00 available to the District, along with the tens of millions of expected extra State funding, savings from enrollment drops of 11%, and new construction which are NOT in the current projections of $72 mil are MORE THAN ENOUGH to renovate (NOT rebuid) Central.

Some of my neighbors have told me they may vote yes, but aren't sure, because they want it for their kids and to get good test scores. My usueal reaction is to let them know that if scores are their real concern, they should take a look at Benet (with test scores SIGNIFICANTLY higher than either 203 school) and their very responsible remodel undertaking. Exact same major issues as Central, but at a fraction of the cost and timeframe! Yowsay!

So, NO!

No! No! No!

They need to cut costs like all businesses do.

Back to the Napergate thread for me and I hope you all vote NO!

Regarding this by Dan Denys,

Our school board has not said no to premium bonds, they laughed during the presentation on the cost to the taxpayer.

Thom Higgens said there would be no premium bonds. He is not the school board. We are in the same boat as you.

No,No, No!

For those of you with a strong stomach I commend the Sun’s earlier thread., “How will you vote on D203’s referendum, to see Mr. Denys mendacity in it’s full splendor. But if you have better things to do, go here,

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/PlanforUpgradingFacilities2007%2D2012%2Epdf

Go to page 41 and read question 5. You will see then Mr. Denys nose continues to grow here in this new thread. And because I have a reputation for long posts and I really enjoyed writing this one here is a reprise of a post I did regarding the laughing school board.

This first paragraph is one of Mr. Denys typical posts.

To Ted’s question about trust. You quote Dave Zager and the document. Yes, they show $83. But remember, the Board made a point on 12/3 to DISAVOW these numbers. And again, I was told they were laughing when they did this. (We are trying to get the tape from NCTV, I would like to see this first hand.)
If they truly wanted trust on this issue, they should have passed a resolution stipulating to Dave's terms. THEY DID NOT!!!!
Remember, Dave's predecessor, Allen Albus, was quoted 49 times in the local press saying that the increase was $511. Now, Suzyn Price and Dean Reshcke DISAVOW that number. Dave’s words and documents are not binding.
WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THEM NOW?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

This is me now

Ok what are the problems here?

The board made the point to DIASVOW these numbers?

The evil Board was laughing as they did it?

We’ll get that tape and show they were laughing. Laughing!!, at their evil scheme to defraud the taxpayer in public, on tape, with the press there!

1-31-08 Still waiting on that tape Dan!

They didn’t pass a resolution stipulating to Dave’s terms?

The dastardly Price, and Reshcke DISAVOWED that number?
All this with much exclamation and FULL CAPS TO SHOW HOW OUTRAGED I AM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The press was there. If what Dan claims occurred here is what Waldorf’s article would have said:

In a stunning display of indifference District 203 board members laughed as Dave Zager Supt. of Finance begged the board to only ask of $43 million in the upcoming referendum

District 203’s school board last night, led by School Board President Suzyn Price and aided by her hand picked union crony Dean Reshcke openly mocked at the notion of guaranteeing the referendum request would be only $43 Million as Dave Zager stood by helplessly watching.

Proceedings were halted temporarily while the board attempted to regain their composure after commenting that the public was going to be really shocked when they find out its really going to be triple the amount as Mike Davitt had exposed in a letter to the editor in the Sun recently. The laughing went on for approximately 5 minutes and only ended when another board member indicated his concern that Davitt somehow uncovered their dastardly plan. It was then overheard that Price whispered to another board member that she was going to speak to her Union controller and ask if they could break into Davitt’s office and bug his phone so they can find out who leaked the plan.

The meeting adjourned at 9:52, after Dave Zager pleaded for the board to please, please just this once, don’t rip off the residents. He we told to take his spreadsheet, use it as a handkerchief, and go back to his hole.

If Waldorf reported this I missed it. But of course we all know what Dan claimed didn’t happen.

New thread here, Same old Dan Denys.

My apologies to the Sun for making such a long post here.

Sad in 204

I mis-spoke regarding the fed funds rate cut. They do not have an impact on long term bonds such as what 203 is issuing, so the 2 percentage point drop is incorrect.

However, the The Bond Buyer's 20 bond index (a standard gauge for municipal bonds) is down to 4.15% this week from 4.39% last week. This still represents about a 1 percentage point reduction from the Districts projected interest rate. Further thanks to the Districts excellent fiscal management the bonds will be AAA rated possibly, if not AA1-2. These will be very desirable issues as so much of the bond market is in turmoil due to the sub-prime mess.

Message to Thom,

We personally talked about the laughing and you acknowledged that they did laugh. Instead of your disertations, tell everyone on the blog why they laughed. You have their first hand information.

So don't deny that they laughed when you admitted such to me. And let the readers get a laugh out of the reason you told me.

And if you don't want to tell everyone, then just drop comments that I made this up.

Here's the referendum wording:

Shall the Board of Education of Naperville Community Unit School District Number 203, DuPage and Will Counties, Illinois, build and equip additions to and alter, repair and equip the Naperville Central High and Mill Street Elementary School Buildings; alter, repair and equip other school buildings of said School District, including the Naperville North High School Building; build and equip an early childhood school building; improve the sites thereof; and issue bonds of said School District to the amount of $43,000,000 for the purpose of paying the costs thereof?

Central needs to be torn down or repaired, BUT having been a lifelong resident I think we deserve to know where our money is going before we approve this. This referendum seems to be going very fast without many facts. Where are the final plans? Seems backwards to ask for money and the community not know where the money is directly going. Did this not happen at Central already with the pool and fieldhouse? Is the entire staff happy with this? I have heard from teachers that say vote no; This plan is not meeting all their needs. If staff is saying vote no why are we voting yes? Let's get this right. I would pay more money to make this right despite what certain district administrators think. This community WILL support the school system. Give us a chance BUT DO IT RIGHT!

District 203 already has the funds buried in its budget for the maintenance and remodeling requested. Property Taxes will be rising at least 10-15% based on a recent review of the property assessment increases mailed out to all home owners. On top of that there will be an addition amount for each year and inceasing throughout the 20 years proposed. It would be safe to say that the referendum will effectively along with ongoing increases double the property tax bill in less than ten years.VOTE YES for higher taxes and less accountabiltiy.

Anonymous Please try these links, It's all there.

http://www.buildthefuture203.org/index.php

http://www.naperville203.org/about/decisionforfuture.asp

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/

I was riding through a couple of the Tear Down neighborhoods last week and realized that eliminating the older,smaller homes is the best thing for Naperville. When it comes to the tearing down of my home I think the City will have accomplished its mission. Get rid of the lower economic classes, get rid of the elderly and let's get on with the process of making Naperville a real high end jewel. As for the schools. Just remember that there are those who DO, those who Teach and those who can't teach,teach GYM. To think I would all year long and have to fund my own retirement.

Stanley,

You are incorrect. We are operating under the PTEL caps. While your assessment my have gone up 10-15%, your property taxes can only go up at the rate of inflation or CPI (with some slight variation). If you look at your previous years tax bills you will see the tax rate has dropped the last few years, to account for the higher assessed valuation.

When we were operating under the 2002 referendum for years 2001-thru 2004, it was a different case. But your 2005 and 2006 tax bill should have shown modest increase over the 2004 tax bill, unless your did some work on the house.

You should call the Naperville or Lisle Township Assessors Office for verification.

So can anyone tell me how spending over $3M on Astroturf helps education? Why do we need a hot lunch program for the grammar schools, with the food prepared at NCHS? That sounds like a logistical nightmare and long term cost. And why 5 years is too long if it's the difference between doing the right thing versus just doing something, anything, now.

I honestly think that people who really care about education in Naperville will vote "No" on this plan.

The Poll question is worded rather poorly; "Will you vote for the Dist. 203 referendum?" It would read better as "HOW will you vote on the Dist. 203 referendum?"

When I read it my first thought was "YES, I'm going to vote for (on) the referendum. I'm going to vote "No".

Please note that the referendum wording does NOT preclude bond premiums OR ensure it will be "fixed" debt financing. Of course, we have their "word" that both issues are covered.

This is the type of stuff that drives me crazy! They could have worded it as such, but now it just makes me wonder why they didn't.

When I temper (or inflame) this with the 2002 referendum screw-up, I cannot see why some are defending them so!

Anonymous

If you will go here you will see in writing that you are incorrect. The district will not be issuing premium bonds.

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/PlanforUpgradingFacilities2007%2D2012%2Epdf

Go to page 41 and read question 5.

Tell you what, if they issue premium bonds I will donate to a legal fund to sue the district.

But that's a safe bet on my part. Anyone want to bet they will issue them? the loser makes a donation to charity?

Sorry all,

I was posting from my laptop. The 5:23pm post was mine and I didn't have the computer set up to remember me.

This said as I await all of those doubting Thomas's that want to take me up on my wager!

Step right up!

If it's not in the referendum language there is no legal ground to sue. They can say whatever they want in the FAQs but it's only binding if it's in the referendum language.

A couple of people have questioned installing synthetic turf (not Astroturf!) at the football stadium. I wondered about this too, until I took one of the tours of NCHS. Apparently, the school is about to lose a couple of practice fields that it has been leasing from the cemetery. So the football field is going to have to do triple duty for sports, PE and band.

To Dan Denys and all readers,

cross posted on the "How will you vote in D203's referendum" thread.

I will contact the district offices and request a statement be made, on the record, regarding both the issue of the projection balances, and the issue of the $43 million in bonds.

I will also make the statement in advance that the bonds will not be premium bonds, and the analysis that I have offered regarding the projection balances are correct.

Shall someone agree to meet me at district offices, or will posting it here be acceptable?

Please advise me by posting a response here.

Okay, so it's "synthetic turf" instead of "Astroturf". It's still over $3M for something we don't need. But if it's because NCHS is losing practice fields then tell me why we need it at BOTH NCHS and NNHS?

I'll listen to a good reason, a business case, but the district never makes one.

Also, about the practice fields. You're being snookered. You may have taken a tour, but I've had kids go through the NCHS and lived nearby for 17 years. Take a look from Google maps, click on satellite and zoom into the school. See that field across West street. It's the soccer fields that you don't notice because it's surrounded by trees. See how much larger it is than the field that we're "losing". How often do you think all those fields are being used at the same time? Based on all the times I drive by there, I'd say not very often.

Also, I looked up "synthetic turf", here are the pros and cons from Wikipedia. It's not as "low maintenance" as you might think. And, considering we just had a MRSA event this school year, why would we spend millions installing a product in our schools that increases the liklihood of infections?

Again, beyond just the turf issue, I believe the people who really care about education and who've studied the issues will vote "No" for this plan.

Advantages
+ Artificial turf can be a better solution when the environment is particularly hostile to natural grass. An arid environment or one where there is little natural light are examples.
+ Ideal for holiday homes when maintenance of lawns is not practical. It is also a solution for elderly homeowners who find the upkeep of lawns too much hard work.
+ Suitable for roof gardens and swimming pool surrounds.
+ Artificial turf pitches can last up to ten years.
+ Some artificial turf systems allow for the integration of fiber-optic fibers into the turf. This would allow for lighting or advertisements to be directly embedded in a playing surface, or runway lighting to be embedded in artificial landing surfaces for aircraft.[5]

Disadvantages
- The abrasions caused by artificial turf have been linked to a higher incidence of MRSA infections [6].
- Some artificial turf requires infill such as silicon sand and/or granulated rubber made from recycled car tires. This material may carry heavy metals which can leach into the water table.[7]
- Periodic disinfection is required as pathogens are not broken down by natural processes in the same manner as natural turf. This notwithstanding, recent studies suggest certain microbial life is less active.[8]
- Turf toe is a medical condition which is often associated with playing on artificial turf pitches.
- Friction between skin and artificial turf causes abrasions and/or burns to a much greater extent than natural grass.[8] This is an issue for some sports: for example, football in which sliding maneuvers are common and clothing does not fully cover the limbs.

As for the teardowns: With all those new houses generating 4 to 5 times the taxes of the homes they replaced, our taxes should be DROPPING, not going up!

There is plenty of money to fix up the schools and do an excellent job without raising taxes.

As for people saying great schools raise property values. That's great! My reward for high property values is higher taxes. High property values only help people who are going to sell and leave Naperville. Those of us who're in for the long haul don't get anything... well, except higher taxes.

I am not saying they will, I am only saying that despite all the rhetoric about they won't, they are unwilling to put it in writing!

I am certainly a doubting Thomas!

As for the being upfront vs. being legal, the board will go with legal. When they wanted to raise the driver's education fee from the Illinois mandated $50 to $250, they did the bare minimum to notify residence of their chance to address the Board on the issue. That amounted to a small ad in the Legal Notices section of the paper. Even though they had the email system set up at the time, there was no email sent to parents. No notice sent home with students. By the time most of us knew what happened it was too late. God bless the one man who saw the notice and went to the meeting to complain. BTW, as it was characterized to me later when I complained "Well, we had a public meeting and only one person came." Without mentioning that the only notice was that small classified ad, which is all the law requires.

As for being in touch with the world, they're not. I was at a School Board meeting last year during the discussions about returning some of the overtaxes. When Jim Caulfield said residents were feeling stretch and some were suffering foreclosures, Suzyn Price scoffed. Sadly, he was right and was seeing the beginning of a trend that we all recognize today. And now, he's off the Board and she's President.

So if you think the Board is in touch with reality or cares about whether or not you might need that tax money for yourself, then think again. From all the Board meetings I've been to, they're generally just a rubber stamp on whatever the Administration wants to do.

As for sending money to a group that's done such a poor job maintaining our current schools, it's just throwing good money after bad.

And all this from a guy that supports building a new NCHS. But this seems like a bad plan, and I'll vote "No"

If anyone wants to talk about D203 finances then I urge you go here,

http://www.qe203.org/20080205referendum/costperformance_mediasurvey.shtml

When you consider our students’ academic achievement record, the amount NCUSD 203 spends per student is an absolute bargain.

By every measure I've seen (some of which are detailed below), there is only one conclusion: NCUSD 203 excels in educating our children—and at a lower cost than any other highly achieving school district. The only schools that do better in the various academic benchmarks are admissions-based Chicago Public Schools college prep academies, schools that spend a boatload more than NCUSD 203.

We stand alone in dollars spent for ACT score achieved. The statement that 203 overcharges us on our taxes is simply not true.

As the saying goes a picture is worth a thousand words

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/documents/costperactreadiness_v2080128-2.pdf

We will soon find out if District 203 voters are as uninformed as those of District 204. Do voters require accountability or do they merely throw money whenever a school board says gimme, gimme. Vote NO!

The chart doesn’t show high ACT scores, it shows “ACT College Readiness Requirements”. What does that mean? Sounds fairly basic, must be if we’re only spending $100 per student to meet it.

Anyway, this notion that we spend less than average is a dangerous argument. It creates spiral increases.

With the cat out of the bag so to speak. In regards to the condition of Central. I do not know how anyone could vote no and hold your head up with pride. With the housing market back to 2002 prices, the community wants to vote no? If this does not pass what will the pricing fall to them?? Shut up about the teachers. Would any of you like to work in the central locker room area for twenty five years. Possibly to develope cancer as well? We expose our children to conditions of mold, asbestos, overcrowding, possible electric fire. If you put the school out of the building and incorparated your one place of employment YOU ALL WOULD SHOUT CONDEMN THIS BUILDING!!!! Shut up about the taxes. Naperville pays less taxes than any of the surrounding suburbs. So you are living in a deal town.

VOTE YES!!!!!!!!!! With pride! Just remember if you expect to move or die between now and 20 years you should vote Yes!

Renovations will happen even if you vote "No"; we already paid for those.
Unless you're saying the District will punish us for not voting in the full package.

jhu here's the link for the ACT college readiness score

http://www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/benchmarks.pdf

Central needs major work, that and other needs, necessitates the $43 million additional. please read the following,

http://www.qe203.org/20080205referendum/thecaseforcentral.shtml

It lays it all out for you.

HERE WE GO!!!!!

The scare tactics have officially begun!

Now Dawnd wants us all to believe that our little children will get CANCER if they attend Central! If not cancer, AT LEAST abestos a and/or mold poisoning. Oh My! Oh My! [see her post, 10:26 am, 2/2/08].

Like, Oh My Gosh! I heard that there is, like, a one-armed man with a hook for, like, a hand, that wanders the halls of Central and, like, you know, murders students! Like, really, and he is like, an employee hired by, like, the guy who was like on the Tax ticket thing!!! OMG!!!!

Do I have this right?

Some of you WANT to pay more taxes just because other districts pay more and get less? Is this some strange "big swinging you know what" thing where you want to prove we have as much money as these other districts AND we are as stupid as them?

VOTE "NO" 203!

Response of Dave Zager Assistant Superintendent of Finance District 203 responding to e-mail inquiries by Tim Waldorf Education Reporter of the Naperville Sun.

These questions were from Tim Waldorf received on (01-30-2008):

Dave Zagers responses are in Italics.

Tim, from your e-mail:

“The District is projecting ongoing annual budget surpluses through 2013-2014, even with the $154 million of Operations and Maintenance expenses and $60 million Site and Construction expenses it anticipates paying from its operations budget between now and then. And, once annual revenues exceed expenses in 2013-2014, the district’s projected cumulative surplus of roughly $40 million is expected to keep it out of the red until 20__.”

OK. I am guessing that a lot of this is based on our 2007-08 budget document and the financial projections in that document. I think your $154 million is the projection in Operations and Maintenance from 2008-09 through 2013-14 – or 6 years (roughly $25.5 million per year). The Site and Construction $60 million is the amount shown in 2008-09 through 2010-11.

This latter amount is included in the $114.9 million. At the time this document was created (April of 2007) the recommended plan from the Task Force was a total package of $100 million. $60 million of this was to be a combination of the $36 million bonds funded by Cantera and $24 million from other sources (Walnut Woods sale, operating surpluses, Land Cash, etc.). This $60 million is the amount you see in the Site and Construction Fund expenditures. The additional $40 million was to be referendum approved bonds.

After this document was created – in fall of 2007 – the Facilities Project was revised to a total of $114.9 million and funded as detailed in all of the District referendum documents, including an additional $9.2 million provided from operating budget surplus.

Please note that the additional funding that went into this package also cut into those annual operating surpluses that were projected.

So a few corrections to your sentence above (I’ll base everything off that projection from April, 2007 – although I am in the midst of doing a new projection right now):

The operating budget was projected to be balanced through 2012-13, with 2013-14 being the first year that expenses exceeded revenue. The cumulative balance at 2012-13 would be projected at $29.6 million (the number in the document is $38.8 million – then subtract the $9.2 million = $29.6 million). I am currently revising the financial projection so I expect that to change again (Interest income will be reduced - so I expect revenue to be down a little. (Dave Zager indicated to me this number is approx $ 8 million based on projected interest rates and the current lower interest rates, TH 2-01-08) At the same time, we have reduced expenditures through new labor contracts and health insurance contracts).

a. The “$60 million” in the Site and Construction Fund is not in addition to the $114.9 million facilities package.

b. Your second e-mail about an additional $36 million is incorrect. ALL of the Site and Construction money is already in the $114.9 million facilities plan.

c. The projected (financial projection document of April, 2007) $154 million over the next six years includes all costs of operating, maintaining, repairing the District facilities. Included in that figure is about $6.5 million every year for major repairs and renovations. If the referendum were to pass and Naperville Central High School and Mill Street School are remodeled and renovated as planned, some of the repairs that are detailed in the District’s Five Year Plan and outlined in the District Wide Physical Facility Survey would be done in those projects. This would free up some of the annual budget for major repairs and renovations in the Operations and Maintenance Fund so that some of the Phase II projects could be done.

d.. As far as the fund balance keeping us out of the red – let’s say until 2014-15 (maybe even 2015-06) given the additional use of fund balance for the $114.9 million project.

I always remind everyone that the financial projection is NOT a budget. I always stress that the “Financial Projection – Trends and Assumptions” includes a three page explanation as well as the “numbers.” In that explanation (and I quote),”on a practical basis the meaningful years are the current year budget plus an additional three years. Beyond that, there is little meaningful information to form the basis of the projection.”

Tim, I think there has been some talk that the District would not need to issue the referendum bonds – there is plenty of money in future fund balances. First of all, maintaining some amount of fund balance is advisable. For example, the City of Naperville has a similar size budget to the School District and maintains over $30 million in balance. This ensures adequate cash to satisfy obligations without resorting to short term borrowing (such as Tax Anticipation Warrants) and is a source of funds if property taxes are delayed or state payments are delayed (as happened this year).

Second, the projections are just that – projections. The District has committed future funds for the next three years toward these projects. The District has committed future funds to be generated when the Cantera TIF expires. There is a balance that must be struck between minimizing additional taxpayer dollars (through the referendum) and maintaining a reasonable financial position so that the future of the District is not jeopardized.

Thom Higgins here. So any reader here will see that the $39 million, 2012 projected surplus, as offered in the April 07 budget papers, has been reduced by $9 million as I stated previously. Mr. Denys is incorrect again. Further as I have indicated there will be an additional $8 million loss in interest income if current conditions hold! Time will tell and the variables are numerous. Again these are projections, 5 years in advance. To claim that it is a certainty are guaranteed to have these funds is disingenuous to my mind

Regarding this,

Do I have this right?

Some of you WANT to pay more taxes just because other districts pay more and get less? Is this some strange "big swinging you know what" thing where you want to prove we have as much money as these other districts AND we are as stupid as them?

There has been some people making charges that 203 taxes too much, and the board is fiscally irresponsible.

The Herald and Chicago magazine studies prove that is false. My point is 203 is a bargain compared to other districts, and the needs are real and legitimate. Asking for $100.00 a year for all that want to accomplish is a reasonable request, and I expect the results of the Sun poll, 63% Yes, 37% No, will be borne out on Tuesday.

To all,

I am financial person. Thom "Bill Clinton" Higgins confuses me, but then he is a salesman.

HOCUS POCUS DOMINOCUS (another fellow Democrat--Harold Washington)

2008 Projection in 2005

$3 million

Actual planned

$40 million per budget, sounds like $49 million now.

Dave's numbers are simple, Thom's confusing.

Thom don't "PITCH" me on being poor. Manage enrollment and keep costs to inflation (everyone else is below) and their would be $200 million by 2012.

Thom - I appreciate the reference to the web site, but it doesn't lay everything out. I'll tell you why, but first some background so you understand I'm not just a naysayer. When others were arguing with the Board to return the overcollected taxes, I was the one citizen in the room that said, "Keep the taxes, but fix up the schools."

What I object to is that the renovation plan approved by the task force intentionally didn't require a referendum. It appears a lot of "stuff" has gotten included in the renovation plan now. Since I don't have time (and I doubt I have access) to the detailed plan, I can only point to apparent "fluff" like the synthetic turf that will cost over $3M (to do NCHS & NNHS) and may require more maintenance over its 10 year life than we think. On that one, I'm primarily concerned about the increased incidence of MRSA infections from artificial turf - especially since we already had one outbreak at NCHS. That's a lot to spend without some due diligence.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/5/468

Thom,

Very Clintonesque. You have learned well from the master.

Here is the classroom size summary from the blog.

QUESTION

Does Heally Bender specifically detail a classroom size standard for their $350,000?

ANSWER

Can’t find it. District refuses to provide it when asked. And Thom it is not in the 21 binders.

QUESTION

(Posed by Dan for fairness) What are the size of GENERAL CLASSROOMS (not science labs and gyms that Thom has cited) in other schools--say---North? (Remember, if Heally Bender did their job, there would not be a need for any more questions.)

ANSWER

District once again refuses to reply. Thom says, larger. Source: Unknown.

QUESTION

If we got the space capacities, do 75% of the classrooms exceed the 1,100 planned for Central? For that matter, do 75% exceed 750 square feet.

ANSWER

District again refuses to reply. Thom says space plans are irrelevant since they are for safety matters. HUH? If they say a class can hold 100 children at 7 square foot per child, you can calculate the square footage. If it is like other construction plans I reviewed, it probably has the dimensions noted.

QUESTION

Tom, do 75% of the classrooms at some representative schools exceed 750 square feet? (Now we are doing Heally Benders work for free.)

ANSWER

A list of schools with numbers. No source, no documentation. AND THE CLINTON MANEUVER--YOU prove ME wrong.

With all due respect, I was trying to grasp the reasonableness of the proposal based on the information provided. DISTRICT RESPONSE, SILENCE. Thom, a salesman, is the surrogate FINANCE AND ARCHITECT expert of the Distirct. Sorry Thom, I will listen to your sales pitch, but you cannot replace the MISSING EXPERTS.

Tuesday will tell if the VOTERS have enough information.

One other point.

District 203 TAXES are second highest in DuPage County, only 204 is higher.

I agree with the previous post, we should spend more to be as inefficient as the most wasteful districts in the state? I hear another referendum for MORE MONEY!!!!!!!

Comments on Naperville Central High School room size and renovation

NOTE: posted previously on the "will you vote for d203's referendum" thread. Mr Denys has responded here on this thread today at 1:34. So readers understand the context I post it here with my response to Mr. Denys below in a separate post.

Dan Denys, and Mike Davitt have made repeated claims claiming that the renovations for Central would result in a TAJ Mahal. Let’s look at the facts.

Over the last few days I have been studying the space plan provided to me by Wight and Assoc., the architects District 203 chose to prepare the preliminary plans.

Here is what I found.

There is approximately 171,307 square feet that will remain essentially untouched or will have minor renovations. The largely untouched areas are the theater, the pool area and various gyms, all of recent construction, and it also includes a number of storage areas and hallways. The industrial technology and business classrooms and labs, also of newer construction, will receive minor renovations. This is one of the ways we get an updated modern facility, but at a lower cost than a new school., This shows sound decision making.

I am pleased to see that almost all the classrooms will be new or remodeled. They all will be larger and the school will have a number of new labs. For example, foreign language and math labs which are large rooms with computer stations. In the same way the English department will have some larger rooms to accommodate the technology needed to write and produce documents, web pages, etc. The days of students writing with just pens at their desks are ove.

So, what about the size of the classroom rooms?

Most of the core curriculum classrooms (science, math, english, foreign language, and social studies) reside in renovated and new areas resulting in differently sized classrooms. Ultimately, this will be to the district's advantage as they will be able to place programs based on their space needs, technology, instructional approach. This will provide enhanced flexibility for room utilization.

Dan Denys has outspokenly labeled the renovation as being excessive and unnecessary. On 1-17-08, he equated the standard for the amount of space a student needs to safely exit a room (18 s.f.) to the standard for how much space a student should be provided for instructional purposes. He incorrectly claimed that the existing classrooms (at 650 s.f.) are 167% larger than they have to be and to enlarge them further would be an unnecessary luxury. A Taj Mahal in his and Mr. Davitt’s words.

Mr. Denys used an irrelevant standard as the basis of his argument thereby rendering that argument invalid.

So what classroom standard is Wight Architects using? They are using the accepted 30 s.f. per student standard (Council of Educational Facility Planners International) and basing the classroom size on 26 students per room, for a total of 780 sf. I need to correct an earlier comment about this issue: I thought they were building to a 30 student classroom population, not 26.

The general education traditional lecture classrooms are mostly in a newly constructed wing and are 775 s.f. for the most part. The english classrooms will average 802 s.f.. I do not have a classroom by classroom breakdown, but my expectation is they also will be predominately 775 s.f. each, with some larger ones in the mix, too.

This conflicts with some higher numbers that have been discussed and this is where understanding the complexity of a modern school comes in. For example, the English lecture classrooms will average 802 s.f., but add in the 3 labs or centers, as the architect labels them, and you have a 912 s.f. average. Which number is correct? They both are. But, you need to know what the numbers represent to understand them.

The district has used the 900s.f. figure, based on including the larger spaces, in some of their communications as it is more illustrative of the increase in space over the existing classrooms.

So, how does this compare to Naperville North HS, for example? If you take all their classrooms and average them out, you get 875 s.f. If you take only the traditional, lecture style, gen ed classrooms, it is 720 s.f.

Let’s look some general ed traditional lecture classrooms in newly constructed schools.

Metea (in planning), projected to be 840 s.f. (28 students per room standard?)
Neuqua 840 s.f. (28 student per classroom standard?)
Waubonsie 780 s.f. (26 students per classroom standard?)
Oswego East HS’s either 928 or 960 s.f. (30 Students per classroom standard?)
Plainfield North 751s.f. (25 students per classroom stated standard)
CUSD 300 Hampshire, IL 825 s.f.

These are not averages, you will find in modern hs’s that all gen ed classes are the same size.

As you see above, the size of the room is only part of the story. The next part is how many students are in each classroom. The architect for Plainfield North told me it was designed to a 25 student per classroom standard. Oswego’s larger rooms are, I believe, designed to a larger student per classroom standard (30?) and then with some added space to boot, I bet.

So in the end, I can say that, the size of the rooms are appropriate considering the demands of 21st century technology, and the many and varied classes students take.
As they are being designed to a 26 student per class standard, the design is in accord with the demographic projections calling for Centrals enrollment to decline slightly in the coming years.

Further, I feel the desire by the district to be fiscally conservative coupled with the fact that there is not a logical alternative site for a new high school, the decision to renovate Naperville Central high school is a sound one. Please click on the following link for a detailed discussion regarding why the scope of the renovation needs to be so extensive.

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/thecaseforcentral.shtml

Finally this,

On 1-25-08 Mr. Denys challenged me thusly,
My plain statement. If Thom can note that 75% of the general classrooms in these schools are greater than 750 square feet (note I am not using the 900 square feet the district is proposing), I will ask the Sun to publish an article stating that the reconstruction of the exiting space to increase the classroom size is reasonable. Thom, I will give you a letter to post on QE203. We will post the info on WDTA. Posted by: Dan D. | January 25, 2008 07:28 AM

Mr. Denys can easily verify all this information. Absent him offering proof to the contrary, I will be expecting his letter to the Sun and QE203.org shortly.

Posted by: Thom Higgins | January 31, 2008 09:41 PM

Responding to Dan Denys,

Does Heally Bender specifically detail a classroom size standard for their $350,000? ANSWER Can’t find it. District refuses to provide it when asked. And Thom it is not in the 21 binders.

Classic Dan Denys obfuscation. It wasn’t for HB to detail classroom size. It was for the Architect Wight, and they did so. The district has not refused to provide this information. Please show your proof where the district refused to provide it.

(Posed by Dan for fairness) What are the size of GENERAL CLASSROOMS (not science labs and gyms that Thom has cited) in other schools--say---North? (Remember, if Heally Bender did their job, there would not be a need for any more questions.) ANSWER District once again refuses to reply. Thom says, larger. Source: Unknown.

I have the size of every classroom at North and a layout of the rooms. As I indicated earlier, the average of all classrooms at North is 875 s.f. and the average of the gen ed classrooms is 720 s.f.. I can easily arrange a tour on Monday. Will you come and verify my facts with me? We can use your tape measure.

If we got the space capacities, do 75% of the classrooms exceed the 1,100 planned for Central? For that matter, do 75% exceed 750 square feet. ANSWER District again refuses to reply. Thom says space plans are irrelevant since they are for safety matters. HUH? If they say a class can hold 100 children at 7 square foot per child, you can calculate the square footage. If it is like other construction plans I reviewed, it probably has the dimensions noted.

I have an the space program for Central, you don’t. I find it amusing that you are the expert. Do 75% of the classrooms average over 750 s.f? YES., and I can prove it to you if you cared, your 75% over 1,100 question ? NO . For the record I never said the space plan is irrelevant, and you are simply doing your pale Ali imitation here bobbing and weaving, The rest of your statement is nonsense. You want proof? I can arrange a meeting with Wight to discuss their plans for Central.

QUESTION Tom, do 75% of the classrooms at some representative schools exceed 750 square feet? (Now we are doing Heally Benders work for free.) ANSWER A list of schools with numbers. No source, no documentation. AND THE CLINTON MANEUVER--YOU prove ME wrong.

I will provide written documentation and can arrange tours of the schools. Will you have the integrity to write the letter to the Sun if I provides same? What is your schedule Monday?

With all due respect, I was trying to grasp the reasonableness of the proposal based on the information provided. DISTRICT RESPONSE, SILENCE. Thom, a salesman, is the surrogate FINANCE AND ARCHITECT expert of the Distirct. Sorry Thom, I will listen to your sales pitch, but you cannot replace the MISSING EXPERTS.

Classic Dan Denys, all accusations and no follow through. Had Mr. Denys cared he could of asked last week to meet with me and we could have gone over this, and meet with he various professionals, instead he hides behind his keyboard, types this drivel, and hopes no one notices his mendacity.

Regarding this by Dan Denys,

To all, I am financial person. Thom "Bill Clinton" Higgins confuses me, but then he is a salesman.

Perhaps it would be helpful for the readers to understand your “Financial Background”

http://www.qe203.org/denysifabondfailure.shtml

Readers will find an excerpt of a Bloomberg article and a link to the full article last updated on Dec 6th 2006 and still live.

In addition, at the bottom of the page are links to the IRS findings in their Proposed Letter of Determination, Closing Agreement and press release. Note that NTN (Dan Denys and Warren Matha, principals) were renting space within the George K. Baum Co. at the time.

NO! HOLD SUPERINTENDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS

When I read about holes in the roof of NCHS and lockers falling out of the walls - I have to ask the question - If the money is there - (And it is) why have these repairs not already taken place? Is the Superintendant deliberately leaving these items undone so as to manipulate the vote? Mr Superintendent: Fix Central Now! Start Today! Stop gaming the taxpayers of Naperville!

To All,

My original comment on January 25, 2008 @ 7:28 AM

“If Thom can note that 75% of the general classrooms in these schools are greater than 750 square feet (note I am not using the 900 square feet the district is proposing), I will ask the Sun to publish an article stating that the reconstruction of the exiting space to increase the classroom size is reasonable. Thom, I will give you a letter to post on QE203. We will post the info on WDTA.”

After thousands of words, Thom says the following today (February 1, 2008 @ 4:33 PM)

“I have the size of every classroom at North and a layout of the rooms. As I indicated earlier, the average of all classrooms at North is 875 s.f. and the average of the gen ed classrooms is 720 s.f.”

I do not need to consult a math genius; it is IMPOSSIBLE for 75% of the GENERAL EDUCATION classrooms to be greater than 750 square feet if the average is 720.

Thom has addressed my comment and CONFIRMED MY SUSPICIAN. No letter will be needed.

ASKED AND ANSWERED!

Dan D.

PS Amazing how Thom can get all of this information and the District cannot respond to our questions. I will post the link for all of you to review.

Capital Questions

http://www.mediafire.com/?9lzyvy2cxm5

Operations questions (we get new gobblygook EVERY DAY!!)

http://www.mediafire.com/?2twlz1zmwb2

Thom and QE 203 posts a news service quote by me on a specific bond deal (given to the reporter TWO YEARS before the article ran). However, the article is craftly written and does not specifically allege any wrongdoing by MYSELF OR MY COMPANY. Further, the IRS settlement letter referenced does not even MENTION my companies or principals (myself). NOTHING.

In short, there are NO legal, administrative or other proceedings pending with the IRS or any other government entity. NONE.

The bullying now reverts to attacks!

I was going to write that I and others would be willing to meet with Dr. Leis and Dave Zager on Saturday to address the open issues.

I DOUBT THAT EVEN THOM COULD ARRANGE THAT.

But after Higgins last personal attack that he knows is a misstatement from previous materials I supplied him and QE203, I cannot do so.

Wait a second! Is this bond scam true???

Why isn't Denys in jail????

Is this a joke or not?

TO ALL READERS PLEASE NOTE HOW MR. DENYS CONVENIENTLY CHANGES HIS OWN POST TO MISLEAD YOU. HERE IS HIS MODIFIED VERSION POSTED ON 1-1-08 5:42pm

My original comment on January 25, 2008 @ 7:28 AM

“If Thom can note that 75% of the general classrooms in these schools are greater than 750 square feet (note I am not using the 900 square feet the district is proposing), I will ask the Sun to publish an article stating that the reconstruction of the exiting space to increase the classroom size is reasonable. Thom, I will give you a letter to post on QE203. We will post the info on WDTA.”

THIS IS HIS ACTUAL POST

But Thom has never responded to my question, what are the classroom sizes of comparable schools. I will note the following schools:
1. Naperville North
2. Oswego East
3. Nequa Valley
4. Proposed Matea
5. Plainfield North
6. Bolingbrook
7. Walter Payton (a $75 million--1998 dollars--Chicogo school for 1,250 students--Jesse Jackson should have visited this school rather than Nequa).

My plain statement. If Thom can note that 75% of the general classrooms in these schools are greater than 750 square feet (note I am not using the 900 square feet the district is proposing), I will ask the Sun to publish an article stating that the reconstruction of the exiting space to increase the classroom size is reasonable. Thom, I will give you a letter to post on QE203. We will post the info on WDTA.

Posted by: Dan D. | January 25, 2008 07:28 AM

First. It’s rather deceitful to modify a post in this manner.

Second. All, please read this again,

After thousands of words, Thom says the following today (February 1, 2008 @ 4:33 PM) “I have the size of every classroom at North and a layout of the rooms. As I indicated earlier, the average of all classrooms at North is 875 s.f. and the average of the gen ed classrooms is 720 s.f.”

I do not need to consult a math genius; it is IMPOSSIBLE for 75% of the GENERAL EDUCATION classrooms to be greater than 750 square feet if the average is 720.

The genesis of this entire discussion was Mr. Denys contention that the New Central was going to be a Taj Mahal with it’s classrooms larger than other schools. That is why he made this statement in his post on the 25th.

If Thom can note that 75% of the general classrooms in these schools are greater than 750 square feet I(note I am not using the 900 square feet the district is proposing), I will ask the Sun to publish an article stating that the reconstruction of the exiting space to increase the classroom size is reasonable. Thom, I will give you a letter to post on QE203. We will post the info on WDTA.”

Please note his says schools, plural, and he offered a list of 7. Today he is attempting to take refuge in North’s slightly lower numbers, and ignore the rest. Please realize he is now attempting to taken the opposite side of the argument. First he was claiming that Central is a Taj Mahal because the rooms were going to be so much bigger than elsewhere. And now that I have proven that they are not, and are only marginally bigger than North HS (which really messes up his contention that we will have to rebuild North for millions), he point to the smallness of the rooms and says the term of his challenge have not been met. Nice try.

As anyone can see if you look at these other schools I have listed and compare them to my post on Central that discusses Centrals room sizes, it is clear than Mr. Denys is incorrect in his claim that Central is a Taj Mahal based on what he claimed was excessively large classroom size, as they are totally in line with other modern schools, and not far off from North which is an older school. I have met his challenge, but Mr. Denys will never admit he is wrong.

So, Instead he modifies his own post in a vain attempt to mislead the reader.

The following is an excerpt of Bloomberg article discussing Mr.Denys role in a failed bond offering, for those who don't want to follow the links and read the whole article(although it will give you the background on the national scope of the problem). This is the section relating specifically to the failed Illinois bond offering. Please note I offer no comment on this. It is for the reader to decide the relevance.

The 1999 variable-rate bonds, which initially sold at an annual interest rate of 3.3 percent, were supposed to make more computers available to kids. The Illinois Finance Authority, which is based in the state capital of Springfield, paid $1.4 million in fees to the underwriter, Kansas City, Missouri-based investment bank George K. Baum & Co., and an additional $1.8 million to advisers and promoters.

The schools got almost nothing. Of the $150 million from bond proceeds, a total of $833,000, or less than 1 percent, was used for technology. The Illinois authority ended the program in 2002 and bought back the bonds to avoid having the IRS declare them as taxable.

Randy Steinmeyer, whose 10-year-old son, Conrad, attends fifth grade at the Skinner school, says he feels cheated because the program promised much and didn't deliver.

``It's sad this equipment never made it to the classroom,'' says Steinmeyer, 46, an actor and freelance marketing executive. ``They had these grandiose schemes, and then you see that the money never reaches where it's supposed to.''

Financial Advisor's Role

Daniel Denys, president of Austin Meade Financial, the Illinois authority's financial adviser, says his firm developed the program with honest intentions. Denys was also a principal stockholder in Skokie, Illinois-based National Technology Network Inc., which helped promote the bonds and was in charge of handing out loans, according to bond documents.

He says Chicago public schools expressed interest in borrowing all of the money and then backed out. Rising interest rates also stifled borrowing, he says.

``It was a failure to realize a noble cause,'' he says. ``We stand by the work we did.''

The IRS began investigating the program in 2002 and says in records provided by the authority that the program exploited schools, while allowing financial firms to profit.

``In this case, the farce has been shown because there were only two loan originations totaling $833,000 out of a bond issue of $150 million,'' the IRS wrote.

You guys wonder why our kids are bully's - look at yourselves in the mirror and ask yourself if you would stand for your kids behaving like you are behaving. No, didn't think so. Really some of you grown men should clearly be ashamed of yourselves. These are serious community issues not games. The 203 Board of Education and the administrators do a darn good job (nobody is perfect) - can you please give them some credit for their hard work and dedication. Why are you so negative and against everything - please try to stand for something (anything!) positive in our great community we call Naperville. Shame on you...

You guys wonder why our kids are bully's - look at yourselves in the mirror and ask yourself if you would stand for your kids behaving like you are behaving. No, didn't think so. Really some of you grown men should clearly be ashamed of yourselves. These are serious community issues not games. The 203 Board of Education and the administrators do a darn good job (nobody is perfect) - can you please give them some credit for their hard work and dedication. Why are you so negative and against everything - please try to stand for something (anything!) positive in our great community we call Naperville. Shame on you...

"How often do you think all those fields are being used at the same time? Based on all the times I drive by there, I'd say not very often."

That's not the point. The point is that the remaining fields will get a lot more use, which is very, very hard on natural grass.

And I don't know why Naperville North is also getting a synthetic turf field, except that the school board probably felt they needed to sweeten the pot a little more for the folks on the north side. Not the best reason, to be sure, but that's politics.

I read the IRS documents that Thom Higgins refers to and would encourage anyone who is interested in this matter to read not just the settlement letter that Dan D mentions but the first several pages of the proposed letter of determination, too.

It would appear that Dan D (using his own words) has craftily written a response as well. He statement is true, but is not the whole story: the settlement statement does not mention his name or company, but the proposed letter of determination has plenty to say about Mr Denys, Mr Matha's and NTN's role in the failed bond program.

The settlement appears to be an effort by all sides to avoid further litigation and its resultant costs.

So, while there are no pending actions, it does remain that the IRS presented evidence that showed Mr Denys' company, NTN, was the program administrator and was to act as the liaison between all the involved parties including the bond trustee. NTN was involved in the planning of the bond sale and provided loan demand forecast surveys that were subsequently shown to be greatly exaggerated sale.

Out of a proposed $300 million bond issue, only two loans totally less than $1MM were originated.

The IRS does state that NTN was not directly involved in the arbitrage that lead to the IRS tax evasion charges against the George K Baum Co. However, at the time of all this, NTN was also renting space within the George K Baum company office. Mr Denys, we are known by the company that we keep.

It also seems noteworthy that the first bond counsel withdrew from the the program when it determined, in their opinion, that the demand was not as stated and the handling of the remarketing fees were, in the IRS's words, "to be an abusive transaction as a matter of Federal Tax Law." Why wasn't NTN advising the IDFA to walk away from the program or shut it down when the demand never materialized?

Why is it that when the district makes a forecasting error they are accused of lying, intentionally misleading the public and being of questionable integrity and when Mr Denys does it, it is just a noble effort that went bad?

Mr Denys, you opened the door to the question of personal integrity with your accusations against the the school board and the district administration. It is only fair that you subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny.

For those who may not have seen todays Daily Herald, please read the article below, and specifically Dave Zagar's comment.

Interest rate cuts could aid some referendums
Officials say loans could be paid off sooner, saving taxpayers money
By Jake Griffin and Kathryn Grondin | Daily Herald Staff
Contact writer

Paying off debt related to the myriad tax hike questions on Tuesday's ballot will take less money and time than originally expected.

Thanks to the Federal Reserve's interest rate cuts, it doesn't cost as much to borrow money nowadays, according to a bevy of school, park and other officials who are trying to get voters to approve construction projects or land purchases.

Still, backers of the tax increases are jumping all over the news that costs will be less and payback will come sooner. That might sway the undecided voters.

"We are definitely trying to spread the word that this is going to be better for them," said Christy Sefcik, assistant superintendent at Grant High School District 124 in Fox Lake. "We were already in an accelerated debt schedule, but we're definitely going to pay less now."

Grant officials are asking voters for approval to spend $38.5 million to renovate the high school.

However, there are a few taxing bodies that might choose to pass the savings directly onto taxpayers immediately by reducing the requested tax rate slightly.

Naperville Unit District 203 is asking voters for permission to borrow $43 million, mainly to renovate Naperville Central High School.

Dave Zager, the district's assistant superintendent for finance, said it's likely district officials would trim the tax rate.

"The lower interest rates are not as impactful on long-term borrowing," he said. "We'd probably choose to have the taxpayer pay less."

I agree. There seem to be some personal issues being vented here.

As for me, I started out trusting the Board, but felt burned after the last referendum, which I supported, wrote letters, went door to door, and voted "Yes" on. After the Board told us that we desperately needed the money or they'd have to cut programs, the very next thing they did after the referendum passed was give the Superintendent a 44% pay increase... just because he asked to get the same deal as retiring teachers. Then I saw my taxes skyrocket far beyond what I voted for. So yeah, some of us are suspicious of the system.

Consider this too, the original renovation recommendation didn't require a referendum. So $43M of additions got tacked on.

Also consider that you've been led to believe that if you vote "No" then there aren't going to be renovations. But that's not true, needed renovations will happen to matter what you vote.

Here's my prediction for what it's worth:
1) The referendum will pass.
2) At some point, the Administration and Board will decide that building a new NCHS is a better option than trying to renovate. (The suspicious side of me says that was the plan all along, but that the Board shrewdly determined the public wouldn't vote Yes on building a new school.)
3) Either way, cost overruns will send the price far higher than expected.
4) Five years from now we'll be voting for another referendum to finish the project and increase salaries.

BTW, I've supported fixing up the buildings since at least 5 years when I saw what poor shape NCHS was in. The real question, is why did it take so long?

JUST THE NUMBERS…!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DISTRICT EXPECTS 2008 SURPLUS

In 2005……..$3 million
Today………$40 million

AMOUNT EXCLUDED FROM 2008 SURPLUS

$4 million revenue for new state funding and conservative property taxes
$0 to $5 million in spending savings

DISTRICT EXPECTATIONFOR 2012

$39 million

ITEMS NOT INCLUDED IN 2012 SURPLUS

$14 million for extra property taxes
Savings due to MAJOR enrollment reductions

RELIABILITY OF EXPECTATIONS

Conservatively prepared
…..Spend over inflation
…..Revenues under inflation
These items should more than offset lower interest earnings (SEE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST THREE YEARS).

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

District 203, Comments by Dave Zager

DISTRICT UPDATE
(FOI request by WDTA)

None.

RECENT HIGGINS POST

Source of information, excerpts of an e-mail from “Tim.” Never heard of a Tim that works for 203.

Really I cannot believe this. If this is true, how much money did he actually make on this deal? If it such a noble cause, was the money returned??? I'm so angry that I was taken in by this guy, I can't even read all this! Can someone just lay it out in simple terms??? What exactly is going on???

SENSATIONAL ACCUSATIONS………

………NO OUTCOME!!!!!!!1

Did you ever notice how the papers put the accusations on the first page one day and never print the outcome (or bury it in Section 4)?

That is what Thom Higgins and Peter Shulman are doing with this IFA issue. They have refused to publish the rest of the story. In fact, when they presented it to the Sun in April, THEY WOULD NOT PRINT IT. So here it is.

PENDING OR SETTLED LITIGATION

Once again, there are no pending, settled or any other litigation, claims, fines or any other actions against me or my companies. NONE

IRS CLAIM

The IRS “Letter of Determination” is the IRS first attempt to settle the matter. If you calculated the claim for taxes, they were asking for over $5 million.

ACTUAL SETTLEMENT

The IFA paid a $150,000 penalty, 3% of the initial claim. No other specific penalties were sought from any of the other participants including my companies.

WHY DID IFA PAY?

Simple, they received $900,000 and paid $150,000. They even had enough to pay a law firm connected to a governor advisor at the time $600,000 for $100,000 of services.

WHO STOPPED THE BONDS?

A major Illinois school district would have taken the entire proceeds. However, the transaction was blocked since the district was represented by different political party than the sitting governor at the time. That ex-governor is now visiting Oxford, Wisconsin

HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE REFERENDUM.

It doesn’t. Merely a vicious, personal attack.

This issue is settled and in the past, but some people will go to any lengths to pursue their objective. And this is the LAST comment from me on this issue!

Mom of 3,

You posted "The 203 Board of Education and the administrators do a darn good job (nobody is perfect) - can you please give them some credit for their hard work and dedication"

I note tha your comments appear to be directed at only the one side of the ongoing argument (I would not credit it as a debate) between two main players and several kibitzers. That side is the one that points out the flaws of the District.

Why? Why not take on both sides? The scare tactics of cancer and asbestos, as an example, came from the side to do not take to the woodshed. You also miss out on the extremely horrible personal comments and incorrectly reported past history that came from another?

There appears to be more than enough acolytes who prefer to fixate only on the wonderful views of 203. The others seemingly want to try and point out that there actually IS another side.

I would propose that you are doing your children a disservice by not allowoing them to understand there are several sides to any issue and civil disobediance is a uniquely American way of protest.

Like Jill, I am aghast at what I am reading on this IFA issue!!!

However, I think it is for different reasons.

I am aghast that a person such as Mr Higgins would dredge up such a meritless charge, dwell into the arena of slander & libel, all without getting both a financial and legal view of the original actions and his years-later revisionist views of it!

Luckily, I did all of that leading up to the April election, when these scurrillous charges were firat put forth by the likes of PURE and, clearly now, Mr Higgins and his little far, far left chardonnay party known as QE203. [Yes, this is a tad snide but I cannot help it. His actions are taken right out of theBill Clinton playbook (see how well that is working against the formidable Sen. Obama!)]

I read all of the documents available on this IFA issue. I had a few phone conversations with some of the gov't folks involved. I interviewed mr Denys on it.

The ONLY absolutely clear fact in all of this was that Mr Denys not only did nothing wrong, he waas absolved of any and ALL wrongdoing vis a vis the simple, conclusive fact that NO party, group, or governemtn authority sued, arrested, required consent decrees, or any other negative action!

For any readers out there who either work in these areas or ever have had issues with any government authority or, even more specifically, the IRS, you are fully aware that NOBODY walks away unscathed unless they are pristine.

Now, as for the defamatory & abusive Mr Higgins: Your methods and manners on this blog are atrocious and belittle all others, including the host himself.

Your attempt to tie Mr Denys to a scandal merely by his exitence in the loop of a scandal that already bypassed him would be like me saying that since you are close with the PURE group then YOU must be held responsible for their everything-but-illegal actions leading up to the April elections, that YOU are thus responsible for their outrageous comments about hiring sex fiends, and that YOU are thuis directly responsible for the Union running our school Board!!!

Of course, I would never say any of thos e things, but clearly you would.

Look in a mirror some time, Mr Higgins. I doubt you will like what you see.

What do we know about Deney’s failed bond deal?

The Bloomberg article;

Taxpayers never get most of those benefits; the winners are the banks, insurance companies and financial advisers that get paid millions of dollars for crafting these transactions and then profit by using bond proceeds for their own investment gains.

Black Box Deals

The arrangements -- often called black box deals, because they're complicated and mysterious -- sometimes contain secret agreements that promise to pay the financial middlemen higher fees if none of the money from the bond offerings is used to help the public. The agencies that issue the bonds buy them back from investors. The money goes untapped, and the advisers keep their fees.

``You have people who are deliberately trying to find a way around the law, and that's not good for anyone,'' says Charles Anderson, field operations manager for tax-exempt bonds at the Internal Revenue Service, which is investigating such bond deals. ``Clearly these schemes are designed so no money would be used and the maximum money possible could be made by the banks. It's not an accident.''

The 1999 variable-rate bonds, which initially sold at an annual interest rate of 3.3 percent, were supposed to make more computers available to kids. The Illinois Finance Authority, which is based in the state capital of Springfield, paid $1.4 million in fees to the underwriter, Kansas City, Missouri-based investment bank George K. Baum & Co., and an additional $1.8 million to advisers and promoters. (I THINK THIS MEANS DENEYS)

The schools got almost nothing. Of the $150 million from bond proceeds, a total of $833,000, or less than 1 percent, was used for technology. The Illinois authority ended the program in 2002 and bought back the bonds to avoid having the IRS declare them as taxable.

IRS Adverse Determination tells this,

*Idea for the bond offering was Warren Matha’s of Austin Meade (partly owned by Denys) who pitched it to the IDFA (Illinois Development Finance Authority), suggests the state use NTN (owned by Matha + Denys) as program administrator, and to do a demand survey to gauge interest.

*IFDA had a problem. They had to let it out to bid through RFP public process, Surprise! There was only one proposal! Look who gets the business!!

*Official Finance team

Program Administrator NTN (Denys owned.)
Underwriter George K. Baum
Financial Advisor Austin Meade (Denys owned.)

*NTN instructed to conduct a demand survey.

*Legal council thought the suggested offering amount, made by Austin Meade was too large, ($300 million dollars) and prudence required the demand survey results should be discounted.

* Legal council withdraws due to concerns of the deal structure, and fees. Stated the deal structure was “an abusive transaction as a matter of Federal Tax Law”

* There starts to be concerns by IDFA regarding the survey, done by Denys company. NTN

*IDFA conducts own survey finds demand to be $110 million dollars. Austin Meade (owned by Denys) previously said it was $248 million dollars!

*Offering amount reduced from $300 million dollars (as suggested by Denys) to $150 million dollars, based on new IDFA study. Deneys partner Mahta resigns before bonds sold. Does he realize the deal is kinky like the first legal council, and got out first?

*Denys company NTN gets fired, after it is discovered it was not legally able to act as a broker/dealer and offer the bonds. This happens after bonds are sold. IRS characterizes NTN’s actions as “fraudulent assertions and omissions” “NTN entered into contract (to sell bonds)fraudulently” Wowiee!!!

*Denys resigns from NTN. Bond deal falls apart.

*IRS statement says “based on the faulty phone survey, lack of loans occurring, lack of reasonable expectations standard not met……the bonds do not meet reasonable expectations test section 149(F)IRS code.

*Geo Baum guilty of “Abusive arbitrage….questionable structuring and selling… questionable bidding practices.” “diverted arbitrage profits… to reap personal illegal profits.” There’s more but it’s too technical.

*10-23-2002 IDFA makes an arbitrage repayment of $57 million dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!.

IRS Closing statement

IFA successor to IFDA agree to pay $150,000 in fine to settle. IRS notes certain parties have exercised their 5th. amendment rights.

The IRS does state that NTN was not directly involved in the arbitrage that lead to the IRS tax evasion charges against the George K Baum Co. However, at the time of all this, NTN was also renting space within the George K Baum company office. I’m sure they never talked.

It’s all there go read it. Everything in the IRS Doc's tell me that this deal was just like the one described in the article by a IRS agent as fraud. How, oh how, did Denys, and the others stay out of jail? If he was an ethical person how could he continue after even the legal council told everyone the deal was dirty before any of the bonds were sold, and his partner bailed out? Anybody wonder who in the State government hushed this all up? It really burns me that the state, that's you and me, paid $57 million dollars(to the Feds I guess), on this deal. Bet Denys kept his $1.8 million.

JHU,
Interesting post. I too agree that the referendum will pass. The vast majority of the community seems to be behind it. Once it passes, that's it. The re-build will begin. The administration cannot change their minds and propose a new school.

I would like to believe that a new NCHS will be built, but I've been told it is not going to happen. There is not enough acreage to build a new school. Also, not enough of the community would support building a new school that would likely cost upwards of $150 million.

Based on all of this information, I'm voting "Yes". Central is so outdated and in need of work that it doesn't make sense to throw yet ANOTHER band-aid on this school. Why throw good money after bad?

Shocked in Naperville

It was $57,000.00 not $57,000,000.00

Mr Denys,

I think you are missing the point as well as avoiding the writer's question. They are not asking you about the legality of the matter, but are questioning the ethics of your actions as they were described in the IRS account of the bond deal. Indeed, the plea bargain that was struck did not lead to any legal charges, however I do not see where the settlement says that the events described in the letter of determination did not occur.

How is this relevant? It relates to your continued attacks on the district over the '02 referendum. You have blasted them for their forecasting, but appear to have made the similar errors yourself--and seemingly want to accept no responsibility for the consequences.

It is easy and self serving to make statements like "and this is the LAST comment from me." What I hear you saying is "I do not like being treated as I treat others and don't want to answer the question, so I will storm away--kind of like running into one's room and slamming the door don't you think. Yes, like another anonymous poster wrote: look in the mirror...

Why not answer their question: why is ok for you (your company) to blow a forecast a and cardinal sin for the district when they make the same mistake?

You claimed that we did not print the rest of the story. What would that be? We have posted all the IRS documents--including the closing agreement which details the settlement, is there something that we missed?

To "Liking My Town,"

You wrote I read all of the documents available on this IFA issue. I had a few phone conversations with some of the gov't folks involved. I interviewed Mr Denys on it.

Please do share with us the names of who you spoke to or are they anonymous (real?), too?

You also wrote "The ONLY absolutely clear fact in all of this was that Mr Denys not only did nothing wrong, he was absolved of any and ALL wrongdoing vis a vis the simple, conclusive fact that NO party, group, or government authority sued, arrested, required consent decrees, or any other negative action!"

I think the operative (and omitted) word here is legally, as in legally wrong. We do not dispute the IRS conclusions and settlement nor imply otherwise. That does not mean that events as described in the public record and proceedings did not happen or that mistakes were not made and better judgment could have been shown--ask Dan if he could do it all over again? Would he and in the same manner? Since Mr. Denys has questioned the integrity of the district administration and board over a similar error, we would like to know why he does not hold himself to the same standard that he expects of others.

You also said "Of course, I would never say any of those things", but clearly you are not above writing them or tossing juvenile schoolyard taunts intended at at marginalizing those that disagree with you. Gee, and throwing Bill Clinton's name into an argument as an attempt to belittle them, who's playbook is that out of? ;)

Mr Denys,

I think you are missing the point as well as avoiding the writer's question. They are not asking you about the legality of the matter, but are questioning the ethics of your actions as they were described in the IRS account of the bond deal. Indeed, the plea bargain that was struck did not lead to any legal charges, however I do not see where the settlement says that the events described in the letter of determination did not occur.

How is this relevant? It relates to your continued attacks on the district over the '02 referendum. You have blasted them for their forecasting, but appear to have made the similar errors yourself--and seemingly want to accept no responsibility for the consequences.

It is easy and self serving to make statements like "and this is the LAST comment from me." What I hear you saying is "I do not like being treated as I treat others and don't want to answer the question, so I will storm away--kind of like running into one's room and slamming the door don't you think. Yes, like another anonymous poster wrote: look in the mirror...

Why not answer their question: why is ok for you (your company) to blow a forecast a and cardinal sin for the district when they make the same mistake?

You claimed that we did not print the rest of the story. What would that be? We have posted all the IRS documents--including the closing agreement which details the settlement, is there something that we missed?

To "Liking My Town,"

You wrote I read all of the documents available on this IFA issue. I had a few phone conversations with some of the gov't folks involved. I interviewed Mr Denys on it.

Please do share with us the names of who you spoke to or are they anonymous (real?), too?

You also wrote "The ONLY absolutely clear fact in all of this was that Mr Denys not only did nothing wrong, he was absolved of any and ALL wrongdoing vis a vis the simple, conclusive fact that NO party, group, or government authority sued, arrested, required consent decrees, or any other negative action!"

I think the operative (and omitted) word here is legally, as in legally wrong. We do not dispute the IRS conclusions and settlement nor imply otherwise. That does not mean that events as described in the public record and proceedings did not happen or that mistakes were not made and better judgment could have been shown--ask Dan if he could do it all over again? Would he and in the same manner? Since Mr. Denys has questioned the integrity of the district administration and board over a similar error, we would like to know why he does not hold himself to the same standard that he expects of others.

You also said "Of course, I would never say any of those things", but clearly you are not above writing them or tossing juvenile schoolyard taunts intended at at marginalizing those that disagree with you. Gee, and throwing Bill Clinton's name into an argument as an attempt to belittle them, who's playbook is that out of? ;)

Just curious, does anyone know if the grammar school lunch program is going to pay for itself? Or will that become an ongoing expense?

Anyway, I'm glad NCHS is FINALLY getting the attention it's needed for years. I went to a poor Catholic high school that was closed a few years after I graduated, but conditions there were better than NCHS: we each had our own lockers, a place to sit at lunch, working PE showers, drinking fountains, and well lit classrooms. We didn't have a PE field and shared a football stadium with two of the local public schools.

As for Mr. Deny, he and others were thoroughly vilified during the last school board election. To me, it boardered on criminal. It was clever though. My "favorite" was the declaration about how some of the candidates had their kids in private schools, which horrified voters. Meanwhile, our Asst. Superintendant at the time (a great guy) had his daughter in private school, as do other teachers and administrators. There's nothing wrong with that, but I know it worked against those candidates.

jhu,

It has been stated by the district that the school lunch program will pay for yourself.

As to an Assistant Superintendent having a child in a private school. May I gently tell you that you do not want to go there.

jhu,

It has been stated by the district that the school lunch program will pay for yourself.

As to an Assistant Superintendent having a child in a private school. May I gently tell you that you do not want to go there.

Peter Shulman,

Let's be serious --- DD is not an elected official, and DD is not dealin g with my money (or yours, I may add!)

I will repeat: If you ever had any dealings with the IRS, you would understand that even if you are innocent, you are freaked! DD was not. The simple fact is that he had not only done nothing wrong, he was also ethically clean on this one. This is a simple fact.

When you refer to juvenile taunts, you should be looking at Mr Higgins. He has been horrible in his posts, His personal attacks are flagrant and demeaning to you and your cause. As far as the Clinton reference, it is appropo, so I used it. As far as disagreeing with me, I don't think there was a disagreemnt with me. I just decided to join in as it was an inappropriate angle of offense by Mr Higgins.

By the way, when did you become his apologist?

anonymous,

It was also stated by the District that the 2002 referendum would be implemented in a shorter time period, would not be used for any new programs, and would only be used to get out of a deficit position.

We all know how that onw turned out, don't we?

And why shouldn't we "go there" with the asst super having his kids in a private school? Doesn't it fit with your argument?

Hmmm, not sure where I was going on that. I thought that guy was great. I didn't care where he sent his kids. Same applied for the School Board candidates. It just showed they cared about education.

CURIOUS QUOTE

Dave Zager "The lower interest rates are not as impactful on long-term borrowing. We'd PROBABLY choose to have the taxpayer pay less." (in the other paper)

The code word, “PROBABLY”.

Why wouldn’t you ABSOLUTELY have the taxpayer pay less?

SO YOU COULD ISSUE PREMIUM BONDS LIKE THEY ARE DOING IN 204.

So much for all of the web postings, the District is backing off those pledges PUBLICLY already.

WHY IS THE IFA RELEVANT?

It is not.

However, did you notice that Thom Higgins and Peter Shulman have stopped talking about the issues. Instead, they have gone from bullying to vicious personal attacks.

Why? I think the following is a summary.

They have to defend positions that 203 CONTRADICTS with their own printed materials.

..…An extra $39 million in the bank by 2012
…..Extra $4 million in 2008 alone
…..2008 surplus
………2005 projection…$3 million
………Current……$40 million and growing

Thom Higgins is attempting to answer key questions that consultants paid $350,000 simply did not answer. Without these answers, there is no justification for over $40 million of the Central plan. Same for his attempt to address the OVER COLLECTION and EXTRA SURPLUS.

203 has the SECOND HIGHEST SCHOOL TAXES in DuPage County, only 204 is greater.

The District WILL NOT answer the questions, they are hoping that the community will ignore the questions.

So instead Mr. Higgins and Mr. Shulman turn the tables to a matter that has no bearing on this election what so ever. And they CLOG THE BLOG with personal attacks. They make $57,000 become $57 MILLION. Cute.

The above points are not my OPINIONS or PROJECTIONS, they are District 203. Judge them by what they put forward!

CLOG THE BLOG

In an effort to divert your attention away from the key issues, Peter Shulman and Thom Higgins are desperately trying to make this election about one of my business deals 8 years ago!! I guess they have given up on defending the MERITS OF THE REFERENDUM.

I addressed this issue on February 2 at 12:52. Just a reaction to a couple of subsequent comments from S&H. My reason for the LAST COMMENT is people really do not care about this irrelevant personal attack. If there are any other MATERIAL RELEVANT comments, please state them. I thought the following should be addressed.

“Why is it ok for you to blow a forecast and a cardinal sin when they (District 203) makes the same mistake?”

First, I have not criticized District 203 over a forecast, rather the OVER COLLECTION of taxes that they subsequently discovered. They could have corrected this action and chose not to. And the OVER COLLECTION violated several promises made to the community.

Also, my company did not produce a “blown forecast.” Instead, we conducted a survey, verified by the IFA. It was always intended that the bond issue would be no more than 50% of the survey. And the IRS “verification” proved to be superficial. They called people four years later and were evasive on their questions. And they did not pursue any action. Case closed.

Most important, this issue would have never surfaced if a corrupt governor’s office had not blocked a transaction that would have spent the entire bond proceeds. Ironically, to the schools that complained in the Bloomberg article.

Further, nobody lost money from these actions. Not a sweeping success, but “failed” is sensational.

“You made $1.8 million.” You have the transcripts and you know how much money my firm made. Most of these funds went to the IFA (why they did not have a loss) and lawyers who APPROVED the transaction.

$57 million payment subsequently corrected to $57,000. This payment was from the EXCESS PROFITS of the IFA, again no cost to the IFA or any taxpayers.

“You made errors yourself. (You) accept no responsibility for the consequences.” WOW. Simply not true. The IRS always makes wild assertions to force people into settling. I would not bow to their aggressive tactics. In fact, we worked with the IFA since they did not want to capitulate. Again, the IRS significantly reduced their claims and did not pursue my firm at all. What consequences do you want me to take responsibility for, assertions and allegations that I was forced to address and were DROPPED?

And as stated before, there is NO pending litigation, claims or other matters. NONE.

S&H know all of the above, they simply floated this entire matter AGAIN as a personal attack. Lower than the previous name calling and arrogance.

Dear JHU,

Thank you for your kind comments.

Be clear, we support building rennovations. Unfortunately, the District in the last ten years have diverted such maintenance money to salaries.

I will also note that every deficiency noted in your e-mail should be part of routine maintenance. So we are in a box, do we force the District to do what they are suppose to do (maintain their buildings) or reward them with a tax increase and they do not change their behavior?

Also, with enrollment decreases, are we spending money for white elephants? We have endured to now, lets plan for 2025.

Again, thank you for your kind words.

Jhu & Anonymous

Please back off on the private school issue. What the anonymous poster was trying to do I think was warn you off saying any more on the topic. My recollection of the matter is we are talking about a specialized school for a special needs child. Please respect the privacy of this person and his child.

Why Dan Denys bond failure is relevant

Well, I see a few posters, Mr. Denys included, are a little miffed at the posting of the Bloomberg article and IRS doc’s.

Why are these documents relevant?

First allow me to thank Shocked in Naperville. I was working on the same post and you saved me a lot of time.

The relevance to Mr. Denys, and his posts here, which are monuments to mendacity, is self evident. It is the truth, as far as the IRS is concerned, that Mr. Denys, and his firm have been found to have engaged in the following;

*Denys company NTN gets fired, after it is discovered it was not legally able to act as a broker/dealer and offer the bonds. This happens after bonds are sold. IRS characterizes NTN’s actions as “fraudulent assertions and omissions” and “NTN entered into contract (to sell bonds)fraudulently”

*IRS statement says “based on the faulty phone survey, lack of loans occurring, lack of reasonable expectations standard not met……the bonds do not meet reasonable expectations test section 149(F)IRS code

Further Denys firm concocted the scheme. They sold the idea to the IDFA, somehow managed to be the only firm to submit a proposal, and formed another company to administer it.

The kindest thing I can say about their Demand Survey is it was a joke, as the IDFA’s. own study showed much, much, smaller demand.

Mr. Denys own partner got cold feet and resigned early on.

The first legal council saw the scheme for what it was and resigned after specifically saying that how the deal was structured was “an abusive transaction as a matter of Federal Tax Law”

Mr. Denys is quoted in the Bloomberg article as saying he stood behind his firms work and that it was a noble cause.

Daniel Denys, president of Austin Meade Financial, the Illinois authority's financial adviser, says his firm developed the program with honest intentions. Denys was also a principal stockholder in Skokie, Illinois-based National Technology Network Inc., which helped promote the bonds and was in charge of handing out loans, according to bond documents.

He says Chicago public schools expressed interest in borrowing all of the money and then backed out. Rising interest rates also stifled borrowing, he says.

"It was a failure to realize a noble cause,'' he says. ``We stand by the work we did.''

Now, this all happened. It is a fact. The interested reader that reads the IRS Adverse Determination letter and then goes back and reads the Bloomberg article will see Mr. Denys actions for what they are. The fact that Mr. Denys managed not to pay a fine does not make the rest of the tale false, or irrelevant.

So what’s the relevance to Mr. Denys abuse of D203 and the school board?

To me it comes down to character. If you read and understand the information in the Bloomberg article and the IRS doc’s, and then compare it to Mr. Denys posts here and the complete and utter mendacity of his words, you understand who Mr. Denys is as a man.

Allow me to quote the Sun editorial endorsing the referendum, and referring to Mr. Denys Taj Mahal comments;

One(group TH) is folks who still carry residual resentment of the successful 2002 referendum that raised the education tax rate and who may or may not intend to extract revenge on the district by opposing this measure.

These are not Taj Mahal proposals, nor, as detractors have claimed, wishes instead of needs.

Some district detractors undoubtedly will debate the numbers on all this until the cows come home, but we are satisfied that the district has put together a reasonable proposition that fits the needs of District 203 students, and we endorse this proposal.

Tim West, as usual, sums it all up in a lot less words than I mange to. But I understand the sentiment. Dan Denys and Mike Davitt have exposed themselves to this community as people that are so poisoned in their hatred of district 203 that they will say anything, truth be damned, in what will be a futile attempt to sway this election.

Perhaps the most telling comment was made last Sunday in the blog when Mike Davitt actually claimed he despised teachers. How does a reasonable person respond to that kind of hatred?

Let’s hope on Wednesday the moral bankruptcy of their position will be exposed when this town overwhelmingly approves this referendum.

To me voting yes is not only about reaffirming our commitment to public education, it is also sending a message to Mr. Denys and Mr. Davitt that this town finds them irrelevant, and that the specious arguments of Mr. Denys here are but of the same cloth that led him to engage in the activities that resulted in the IRS Adverse Findings, and therefore are to be ignored.

Dan,

Just saw your early Am posts. For the other readers benefit will you respond to the following?

*Legal council thought the suggested offering amount, made by Austin Meade was too large, ($300 million dollars) and prudence required the demand survey results should be discounted.

* Legal council withdraws due to concerns of the deal structure, and fees. Stated the deal structure was “an abusive transaction as a matter of Federal Tax Law”

* There starts to be concerns by IDFA regarding the survey, done by Denys company. NTN

*IDFA conducts own survey finds demand to be $110 million dollars. Austin Meade (owned by Denys) previously said it was $248 million dollars!

*Offering amount reduced from $300 million dollars (as suggested by Denys) to $150 million dollars, based on new IDFA study. Deneys partner Mahta resigns before bonds sold. Does he realize the deal is kinky like the first legal council, and got out first?

*Denys company NTN gets fired, after it is discovered it was not legally able to act as a broker/dealer and offer the bonds. This happens after bonds are sold. IRS characterizes NTN’s actions as “fraudulent assertions and omissions” “NTN entered into contract (to sell bonds)fraudulently” Wowiee!!!

*Denys resigns from NTN. Bond deal falls apart.

*IRS statement says “based on the faulty phone survey, lack of loans occurring, lack of reasonable expectations standard not met……the bonds do not meet reasonable expectations test section 149(F)IRS code.

The legal council is on record as withdrawing. They withdrew because they realized the deal was kinky. Your own partner resigned and you needed him to legally act as broker. Regardless you went ahead and acted as that broker, the result being you were discovered and fired and the IRS characterized NTN’s actions as “fraudulent assertions and omissions” “NTN entered into contract (to sell bonds)fraudulently” It's all in the Advrse Determination doc's

You can scream and pound the keyboard all you desire, but these facts remain and they are damning.

Responding to this post of Mr. Denys, abridged

They have to defend positions that 203 CONTRADICTS with their own printed materials.
..…An extra $39 million in the bank by 2012
…..Extra $4 million in 2008 alone
…..2008 surplus
………2005 projection…$3 million
………Current……$40 million and growing
Thom Higgins is attempting to answer key questions that consultants paid $350,000 simply did not answer. Without these answers, there is no justification for over $40 million of the Central plan. Same for his attempt to address the OVER COLLECTION and EXTRA SURPLUS.

203 has the SECOND HIGHEST SCHOOL TAXES in DuPage County, only 204 is greater.

The District WILL NOT answer the questions, they are hoping that the community will ignore the questions.

It seems rather evident that Mr. Denys is so shaken that he can’t no longer make even a minimally coherent post anymore. Now he is just throwing our random statements. Perhaps he should read today’s Sun’s editorial

School District 203 building referendum endorsed

February 3, 2008

Naperville School District 203 goes into Tuesday's referendum for schools renovation and new construction with at least two groups of indeterminate size opposing its proposal.

One is folks who still carry residual resentment of the successful 2002 referendum that raised the education tax rate and who may or may not intend to extract revenge on the district by opposing this measure. Many of these also say the district has enough money in its "overcollection" of funds from that referendum to do what it needs to do and should use those funds to do their improvements instead of asking for more money. And, in point of fact, the district has accumulated considerable funds from various means, including but not limited to those referendum proceeds, which helps to make the money it has decided to seek now less than it might have been otherwise.

The second group concerned about the referendum comprises those who think that the district should have gone further in its plans and, instead of renovating Naperville Central High School, chosen to tear it down and build a whole new school - at about twice the cost of the renovation plan.

While we have some sympathy for both those points of view, in the end we find neither compelling as a reason to vote against the referendum proposition.

Doing nothing to improve facilities at this time is not a reasonable option in a district where residents hold the quality of education in high esteem. Good facilities are part and parcel of that, and we believe that the district has an obligation to do its part in providing those. Our editors have toured Naperville Central High School, the biggest and most contentious project involved, and find its condition to be such that it needs renovation, modernization and plain old-fashioned repairs. We believe the plans to do so to be reasonable.

As for razing Central and rebuilding somewhere else, in district surveys residents clearly rejected that extravagant option and we think that in renovating the current Central High the district has chosen the wisest course.
The district also has in its plans an early childhood center. Currently, the district now has these classes spread throughout five schools, putting children as young as three in elementary schools. If it gets to build the center, it will only be doing what District 204 has done, bringing everything into one place with appropriately sized classrooms, and this will provide a more appropriate educational setting for the special needs students served.

The other additions and renovations to overcrowded Mill Street School, to Naperville North High School, and to other schools are sound as well.

These are not Taj Mahal proposals, nor, as detractors have claimed, wishes instead of needs.

The referendum request on the Feb. 5 ballot is for $43 million, far less than the district-calculated $114.9 million total cost. The property tax increase for an average-priced house would be about $82 a year for a period of 20 years.
Some district detractors undoubtedly will debate the numbers on all this until the cows come home, but we are satisfied that the district has put together a reasonable proposition that fits the needs of District 203 students, and we endorse this proposal.

Public education needs public support and none of these renovations, additions and repairs are going to get any cheaper as time goes by.

We urge a "yes" vote for District 203's building proposition on Tuesday.

THE ISSUE: School District 203 residents will be faced on Tuesday with a referendum seeking funds to renovate Naperville Central High School, build an early learning center and carry out repairs and renovations at other schools.

OUR VIEW: We endorse this as necessary to maintain and upgrade district facilities and we urge its passage.

Mr. Denys you can go on and on with your mendacity, pounding on your keyboard in “FULL CAPS FURRY”, but your words, and actions tell the reader here who you are.

PERSONAL ATTACKS JUST KEEP ON COMING

To all, S&H have summarized their REAL position. They want to run Mike and I out of town.

RESPONSE

Look, they STOPPED responding to the issues. You do this when you cannot defend your position.

Particularly difficult when the District you support has BAD FACTS and DUCKS QUESTIONS.

IFA

S&H are saying NOTHING new. They repeat the sensational accusations the IRS DROPPED. NOTHING.

I ignored a lawyer? Another lawyer that use to work for the IRS approved the transaction. And the decision was the IFA, not ours.

And SILENCE about the corrupt governor.

The list gets shorter, THE PERSONAL ATTACKS MORE VICIOUS.

Mr. Denys wants you to think that we are engaging "in a vicious personal attack" because he doesn't want you to read the facts about the issues.

We stand by the research and information that we have provided about the upcoming referendum.

Mr. Denys has made numerous charges of fiscal mismanagement against the school district. The fact is district 203 is fiscally responsible and a bargain. Here's some proof.

The building plan is a sensible and fiscally prudent solution for the District 203's needs. The Naperville Sun, Daily Herald, Chamber of Commerce and Naperville Development Partnership (NPD) all agree.

Peter Shulman
Thom Higgins
www.qualityeducation203.org

Just to set the record straight on District 203 employees sending their children to private schools. The young woman I met was NOT a "Special Needs" student and was going to St. Francis H.S. in Wheaton.

Education is a very personal choice. My point was that the School Board Candidates should not have been vilified for making similar choices. What I see on this blog is the same viciousness being continued. It's sad.

Similar tactics are being used for this issue: half truths.

In fact, the referendum will pass because today's Sun just reinforced the same misperception that if the referendum fails then there will be no repairs or renovations, which is not true.

NO!

The mismanagement of our tax funds continues to be out of control!
Prior to the last Referendum, we were fed the line that the tax increase would only cost my personal home about $300 per year.
In reality, it increased $2000 per year.

When I walk into NNHS and see the wasted money being spent on a scanner for my drivers license so I can have a personal sticker with my photo on it to walk the halls, it's all I can do not to lose it. Case in point!

While Naperville continues to be a great place to raise our families, unfortunately with prices continuing to escalate, more families will be forced to move out, thus creating an elitiest society instead of the charming, hometown that embraces all levels of people that we've come to love.

jhu,

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!!

You would never see this level of misrepresentation in Hinsdale or Winnetka.

A VERY SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS. If the moral fiber of the community is weak, so will the community.

And as soon as I say this, S&H will attack me again.

Dan

As for the value of District 203, I'd like to believe it's a great value, but for many many years I've thought that the part of reason it's a "great value" is that we've neglected spending money maintaining the facilities. (That's not to mention the boost we get from parents who send their kids to COD classes for classes they'll take next semester at HS, or hire tutors to help their kids ensure "A"s in honors classes.)

I knew a manager once who got high praise for keeping his team's costs under control and even reducing them. After he got promoted, the guy who replaced him found a department that was in shambles due to lack of updated tools, training, open headcount, etc.

We could go around forever, but now my question is: Would we still get those high value marks after a $100M+ of upkeep is figured in?

Some info on Joliet Central

Joliet Central High School is located at 201 E. Jefferson St, in Joliet, Illinois, USA. Built in 1901, the original building is noted for its marble floors and staircases and its castle-like limestone exterior architecture. The building has been added on to 5 times since it was built in 1901 and it served as the original home to Joliet Junior College. The school's balconied auditorium is the largest indoor auditorium in Joliet, including that of the downtown Rialto Square Theatre, and its large gymnasium is capable of holding over 2500 people during yearly graduation ceremonies.

So it has been added onto 5 times. So I was wrong there and about it's age. Ted any comments on the quality or size of the additions?

I wish the blog had the ability to post pictures The school is a knock out. But can you imagine, Marble floors and stairs! As I said schools built 100 years ago were built to a much higher standard and while I still do not know it's capacity. the huge auditorium and gym tells me it's big.

Response from Ted:

Thom,

Look, I respect your views, I really do. But we're getting sidetracked here away from the Central issue (like the pun?) Nothing you say is going to dissuade me from my opinion that Naperville Central could be repaired or even rebuilt using cash reserves the district has available.

Absolutely NOT...trust me..you all have NO idea what this district spends money on.....new laptops for teachers (all teachers) when the old ones are working perfectly...smart boards for classrooms ( expensive and unnecessary) and the list goes on and on.....it's ridiculous...

NO NO NONONONONONONONONONONONONONO way!!!!!!!!

Kelly,

I for one support bringing 21st. century technology into the classroom.

As to your claim of spendthrift spending a picture is worth a thousand words,

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/documents/costperactreadiness_v2080128-2.pdf

Here is a link to the supporting study.

http://www.qe203.org/20080205referendum/costperformance_mediasurvey.shtml

The drivers licenses scanners are to keep pedophiles and those convicted of crimes out of our schools. Give me a break - you need a name tag anyhow. Or, should we just let anyone in through the doors that house our children??? BTW "unhappy" hasn't your house gone way, way up in value too? or will you neglect to mention that too?

Response to Kelly:

I know that many of the "smart boards" at Central were donated by the Home & School Association, and not paid for by the District. H&S does a lot for the schools, and I don't appreciate their time and efforts being written off as "ridiculous".

I also know that a large part of the expense of operating a computer network comes from support. Have you thought that perhaps having a group of similar machines on a network cuts down on computer support expenses? These are recurring expenses that may out-weigh the costs of the individual computers. Do you know happen to know what those cost trade-offs were?

What are the other items on your list? I'm curious.

Reply to: jhu | February 3, 2008 01:02 PM

"In fact, the referendum will pass because today's Sun just reinforced the same misperception that if the referendum fails then there will be no repairs or renovations, which is not true."

If the referendum fails, this is what will happen:

http://www.naperville203.org/faq/index.asp?CATEGORY_ID=12#FAQ90

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/MasterFacilitiesPlanWeb.pdf

To Dan:

"You would never see this level of misrepresentation in Hinsdale or Winnetka."

The cost per student at Hinsdale Central is $14,130, and New Trier is $16,856. Naperville 203 is closer to $10,000.

If you don't believe me, see: http://webprod.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getSearchCriteria.aspx

I'm really glad we don't have "this level of misrepresentation". Really glad. I'm sure you are too.

To jhu who asked "Would we still get those high value marks after a $100M+ of upkeep is figured in?"

The additional "cost per student" in D203 if the referendum passes would be something like:

$3.4M per year bond levy / 17,600 students in D203 = $193 per student.

Add this to the current cost of $9,881, and we get $10,074. An increase of about 2%.

This is still well below Hinsdale and Winnetka.

Info from:
http://webprod.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getSearchCriteria.aspx
http://www.naperville203.org/assets/PlanforUpgradingFacilities2007%2D2012%2Epdf

The Sun had an article today describing the results of an unofficial poll as 158 for, 93 against the referendum. Is that based on this blog thread? Because if so, I don't see how the numbers add up since there are only 116 posts as of 9:00pm today, well after press time for this morning's edition.

Could the moderator please post the answer to this? Maybe there's another blog somewhere that I missed.

Response frmm host:

The poll had nothing to do with this blog--a question ran on the Web site home page.

Let’s take a short breather and examine some of the facts:

A total of 121 responses and one thing learned for sure is there is absolutely no unanimity about what is even FACT. The pros, led by Thom Higgins (who certainly has more time than I do to devote to this issue) and the many others who continue to ask question, after question, after question.

There is a large portion of 203 voters that just do not trust this School Board and may never do so again.

Artificial turf?

New notebook computers for every teacher to move us into the 21st century? Let’s see, phonics, no we must teach students to sight read and oh no, back to phonics because it works. Ah, old math, no, new math, oh no, old math works better. New is not often better or needed is it?

There are those that seem to believe that the education provided is solely based on the structure within which it is provided and because 203 has managed to hire the best teachers in the country. Anyone want to consider the role of the parent in this equation? Do they contribute anything?

Should we care about the long term resident with no children in the school system being forced to move because of higher and higher taxes? Are we obligated to at least insure that monies spent are done so judiciously?

Bottom line, many are unconvinced about the need and still have questions remaining. Does everybody think it is mandatory that 203 build and equip an early childhood school building? Is it really necessary to have the schools involved in every aspect of YOUR child’s development?

Too many questions, too few answers, too little trust. Vote NO!

Jim,

There are lots of answers here:

http://www.naperville203.org/faq/index.asp?CATEGORY_ID=12

Well 1 day and counting. Guess it’s time for the summation from both sides. Readers of the Sun blog know well by now that as a co-chair of QE203.org I have spend more than a few hours here making the case for D203 and the referendum.

Perhaps the best thing to do for those readers here that are undecided, is offer the following links.

http://www.qe203.org/20080205referendum/costperformance_mediasurvey.shtml

This takes you to an analysis I did of three different studies. The Daily Herald, USN&WR and Chicago Magazine. There are links within to the original studies. What you will find is that D203, compared to 34 other Chicago land school districts, has students that rank at the very top in academic achievement while the costs are below even the state average. WSN&WR raked both HS’s in the top 2-3% nationally. And Chicago Magazine rated the two HS’s first and third in cost effectiveness, for non admissions based schools.

If a picture is worth a thousand words go here,

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/documents/costperactreadiness_v2080128-2.pdf

Please note, while a large part of the success of our kids is their families and the favorable economic circumstances of many here, D203 students still achieve higher ACT scores that other similarly advantaged communities, and that you can directly attribute to the schools here.

If you have questions as to why renovate Central to the extent it is being proposed please click here,

http://www.qe203.org/20080205referendum/thecaseforcentral.shtml

Our community's educational return on investment is substantial, and is reflected by District 203 students high scores in national achievement tests, their numerous victories in academic and athletic competitions, as well as the benefits that our excellent extracurricular programs bring to our students and the community. This return on investment is reflected in our high property values, for truly part of what makes the Naperville area desirable is the excellent educational opportunities that are available within our community. Please help us continue with this tradition of excellence.

And for full disclosure, visit

WWW.HOLD203ACCOUNTABLE.ORG

Read both sides and make an INFORMED decision.

Yes, by all means go to,

hold203accountable.org

For information regarding who is behind this website and PURsE click here,

http://www.qe203.org/20080205referendum/anonymouswebsites.shtml

To the people at qe203.org, as an unbiased citizen, after seeing all the personal attacks aimed at their opponents during the last election, I can understand why Mike Davitt might be bitter. Hey, I supported the last referendum and it pissed me off to see, on my television, the image of teachers laughing it up after having just voted to go on strike a few years after we got the referendum passed. There's gratitude for you.

I'll also say, that whether he agreed with me or not, or I with him, Mike Davitt was the one person on the board at that time who LISTENED to the citizens who addressed the board. I repeatedly found the rest of that board to be generally dismissive of parents and others who raised concerns. But Mike listened, made sure he understood my points and was up front if he didn't agree.

It's sad that in our enlightened town, people who question the status quo are shouted down and villified. So much for teaching the kids not to be bullies.

J.

Nice try with you revisionist history.

But it was Mr. Davitt's own words that sealed his fate with the electorate last year, just as his own words on this blog have written his political obituary.

"Having respect for eternity, I'll only respond to one point within Higgins' endless rant.For the record, I don't hate teachers. I despise them. (I do though hate liberals who think money grows on trees; who equate money with education; and who resort to bullying on blogs)......"

Posted by: Mike Davitt | January 27, 2008 09:22 AM

Now perhaps his views here match your own, and that is why you are unhappy, butQE203.org was created out of concern that Mr. Davitt and Mr.Denys would take over the school board, and bring this kind of animus to their position. QE203.org will continue to expose these me through their own words and deeds, to the residents of Naperville. It is an unpleasant but necessary task.

I am proud to that we were a part of the successful effort to defeat the Taxpayers Ticket and remove Mr. Davitt from office, and I fully reject your characterizations of his and the boards actions.

No reasonable person can read Mr. Davits words on his many websites, (the anonymous ones are especially classy), and not see Mr. Davitt for who he is today, and who he was as a board member.

I appreciate Thom's comments regarding the upcoming tax increases. Yes, I did visit the Lisle Assessors office to review the assessments after mine and everyone else's was raised. Surprise Thom my taxes are going to rise, my neighbor's taxes are going to rise and it appears that the increase will be about 10-15%. Add on additional gifts to District 203 and it will approach 20%.
Oh, by the way did anyone notice that the selling frenzy has slowed? Of course if you are selling it has stopped. How about building a Million Plus home on Spec., got to love those payments.
So when the tax bills arrive just look in the mirror and thank that person for voting to raise the taxes you are paying. Or thank Thom and his minions for all of there hard work on you behalf.
Just remember, a million here and a million there and pretty soon you are talking about some real money. But it's only TAXPAYER MONEY.

Stanley,

You are completely incorrect. You are stating that the assessors office told you your increase in assessed valuation 10-15% will all be added to your tax bill as the tax rate will stay the same?

For anyone interested, look at last years tax bill. I live in Lisle township so have the same tax rate as Stanley. in 2005 the rate was 4.0474. In 2006 it was 3.9281.

It went down!

Why?

Because of the tax cap law as I have been explaining here. The rate is required to decrease if the appreciation of your home as a percentage is greater than CPI. If it is, then they are required to reduce the tax rate to compensate.

So Stanley, you are completely incorrect. Your taxes will not be going up 10-15-20-percent next year.They will be going up probably 3% or whatever CPI for 2007 comes in at officially.

So your claim is impossible as the PTEL law prevents it from happening, and that's what the assessors office would have told you if you had called.

Thom,
Hmmm, I tell you my personal experience with the man and you characterize it as "revisionist"?

Anyway, this is not my battle to fight, but I will say that I'd considered joining QE203 but found the personal attacks on some of the candidates disturbing, even misleading, and decided not to affiliate myself with any of these organizations on either side of the issue.

J

Stanley

I did a little research that you might find of interest.

2003 assessed value $79,860. taxes $4,664.
2004 assessed value $86,570. taxes $4,916.
2005 assessed value $91,670. taxes $5,225.
2006 assessed value $97,820. taxes $5,225.

So in 4 years the assessed value increased 22.5% but taxes went up 12% or 3% a year, or CPI. This proves my point, perfectly, especially when you take into consideration that the 2002 referendum was open in the 2003-2004 tax years.

Hey Thom, taxes only going up 3%, wonderful. Unfortunately my wages aren't!

Jim, but your property values went up 22.5%. That's a good thing, right?

I really don't mean for this to sound snide, but the City of Naperville has no control over the national inflation rate. They have bills to pay just like everyone else.

What we should all be doing with all our energy is to scream at the federal government to not spend any more money on the "Steroids in Baseball Scandal", and figure out how to prevent the price of gas from reaching $3.50 a gallon his summer. THAT would be a much better use of our time.

BTW, Roger Clemmons is a liar.

Mr Higgins,

Again with the lumping together of people!

Your comment on animus (above) covers both Mr Denis & Mr Davit.

Can you explain why Mr Denis is lumped in here? The only animus I have read here is from you directed AT Mr Denis. So why are you giving him the same view you give Mr Davit?