You should all be ashamed of yourselves, regardless of anyones demographic the things I have seen written on here are ridiculous. I am a former WV student and have friends and family from NV. My sister will be attending MV in the fall "chemicals" and all, and I cannot believe the things written on here. I should say just in support that Waubonsie Valley is a great high school and I know hundreds and hundreds of student and families that completely love that school, the environment, the people, the teachers, and everything that comes with it. District 204 is a fabulous district to grow up in and be a part of and you are all making a mockery of it. WV and NV are both fantastic schools, and the students that go to those schools are good people. Every school will have it's downfalls and different "classes" of people NO MATTER where you look. I think that with the way parents are acting all decisions should be put up to the students, because this is the most ridiculous forum I have ever seen, "adults gone wild." It doesn't matter if you are from Brookdale, TG, WE, "The North," "The South." You should all be 100% ASHAMED of yourselves. This has gone too far, and in the end like NV and WV... MV will also be a fantastic place to go to school, and at least this is the part of the day where your children go to these schools and are learning things from their teachers, and not people like you who have the nerve and sit online and bash others and who they (and their children) are as people.

what about heatherstone? theres like 7 freshman in heatherstone so why not let them go to neuqua?

I really do not know where to begin except to say how sad! This newspaper and the school board have so disapointed Naperville. They have done what they wanted and reported what suited their needs. It is almost ironic that now Waubonsie is worthy of being covered by the Naperville Sun. It is as if the Sun is defending Waubonsie. The Sun still does not get it. It was never about Waubonsie. It was about voting for something and following the democratic system.
I have never seen so many articles about Waubonsie in its entire history. For some reason the Sun now needs to show it is worthy.Throughout this whole third High School process there has never been a question regarding the school board motivation yet this fine newspaper has choosen to criticize the NSFOC board. I find the whole situation so discouraging I can only imagine how "beat up" those concerned parents feel and how they won't bother to fight again for our children rights when they have been so abused and unheard by the so called voice of the people. I always thought our local paper would at least try to be fair and report the news without their own agenda,I guess I am still learning.
I wish I could find a positive out of all of this but I guess the only thing positive I can say is I am positive that the Sun will keep reporting to suit it bias and that don't bother to fight anything in this town because you have no idea of the hidden agendas and by the time you hear of anything it is already a done deal.

I hope the NSFOC is happy - it's nice to know that anyone can find a lawyer without ethics and get what they want regardless of what the rest of the community might benefit from. IF this group gets what they want, and a new high school is built on the Brach-Brodie property, our family will move rather than have our children grow up being influenced by the type of behavior I've seen exhibited by this group. Thanks for making it an embarrassment to live in Naperville.

I have taken time to read a number of these blogs. I find it interesting that there are so many entries attacking people from the south. I would think that these people would be asking for proof that the Eola site is safe and asking to the SB to detail exactly how much the Eola site is going to cost. I find their apparent lack of curiosity a little bit disturbing considering the fact that this same SB told them two years ago that this site was unsafe.

The Powerpoint document that the SB posted on their site stated that the BB land will cost $31 MM while the Eola property will cost approximately $16.5 MM. I found it interesting that the document sated that the $31 MM total included damages while the $16.5 Eola site did not. We know that the BB estate is suing the SB for walking away from their land after tying it up in court for 2 years. We also know the BB estate is suing for upwards of $15 MM. If they get only $10 MM, the difference in price falls to just $4.5 MM. It appears that he extra damages should have been applied to the Eola site rather than the BB site. Was this an oversight? I doubt it.

We know that the $4.5 MM difference isn’t much considering hidden costs associated with the Eola site. We know that there will be large undisclosed costs for destroying wetlands on the Eola property. We know there will be large costs to remediate the property, if it CAN be remediated. We know that there will be a significant increase in bussing costs. We know the BB land is safe and is a working farm. We know that 37 acres of the Eola site has signs warning of pollutants. After today, we know the SB wants to move forward BEFORE the IEPA makes a ruling on whether or not the land is safe. Yet, so many bloggers are attacking people from the south for asking questions. I have a lot of friends whose kids go or have gone to Waubonsie. I think it is good school. Why is it that you want to get out of it so badly that you are not asking the most basic questions?

I, for one, do not trust them. I would like to see facts about contaminants and costs before the SB moves forward. I want to know how much it will cost to clean-up the site. I want proof that the land is as safe as the BB site. I want to know how much it will cost the district to destroy the wetlands on the property. I want to know how much more the district will pay for bussing. I want to know how much money will be rewarded to the BB estate. I can’t believe some people would want a school on the Eola site so badly that they would abandon their fiscal and parental responsibilities.

I will not abandon mine. It is for these reasons that I contributed to the NSFOC and it is for these reasons that I offered to be a complainant. Hopefully, the suit will force transparency and responsibility on this rogue and arrogant SB.

To Harris Farm on 3/27 at 12/51 PM--"

I 100% agree that If WE, but especially TG, were firmly at NV, there would be no lawsuit."

Yes, I do believe that. I'll even go as far as to say that I think if TG ALONE were still at NV, there would be no lawsuit. That's because none of what's going on now would be affecting them directly, so they'd probably leave the fight to others. But it is affecting them, so here we are. And I don't think WE would have filed a suit on their own. WE is used to being bounced from one school to another, it's been happening to them for years. I'm sure they'd prefer to stay at NV, but during all those public boundary discussions in 05 and 06, they really did take the high road and not make a big stink when it became apparent they would probably have to leave NV. For the most part, WE residents understood the overcrowding at NV and recognized that from where they were on the map, it just made sense that if some subdivisions had to be redistricted, they were a logical choice. So I think WE has been unfairly characterized on these blogs; they have a lot more class than they're getting credit for here. On the other hand, I can't begin to understand why some TG folks are so obsessed with NV; like it's the end all and be all of life to them. They know that TG at NV would still leave NV very overcrowded, but they would rather have their kids sitting in the halls at NV than in a classroom somewhere else.

Having said all this, I still understand why the NSFOC is suing and believe they have a right to do so. Their suit is not about the boundaries or contamination at the Eola site, though these are important side issues. The lawsuit is about how the SB marketed BB to the residents to get their votes and holding them accountable for this. So I would fully expect the NSFOC lawsuit to continue even after the phase II reports show no non-remediable problems, because this is not what the lawsuit is about. I also have to give them credit for "fighting the good fight", standing up for what they believe to be an injustice even in the face of such vocal opposition.

Technically "returning the money" is not the same as "not build at all". We could just start the whole process over. Pick a new site in a better location, draw the boundaries, and vote on a new referendum to build or not build. Might delay it a year, but it would be worth it. I really like that potential site down in the SW corner. Not the Macom site, the other far south site. Which was ruled out only because they needed a little time.

To Harris Farm on 3/27 at 7:54 AM--Hey there. I'm finally responding to your post of the other day. Here was your statement:

"But I do know the lawsuit does not say "Build on BB or don't build at all", it says "Build on BB or return our money."
Really now, half a dozen or six? What is the difference between the 2 statements? "Don't build at all" and "return our money" amount to the exact same thing. The NSFOC doesn't want the SB to build the 3rd HS anywhere but at the BB site. The NSFOC is hoping one of 2 things happen:
1. SB acquiesces and agrees to build at the BB site at ANY cost, which means their kids (TG/WE) get to go to the new HS. Please don't argue that the NSFOC is district-wide. While there may be a few donors and supporters from other areas, everyone knows the core leadership group driving this whole initiative are a few residents of Tall Grass.
2. SB decides not building at all is the better of 2 evils and cancels plans to build a 3rd HS. At this point the NSFOC is hoping that they get redistricted back as they were, and their kids get to go back to Neuqua."

Actually, the NSFOC wants a third remedy:

3. New vote for a new location.

In order to explain this, I have pulled a response I gave to another blogger with the same question:

The lawsuit states:

". . . order it to return the money they have already collected from the March 21, 2006 Bond Referendum and enjoin it from further collecting money from the taxpayers."

This sentence refers to the March 21, 2006 Bond Referendum only. It is asking that the SD return what it has already collected from the 06 referendum and be prohibited from collecting anything more from us under this referendum; basically negating the 06 referendum altogether. It is not asking the court to prohibit the SD from ever collecting funds for another school through future referendums. Think about it--this doesn't sound logical or desirable, much less legal. Go back to the lawsuit and look at article 57 under Count III: Violation of Illinois School Code. It states, "Section 5/19 of the Illinois Code provides that school districts may borrow money for the purpose of . . . building or purchasing or improving school sites," etc. This lawsuit is not attempting to change the Illinois School Code to keep the SD from ever getting the money to build a third high school. It is about stopping an alternative purchase so the money is not spent and invalidating the 06 referendum so voters can have a go at selecting another site and boundaries.

Look, I'm weary of rehashing this time and again. I would suggest that if this issue is that important to you, do what I did: Attend an NSFOC meeting and ask them these questions yourself. As long as you're respectful and not disruptive, they will take the time to answer your questions about the suit (try getting that kind of individualized attention from our SB). I attended an NSFOC meeting mostly out of curiousity; I just wanted to know what was going on. I decided I didn't agree with the lawsuit and am therefore not supporting it, but I do understand it. I know this is a gray area that some folks have a hard time with, especially when an issue is as emotionally charged as this one. But take the time to educate yourself on this, and going to the source is the best way I know.

I would like to know something else--where you in Naperville between 05 and 06, and if so, did you attend any of the public boundary meetings? Have you read the email that Mark M. sent out the day of the 06 vote?

What the___? on March 28, 2008 3:05 PM

Point taken I agree. I should have written:

MARK METZGER AND SCHOOL BOARD COST US: $5,000,000.00 (Budgeted)

MARK METZER AND SCHOOL BOARD MAY COST US: $20,000,000.00 OR MORE

NSFOC COST US: $0 - SO FAR

Now, had NSFOC not filed a lawsuit and shined a light on this topic none of these questions would have been asked at all. I agree that we need to see the final cost and the site report prior to buying the land at Eola.

Also, I still believe that the land at Eola could be hazardous and the proper authorities should test it. That test should be released to the public with the results and methodology. When it comes to kids lets assume the site is dirty and prove it clean as opposed to the school boards attitude of it must be clean because we have a deadline.

Thanks!!

To: JAS on March 28, 2008 1:24 PM

I agree that we need to figure out the BB site before purchasing ANYTHING.

I also feel that we need to have - in hand - all of the pertinent reports on the Eola property prior to embarking on a smear campaign involving the safety of the site.

I am certain that there is always going to be someone out there that doesn't feel any piece of property is "safe". We can argue about "safety" until we're blue in the face. However, I am not an expert on safety and whether a particular site is deemed safe to build on. I choose to leave that to the appropriate environmental and governing bodies who fully understand these things to make the final determination.

Until we have all of the pieces of the puzzle together, we don't have a complete picture of what we're dealing with. That is why I don't understand the NSFOC position since they too, don't have the complete picture.

Again, the current cost to taxpayers for the NSFOC suit may be $0. I highly doubt it will stay that way.

I don't know where you're getting your "SD cost us" figures. There again is speculation being positioned as fact.

Take a deep breath and wait until things are KNOWN before claiming them as fact.

newbie on March 27, 2008 10:40 PM

Sorry newbie, but I need to get my point across. Look at the other blogs everyone is doing it. But thanks.

What the__? on March 28, 2008 8:49 AM
To: JAS on March 27, 2008 5:41 PM

"I think you're confusing 2 different points.

There's the BB issue. There's the Eola issue. And, while they may be inter-related, they are separate issues."

Just how am I confusing 2 points when everyone is saying how NSFOC is costing taxpayers money? Hmmmmmmmmm....Mark Metzger HAS ALREADY COST THE TAXPAYERS MONEY. Unfortunately they are related and the same issue. What about that $20,000,000.00 again?

Mark Metzger did sue and lost. He also stated they would pay whatever it cost that they had the money.

Well then how exactly did Eola come into the picture? They fed voters what they wanted to and switched it in the end.

Did Mark Metzger not say "Bait and Switch"? The Sun has him saying it. Maybe I got the wrong paper that day.

By the way, it is nice to see that folks are admitting that NSFOC has not cost the taxpayers anything. Kudos to you!!

However,
MARK METZGER AND SCHOOL BOARD COST US: $5,000,000.00

MARK METZER AND SCHOOL BOARD COST US: $20,000,000.00

NSFOC COST US: $0

Mark Metzger and the board is costing the taxpayers millions because of inability to listen to the voters.

They need to settle the BB site before doing anything.

Why a potentially hazardous site?
Why not walk away?

These are questions the board should be asked and have been asked but they will not answer. Why?

But if you feel comfortable with him spending your money frivolously then give me your address and I will be happy to send you my tax bill.

NSFOC lawsuit cost the taxpayers: $0

To: JAS on March 27, 2008 5:41 PM

I think you're confusing 2 different points.

There's the BB issue. There's the Eola issue. And, while they may be inter-related, they are separate issues.

Also, "Mark Metzger" did not sue BB. The SB merely did what most of NSFOC wants the SB to do....they worked hard to TRY to make BB work. Unfortunately nobody expected the value to come in at 2x what was planned. Yet NSFOC claims they didn't do due diligence on the BB site.

Then, we have the NSFOC folks who DID sue. And while the current cost to taxpayers may be $0, in the end Shawn Collins will likely make the same (self-serving) recommendation to D204 as he did to the City. "Hey, let's settle". So, in the end, the only one who benefits in the ENTIRE thing will be Shawn Collins.

And, what's more, the 3rd HS will ultimately end up on the Eola land, even with all the NSFOC BS flying around.

To Linda W on 3/27 at 6:03 PM--The SB/SD is already convinced it is making the right decision; they have no interest in what 204 residents think. We are being kept out of this entirely, and that includes the solution. You're right about the comments, tho. Reading this blog is sometimes like listening to my kids argue--they sound the same. And I've had my moments as well.

JAS,
one post is enough, you don't need to repost the same thing on every blog section. It's already been refuted anyway...

wow! All this negative energy - if only it was channeled into helping the school board/school district make the right decision. Seems like a lot of childish comments are easier to make then actually trying to be a part of the solution.

These blogs are interesting and I can see why it can be addicting. Even peoples sarcams makes me laugh.

Anyway, just to set the record straight with all those saying NSFOC is costing the taxpayers money. It hasn't cost the taxpayers a dime. You know why? Because the SB has not responded to the lawsuit.

However, Mark Metzger HAS COST THE TAXPAYERS: $5,000,000.00 BY SUING BB!!

Mark Metzger said they would win the case. I believe he got his head handed to him.

So I ask, why is it okay for Mark Metzger to file lawsuits, tie up peoples property for 2 years and now he is potentially COSTING THE TAXPAYERS ANOTHER: $20,000,000.00!!

Yet, your not saying anything about it? You don't think the school board should be held accountable?

Secondly, as far as the NSFOC saying the land is contaminated. Well, sorry wrong again! They are saying "IT MAYBE CONTAMINATED." They list out what could be wrong with the property. They want to know why did the school board choose this when they could have chosen BB (WHICH THEY PUSHED ON THE VOTERS), or any other property for that matter. Why chose a potential hazard? Walk away and chose another property.

Mark Metzger and the board costs us the taxpayers:5 MILLION DOLLARS ON HIS LAWSUIT!!

NSFOC cost the taxpayers: $0

I am sorry I missed the NSFOC meeting. I would love to have heard them once again say this is about environmental issues and not about boundaries. So they came right out and said that a clean bill of health for the land is not good enough for them?

class...let's review...
Environmental Scare = $
Boundary Issue = 0

just say No to Entitlement!

To: Dollars and sense on March 27, 2008 11:06 AM
"I 100% agree that If WE, but especially TG, were firmly at NV, there would be no lawsuit."
I knew we were not that far apart in our personal opinions. This, to me my friend, is the crux of the issue. Everyone can never be satisfied - we all know that. It's what you do when things don't go your way that reveals your true character. I'm sure most of the people living in these 2 subdivisions are very nice folks. But how some of them have resorted to kicking and screaming and throwing a holy tantrum (in the form of this lawsuit - technically, against themselves!) is what bothers me.
They've certainly shown me their true colors.
Hopefully the test reports come back negative and we can once and for all finally put to rest this silliness. If the NSFOC persists with their lawsuit EVEN AFTER the Phase II reports come back with no non-remediable problems, then they just expose themselves further.

It was also announced at the NSFOC meeting (Tuesday) of which about 90 people attended that they don't plan on giving up. Even if the Phase II studies come back clean or they come back with issues and MidwestGen has a remediation plan IT STILL WON'T BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM!!!

They want further testing then want further lawsuits against all of us they want to suck the IPSD dry for all they are worth. They will try to do it as long as they can because it comes down to getting their way.

Admit it NSFOC, I heard your fearless leader say it himself, he wants a "white glove" study. Give me a break!!! This site (Eola) will never be good enough for you because it isn't benefiting you as you see it. Is that about right? If all the studies come back well and good, doesn't this wash your hands of the enviornmental scare tactics you are using? Heck your kids aren't even the ones at risk. You really want me to believe you're more concerned as a taxpayer then a parent who's kid will attend MV. Let's ask the parents who's kids will attend MVHS.

If you're successful in stopping a 3rd high school you do realize that your kids could still attend WV and have split shifts with those evil "north" residents kids as you now refer them to.

To Harris Farm Resident and The Bottom Line--Yes, I absolutely concede this point. I 100% agree that If WE, but especially TG, were firmly at NV, there would be no lawsuit. They would be sitting back like the rest of the far south and staying out of the fray because it no longer involves them. Gotta run, ttyl.

To Harris Farm Resident on March 27, 2008 7:54 AM

I GUARANTEE that if even if the SB announced the Eola site as "the" site but WE and TG remained at NV after the boundaries then there would be no NSFOC nor would there be a lawsuit.

To: Dollars and sense on March 26, 2008 2:18 PM
"It is possible to understand someone else's position without agreeing with it, and it's probably because of this that I don't feel the need to demonize the NSFOC."
I too understand the NSFOC's position which is exactly why I don't agree with it. You and I appear to have similar opinions about that group, except for the fact that I don't think their stance is defensible. As I have said in many earlier postings, I respect their freedom to have a differing opinion, but to take it to the point of suing all taxpayers in the district (and in the process, themselves!!) is what I find absolutely insane. All this negative reaction to the NSFOC would not have existed if there was no lawsuit.

"But I do know the lawsuit does not say "Build on BB or don't build at all", it says "Build on BB or return our money."
Really now, half a dozen or six? What is the difference between the 2 statements? "Don't build at all" and "return our money" amount to the exact same thing. The NSFOC doesn't want the SB to build the 3rd HS anywhere but at the BB site. The NSFOC is hoping one of 2 things happen:
1. SB acquiesces and agrees to build at the BB site at ANY cost, which means their kids (TG/WE) get to go to the new HS. Please don't argue that the NSFOC is district-wide. While there may be a few donors and supporters from other areas, everyone knows the core leadership group driving this whole initiative are a few residents of Tall Grass.
2. SB decides not building at all is the better of 2 evils and cancels plans to build a 3rd HS. At this point the NSFOC is hoping that they get redistricted back as they were, and their kids get to go back to Neuqua. The fatal mistake with this assumption is that they may still be redistricted to WVHS.
One of the bloggers laid out an interesting hypothesis - If the SB continued with the Eola site, but changed the boundaries to allow TG/WE to stay at Neuqua, would the lawsuit be withdrawn?

If you want to help a real cause please send your $204 to the DuPage Childrens Museum. Read in yesterdays paper that they are struggling financially and may have to close. Just think how your $204 can help even more children with a wonderful educational program. Much better use of your money than lining the pockets of a attorney who is screwing the very same people he is trying to defend. I wonder how he sleeps at night. Actually I wonder how a lot of them do.

To Timing is EVERYTHING on 3/26 at 12:50 PM--

Now I think we're getting to the heart of the matter. "I know what the NSFOC claims - but it's ALL HOGWASH". So I could give you a date, but if it doesn't fit into your boundary theory you would just dismiss it as untrue. Ok, here's a clue from a blogger who's tired of watching us bicker about this. Go to Anon on 3/26 at 5:19 PM. Read his post and do what he suggests.

to not impressed ...mr collins works for a local law firm. Not big law. Please note that although he is talked about as an environmental attorney, his practice also specializes in personal injury. The NSFOC must have seen his commercial during the lunch time news. Did Mr Collins get distracted last night everytime he heard an ambulance siren?

To Anonymous at 5:19 PM

The meeting was on February 19th. Public comment was before the Board voted on boundaries. Didn't claim to be an expert on the timing. I was just recalling something I remembered from the meeting.

To Dollars and sense makes no sense on 3/26 at 4:37 PM--

I have no idea what you're ranting about. You do, however, make some interesting references to drug use. Maybe this is why you're having trouble organizing your thoughts?

To: Anonymous on March 26, 2008 5:19 PM

To NSFOC slanderer - ooops I mean Anonymous - nice try...but you just said they approved the boundaries at the meeting THEN the "gentlemen made public comment. Perhaps it was THEN that he decided that the non-profit was in the process of being formed. But, even if I did believe you,(which I don't) it WASN'T formed as of that date.

And since you claim to be an expert on this timing. Which SB meeting did this occur at?

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Just an FYI for all of you spending so much time pondering the date of the formation of NSFOC. If you were at the SB meeting in which the Board voted and approved the new boundaries, you may recall that a gentleman making his public comment stated that a non-profit was in the process of being formed. That was BEFORE the boundaries were decided.

Watch for yourself.

To: Dollars and sense on March 26, 2008 2:18 PM

You make no sense. You bash someone for making assumptions then you do the same yourself? I don't get it.

What I don't get is why was Todd Andrews pleading with the SB to keep his kids at NV if it wasn't about the boundaries? That was the first angle the future-NSFOC founders started with. (I really like that the NSFOC has suddenly distanced themselves from that position. They conveniently did that when they were met with such disgust from the community.)

It was then that they started their smear campaign pulling in all the other reasons that they could think of: RR crossings being dangerous, long commutes, "I can see NV from my house", traffic on 59, "poor Johnny might have to go to school with gangs", "I deserve to go to the school of my choice because I live in a big house", etc.

It wasn't until they started with the "the Eola site a nuclear waste dump" crap that they started getting support from additional people outside of TG. Because, we all know that we don't all live in TG and we all can't see NV from our homes so why would we care unless they found something else to draw in additional unsuspecting fools to help fund their half-baked lawsuit.

What are you smoking? Take another hit, grab some chips and enjoy the buzz because you're so brainwashed by what NSFOC has told you a good buzz might make you see more clearly.

I'm surprised Mr. Collins brought up the IEPA item (well, then again maybe not). Being the environmental attorney that he is, he knows why there isn't record yet but soon will be with their offices.I would think he would be aware of the filing process...but he probably needed SOMETHING to throw out there to bide him a little bit of time to keep the money coming in. I find this to be disturbing...I was actually trying to give him the benefit of the doubt prior to this.
I also thought the analogy about EMF's was "odd" to say the least. It was to the effect that "sure we have EMF's in our homes too ..just like there may be child abuse in some homes...that doesn't make it right". This was just plain weird.

http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/brownfields/cleanup/taco-brochure.html

From the IL EPA Site...
Once remediation objectives are established, the site owner may:

* Reduce contaminant concentrations to meet the remediation objectives through removal or treatment of the chemicals;
* Restrict exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater or both by using engineered barriers or institutional controls;
* Take no action, if contaminant concentrations present at the site do not exceed Tier 1 remediation objectives;
or
* Use any combination of the options above.

Once a site owner satisfies the TACO and cleanup program requirements, the owner receives a No Further Remediation (NFR) letter.

So, the school board can fence off the area and get an NFR letter. BRILLIANT! That would explain Dash's comments.

NSFOC, where do I send my check?

To: Meeting Attendee on March 26, 2008 1:40 PM

Why is everyone rushing to judgment and stating that the land is "contaminated". What reports have we seen saying that the land is "contaminated"?

Why can't we wait to see the reports before making hasty accusations and conspiracy theories?

I'm sick of the speculation and conjecture taking the place of the real facts and the real results of the testing.

Why are the NSFOC insisting that the land is "contaminated" when in the next breath they're complaining that they haven't seen the Phase II reports?

Whatever the outcome of the testing, one of two things will happen.
1. The site will be remediated with oversight from the appropriate governing bodies. Once deemed safe, construction will begin.
2. The SB will not purchase the land and we'll be back discussing another alternate site.

In the meantime, sit back, relax and wait for the results.

To Harris Farm resident on 3/26 at 11:48 AM--I have only attended one NSFOC meeting, and that was the first one. I didn't ask them when they formed their organization because the question never came to mind. Any questions I did have became moot half-way though the meeting when I decided I wasn't going to support the lawsuit.

Of course I was speculating on their timeline, my wording admitted as much. But you are also drawing conclusions from a timeline of Sun articles, another means of speculating, and calling it facts. If you really wanted to know when the NSFOC was formed and why they brought the lawsuit when they did, you had ample opportunity at last night's meeting. And if you had attended the first meeting, you would have heard them say that the reason for the lawsuit was because the SB abruptly abandoned BB and went full speed ahead on acquiring the Eola property, which is, after all, what their lawsuit is about.

I don't think you are trying to mislead anyone. But I also think that you are making no attempt to find the truth because the absence of it supports your perception of the NSFOC as being "a small group of self-serving individuals preying on the uninformed", hardly an unbiased statement. I don't see them this way. I'm sure there are self-serving people involved, but generally they are parents just like us who happen to have a different point of view of what's going on. I don't agree with the lawsuit, but since I've spent time talking to them about it, I do understand it and their point of view. It is possible to understand someone else's position without agreeing with it, and it's probably because of this that I don't feel the need to demonize the NSFOC.

As to the quality of the lawsuit and misspelling of Neuqua, I'm not an attorney and have no experience reading or writing lawsuits, so I'm not qualified to judge whether it sounds disjointed or not or if the misspelling of Neuqua is that grave a transgression. I'm not going to form opinions on something I know nothing about. But I do know the lawsuit does not say "Build on BB or don't build at all", it says "Build on BB or return our money." If you want to understand the difference, just ask them.

MOLE on March 26, 2008 11:12 AM

"I was a mole last night at the meeting and I took extensive notes."

Evidently, you need to take better notes. I too was at the meeting and I have to ask why you think you were a "mole" since they invited anyone and everyone to attend and ask questions? Anyway,
the person who intorduced himself was not Mr. Andrews.

It was an honest and open meeting. No degrading of anti-groups, just people who were open about what NSFOC is and what information they have, what they have accomplished in the 3 weeks of inception. Good questions were asked.

I also found out the IEPA has never been asked by the School Board to investigate the potential Eola land.(factual Proof from IEPA - Ask Mr. Collins to provide). Take a look at your notes.

They weren't trying to "spin" anything. They don't need too. They are out there giving and gathering information and to find out facts.

If you were truly listening they are concerned about contaminated land and that their vote was negated. They gave everyone the information they have received thus far and met others from around the district that are concerned about the way the school board has handled things.

They were asked why BB and not Macom and they said it was because of the way the board presented it before the vote. They believe that is what was voted on even though the ballot was standard language.

They are not hiding anything and there was no need to hide behind a cloak as a mole. Again, anyone and everyone was invited they were there answering questions open and honestly and told people if they did not know the answer.

You did not have to hide, you could of openingly asked questions and they would have answered them. By the way, there was no way of knowing who was or was not a member of NSFOC. They did have a sign in sheet if you wanted to receive more information but not everyone signed or required too. I didn't.

They didn't "hide" behind anything and they introduced themselves; and as you know but don't want to admit were very friendly and open.

They also asked Mr. Collins there for people with doubts about the lawsuit to be able to ask questions. They were asked and answered.

This is more than I can say for the school board. Next time don't be a "mole" join in and get your answers unless you have other motives then I sorry they can't help you.

When was the EXACT date nsfocFRAUD was formed?

The public timeline speaks for itself. It was formed when Brookdale was threatened with the 5A boundaries. Now we know your true intentions Chad Martinson.

I believe Mr. Mole is actually Ms. Mole, and she was wearing a lovely bright pink shirt.

to: Dollars and sense on March 26, 2008 12:13 PM

Okay then. When was the EXACT date that NSFOC was formed? Since you seem to know everything there is to know about NSFOC.

I haven't seen you state a particular (provable)date for this group's formation. In the absence of that we have nothing to go on other than the date that public actions were taken by the group.

I know what the NSFOC claims - but it's ALL HOGWASH. The public timeline speaks for itself.

Dear Mr Mole,
I was there last night as well but Mr Andrews was not even in the house. Hope the rest of your notes are not as botched. I found the information quite helpful in me deciding that this group had solid facts and grounds to stand upon. I also thought Mr Collins had alot more factual information to share with us than the school board has done and that should not be the case. WHo knows how the case will end up but one thing is certain. There will not be alot of SB members re-elected in 2009. That must be why they are so hell bent on getting this school built by then.

My kids will attend WV in any scenerio and after hearing the information on the MV site and also reading how overcrowded NV is and continues to be I am grateful to be going to WV. If my kids were assigned to MV and the school was built there I would move. After hearing and reading all of the concerns (some exaggerated no doubt) there is no way I'd send my kids there even for a slim chance. I am not going there though and so those parents need to decide whats best for them.

Its really sad that parents are looking to move out of 204 into 203 with crumbling walls (Central) and a packed school (North) to get away from this admin and its decisions. Guess bricks and mortar, distances and age of facilities is not what its all about. Lack of trust in the SB and District is driving them away. That is very sad.

To Timing is EVERYTHING NSFOC on 3/26 at 9:21 AM--

It's obvious you don't care when the NSFOC was formed, but you're using the absence of this information to support your theory that it was only formed in response to the changed boundaries as they "hadn't come together or made a big stink until AFTER the boundaries were announced". The logic you're missing is that when the NSFOC went public on March 4 to announce their lawsuit, they had already been at work on this for some time. You really don't know what event put them into action. You claim it was the new boundaries, but the NSFOC claims it was when the SB abandoned the BB land and went full speed on acquiring the Eola property. This makes more sense as this is what their lawsuit is about, not boundaries. For all you know, if the SB hadn't been rushing the process so much, The NSFOC could have acted before the boundaries were announced.

The truth is you really don't know the truth. Your opinion is based on assumptions, not facts. If you really want to know, attend a meeting and ask.

about 90 people at the meeting and 20% were not firm supporters of NSFOC. Their numbers are down to about 72. It looks like most of TG and WE are starting to give up on the NSFOC as well. I guess we have been hard on the bulk of the TG and WE residents. Maybe they are smarter than we thought and are seeing right through the NSFOC BS.

thank you Mole.

I thought the reason for the meeting was to raise more money before the environmental studies were released. Once released I am sure they will claim the sky is falling even though all studies will show that remediation will clean the property. Once that issue is dead (give it another 4 to 6 weeks), all the NSFOC will have is the boundary dispute. At that point it will be tough to raise money.

The most reckless thing I have seen about this issue is the NSFOC website. Please note how they are now saying to ask your own tax preparer if you can deduct for donations. When the NSFOC already knows this answer but will not disclose it to the people they are trying to scam. That speaks volume as to the honesty of everything else they spew.

To: Dollars and sense on March 26, 2008 12:52 AM

"I would even speculate they were working on this before the new boundaries were finalized on 2/20, and most likely even before the changed boundaries were proposed on 2/13."

What you are stating is, in your own words, speculation. You speculate that they were working on this before the new boundaries were finalized on 2/20. You speculate that they were working on this before the changed boundaries were proposed on 2/13. Nothing concrete - just your personal speculation. If you've attended all the NSFOC meetings, why didn't YOU ask when they were formed? I would have thought that is something you would have been interested in knowing to assess credibility. I can only go by what is public information - I am not trying to mislead anyone. Maybe the NSFOC is a victim of bad timing, but only they are to blame for that. The papers filed with the court also appear to be hurriedly put together, not carefully deliberated. Reading their 18 page lawsuit, they've even misspelled NEUQUA (they spell it as Nequa)!!! The document appears to be disjointed and seems to meander from one issue to the next with no clear agenda except for "Build on Brach-Brodie or don't build at all". In this situation, perception means a lot, and right now the NSFOC is perceived to be a small group of self-serving individuals preying on the uninformed.
Btw, kudos to you for not falling for their rhetoric and fear-mongering. You certainly have shown that you are capable of making your own decisions, and I applaud you for that.

To: MOLE on March 26, 2008 11:12 AM

Thanks for the update.

I imagined that there would be no new revelations based on the NSFOC rhetoric.
If I was on the fence about joining NSFOC (which I am not as I do not purposely support losing causes much less contribute financially to them) I would run for the hills and recognize that the NSFOC is all but admitting defeat.

To: An Inconvenient Truth for NSFOC

I was a mole last night at the meeting and I took extensive notes. There were about 90 people at the meeting and I would venture to say that 80% of those were NSFOC supporters and the remaining 20% were not supporters or have not made their mind up.

Basically to sum it up there is no new information. I was so hoping that they would have new information or a new spin tactic to throw out there, but nothing. Mr. Andrews spent the first hour going over the timeline of the referendum with no new information. Mr. Collins then joined the meeting and played to the audience very well. He then proceeded to outline his case against the IPSD. His case, while appealing, will be a long shot. He's basing his arguement that the School Board is reckless and that too much is unknown about the environmental issues, that's it.

Bottom line is they can't stop the School Board and if the School Board does everything according to IL Law and IL EPA standards they will have no case. I'm sure I will get replies from NSFOC members saying otherwise but that is how I saw it. I have 3 pages of notes that I'd be happy to discuss more in depth but that about sums it up.

Anonymous on March 25, 2008 5:38 PM
"Moderator Jim..

Since you are looking for investigative stories, has the Sun called Illinois EPA to see what its involvement has been in regards to the studies that the District has done to date. Can you confirm whether the District has represented that the Illinois EPA has been involved?

I have FOIA's as well as an email from Illinois EPA that indicates that they have had no involvement whatsoever, nor have they received any requests to become involved?

If you are interested, tell me where I can fax this information and I will be glad to."

I just called the IEPA and have been informed that the school board has NEVER contacted them! What does this mean? Can they move ahead with out really doing the remediation?

To the non-NSFOC suuporters that were moles at the NSFOC meeting last night - what's the latest?

To: Dollars and sense on March 26, 2008 1:15 AM

Really, I could care less what the actual date was that NSFOC decided to form their fraternity.

My point was that they really hadn't come together or made a big stink until AFTER the boundaries were announced. Not before, AFTER.

They didn't come forward when it was announced that the Eola land was the proposed new location or that the boogeyman was out to get them either - UNTIL THE BOUNDARIES WERE ANNOUNCED.

Truth kinda hurts, huh?

By Anonymous on March 25, 2008 5:38 PM
Moderator Jim..

Since you are looking for investigative stories, has the Sun called Illinois EPA to see what its involvement has been in regards to the studies that the District has done to date. Can you confirm whether the District has represented that the Illinois EPA has been involved?

I have FOIA's as well as an email from Illinois EPA that indicates that they have had no involvement whatsoever, nor have they received any requests to become involved?

If you are interested, tell me where I can fax this information and I will be glad to.

__________________________________________________

Moderator Jim,

I sure hope the Sun looks into this.

To Timing is EVERYTHING NSFOC on 3/25 at 2:15 PM--The post to Harris Farm resident applies to you as well. You don't have a clue as to when the NSFOC was formed; you only heard about it for the first time on March 4.

We would all like to Thank the School board for its professionalism in forging forward with the plans for the third high school at Eola and for making sure the land is safe. We would also like to say how sorry we are that you have to deal with this law suit and all the personal bashing you've been receiving from the residents who brought this law suit. We have always been so proud to call Naperville/Aurora our home and are truly discusted with the behavior of the few - the TG WE/NSFOC.

To Harris Farm Resident on 3/25 at 2:01 PM--

At first glance, your newspaper timeline looks compelling as proof that the NSFOC was not formed until after the new Metea boundaries were approved on 2/20. You list the Naperville Sun article dated 3/4, "NSFOC Formed", as proof that the NSFOC did not exist until then.

However, I have information that shows this is not accurate. MARCH 4TH WASN'T THE DAY THE NSFOC WAS FORMED, IT WAS THE DAY THEY WENT PUBLIC WITH THEIR INTENT TO FILE A LAWSUIT. This was the day of their first public meeting to announce the lawsuit and the press was in attendence; so the Naperville Sun ran an article. I know because I was there. By the time of the first public meeting, they had already 1) formed the organization and selected their leaders, 2) selected Mr. Collins as the attorney they wanted to represent them, and Mr. Collins had already studied the background of the referendum and the BB proceedings, and 3) drafted the lawsuit so they could discuss it with those in attendence and answer questions. At that time, they asked for donations so they could hire Mr. Collins and file the lawsuit ASAP.

So it is obvious that the NSFOC went to work on all this long before March 4. I would even speculate they were working on this before the new boundaries were finalized on 2/20, and most likely even before the changed boundaries were proposed on 2/13. Otherwise, this would have been an astounding amount of work to accomplish in a mere 3 weeks by several people who also have families and full-time jobs to attend to.

So while your timeline looks convincing, it does not stand as proof that the NSFOC was formed only in response to the changed boundaries.

If you really want to know when the NSFOC began, why don't you just attend a meeting sometime and ask them. They are not the SB; as long as you are respectful and not disruptive, they will talk to you and answer your questions. That way you can get your facts from a first-hand experience rather than just newspaper articles.

And FYI, to make things easier for those anti-NSFOC and anti-entitled-southsiders who will turn this into a personal attack, I do not live in WE or TG, I voted yes on both the 05 and 06 referendums, and I am not a member of the NSFOC and do not support their lawsuit. I just get annoyed by folks who won't get off the couch to attend an informational meeting but still claim to "have all the facts".

To annonymous on March 25, 2008 5:39 PM

When is it going to get remediated? After the school opens?

To: Anonymous on March 25, 2008 5:13 PM
"Yeah, too bad the School Board wants to start moving dirt BEFORE the IEPA signs off on anything. And if the IEPA finds anything that can't be remediated, it will be too late because the district will already have started construction."

I know for a fact that the SD cannot actually start building on the Eola property until the IEPA has either:
1. Cleared the site of any environmental issues: Chances of this are slim, since the Phase 1 studies did indicate trace levels of diesel and anti-freeze in the soil
2. Certified that all remediation is complete and the site is safe to build on: MWGen is by law bound to remedy any environmental issues related to the sale of their property. It is similar to a seller of a house in Illinois being required by law to install smoke/CO detectors before the sale can be completed - they cannot refuse.

These are the reasons I feel fairly confident that any school built on this property will be safe for everyone. SD can't simply roll in the dozers. I'm actually staring out to the site (my office window has a nice view of the location) and I don't see any construction equipment out there.

To: Chances are the IPSD won't have enough money to finish the HS because the land was higher then expected.

The land was NOT higher then expected (please, just stop with the coolaid). Howie was willing to put 600K per acre in escrow to get the quick claim. He indicated that the District could (and would) pay anywhere up to 600K (which was what BB was asking). This is just another myth by Dr. D to justify his aristocratic decision to ignore the promises and commitments made by those before him (and apprently, BB upset Metzger and Dr. D for not accepting less than fair market value, so they had to pay like veryone else that dares to question what is going on).

Now we are paying 3-5 million (in reserves already) for avoidable legal costs, looking at up to 20 million dollars in damages for walking away from BB (sorry if I do not accept Dr. D's estimate of $0 in that he also felt this way before losing to the Supreme Court in Lville), and we are looking at millions in wetland costs and upwards of 5 million for expidited construction costs. Please do not tell me that we can not afford BB, because it is simply Bull.

What we can not afford is to build a school on Eola under these circumstances in that there is no way the operating referendum will pass (with this level of mistrust). Wed are heading to having one of the worst school systems in the District (and now I see why the District is protecting that 91 million dollar surplus).

anonymous at 5:28. I voted for the lower short term property taxes. My vote counted. I am curious to see how your "environmental" attorney will try to prove that my vote was for any other reason.

to annonymous at 5:13. Every chemical the NSFOC listed on their website can be remediated. Please do not take my word for it. Please ask Mr Collins.

Moderator Jim..

Since you are looking for investigative stories, has the Sun called Illinois EPA to see what its involvement has been in regards to the studies that the District has done to date. Can you confirm whether the District has represented that the Illinois EPA has been involved?

I have FOIA's as well as an email from Illinois EPA that indicates that they have had no involvement whatsoever, nor have they received any requests to become involved?

If you are interested, tell me where I can fax this information and I will be glad to.

To: Anonymous on March 25, 2008 5:28 PM

Since you admitted your selfish ways I give you this to chew on. OK build the 3rd HS on the BB property even though it is too expensive and cost for construction have gone up I'm sure in 2 years. Chances are the IPSD won't have enough money to finish the HS because the land was higher then expected. The IPSD will then have the district vote on another referendum to finish the high school and then we'll see how the district feels about NSFOC's fight for the high school on the BB property or nothing.

See I voted yes in 1997 for NVHS and voted yes in 2006 with nothing to gain for my family or my kids. I did that for unselfish reasons and for all the children in district. However, considering your attitude I don't think I want to support a HS on the BB property any more considering you just told me the only reason you voted for it. Good luck.

Does not matter what my motives for voting yes were. You can attack me all you want, but I voted no, and then voted yes based on the promises made by the Board and District. I think Howie said it best:

> The referendum presented to the community was based on the Brach-Brodie
> land and boundaries were determined. Those boundaries would no longer be
> in effect if the location of the school changed. In our opinion, the
> location of the land and boundaries are contributing factors to why people
> voted as they did. A promise was made to the community and the community
> supported the district by passing the referendum.

You may not like why I voted the way I did, but my right to have my vote count is guaranteed by the Illinois and Federal constitution. The District promised it could afford up to 600k an acre for BB (said it was included in the referendum amount). The verdict came back at 518K per acre. What's the problem???

Perhaps if the District stopped wasting millions on legal fees and damage exposure, we would have long since been done with this and we could have had the possibility of a school opening in Fall of 09.

However, the Board will NOT EVEN CALL the BB lawyers back to negotiate (how sad and how arrogant).

If you do not like why I voted, have another vote (I would be kind enough to agree to this). However, do not even think about steamrolling over me because you do not like WHY the second referendum passed. The Board knew they had to promise the land site and the boundaries to get the referendum passed. They made this bed (not NSFOC which was not formed two years ago either).

From Harris Farm Resident on March 25, 2008 4:39 PM

"I have faith in organizations like the IEPA."

Yeah, too bad the School Board wants to start moving dirt BEFORE the IEPA signs off on anything. And if the IEPA finds anything that can't be remediated, it will be too late because the district will already have started construction.

To: Harris Farm Resident on March 25, 2008 4:39 PM

Amen, brother!

to Harris Farm Resident

The environmental issues the NSFOC raise are not conjecture. They have hired an enviromental attorney who upfront informed them that the site can be remediated. The environmental issues they raise is called fund raising. Won't the donors be disappointed when the remediation is handled and they realize their donation were really for a boundary dispute. These same donations go to the attorney that has kept the NSFOC owners informed of the real environmental issue.

I also don't believe we should build on a dangerous site but I will also trust the IL EPA will do thier due diligence at the Eola site.

To: SCHOOL BOARD IS A JOKE!! on March 25, 2008 3:51 PM

I guess facts don't matter to you - you just keep making them up as you go along.
You were the one who stated that "The NSFOC was formed once they found out that MV was possibly being built on a hazardous site." I was merely correctly your factually incorrect statement. Now that I've corrected you, you "DO NOT CARE WHEN THEY WERE FORMED. GOT IT!"
Regarding whether I prefer convenience over safety, read my earlier blog:
"My kids will ultimately go to the new MVHS, which will be built in my backyard. Am I concerned about the perceived environmental issues with the site? Absolutely! Am I willing to reserve my opinion and judgement until AFTER the Phase II studies and remediation procedures have been detailed out? OF COURSE!! That would be the sane and normal thing to do."
I guess I don't believe in suing before the facts are actually borne out; just a personal preference.

"I can see why it is okay for you since you live across the street. I guess convienence out ways safety for you. What a shame."
I'll look past all the typos and grammatical errors in this sentence - I never said I was ok with building the HS on Eola as-is. I have faith in organizations like the IEPA that they will make un-biased, scientific decisions to safeguard our kids, teachers and academicians - after all, they should have nothing to gain or lose from the HS being built there or not. If the Eola site is deemed unsafe for a high school, I will be the first to oppose it since it will directly impact me and my family; I don't need the NSFOC to do it for me. But here's a novel concept - how about waiting till the final environmental analysis is released? Let's all hold on to our collective lawsuits until after we've had a chance to review that, eh? Until that point, everything you and I say about the so-called "environmental hazards" are just conjecture.
All this nonsense on the nsfoc site with youtube links to pipeline explosions is nothing more than fear-mongering and hysteria building. Are you telling me that you know for a fact that there are no gas pipelines under/near any of the schools (elementary, middle or high) in our SD? If we're going to open this can of worms, be prepared to shut down every single school in our fine district - yeah, even the one your kids go to.

Oh, and I did vote yes for the 3rd HS when they were going to build on BB, so this is not just someone who's super excited to have a new shiny HS in their backyard. I was prepared to pay higher taxes for decades so that all children in our school district could avoid over-crowded classrooms and hallways; not just so that MY KIDS could go to the new high school.

Moderator Jim: Why don't you ask Metzger why he wants to close on the Eola property without knowing the full walk away costs of BB?

Moderator Jim. Thank you. I believe it is important that everybody knows the difference between owners and donors and that the owners are not obligated to settle this in anyway but how the owners themselves see fit (or benefit).

The number of supporters/donors the NSFOC claim to have is irrelevant since they have no voice in any settlement.

anonymous at 3:44. The Illinois EPA is required by state law to be involved. The site can not be built upon until after the Illinois EPA certifies that all remediation has met the legal standards. Please do not take my word for it...ask Mr Collins if the NSFOC makes him available for questions.

By Harris Farm Resident on March 25, 2008 2:01 PM

Well, Harris thanks for enlightening me. However, I DO NOT CARE WHEN THEY WERE FORMED. GOT IT!

I still believe the School Board screwed up and did not listen to the community. They went ahead with a site they ruled out before per Mark Metzger's words was "hazardous." Look it up will you. Now Mark Metzger thinks it is okay. I for one don't.

I can see why it is okay for you since you live across the street. I guess convienence out ways safety for you. What a shame.

Also, I don't care where the organization formed. So what if they were tall grass resident's, they believed enough to do something rather than just except what an arrogant group of elected volunteers told them to do.

This organization could have been in your neighborhood and then you would be calling yourself "elitist snobs". I'm not in either of the neighborhoods and still believe the SCHOOL BOARD NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

Here's Mark: "Oh lets buy 25 acres and they we can say oh we want to buy more. We will get the public to vote "yes" and then we will change our mind and have a $20 Million Dollar penalty to pay. So what, we will just do whatever we want and the taxpayers have to do so."

I think his arrogance has gone too far. I am not willing to waste more money. What about the school board taking and wasting our money or is that okay in your book?

NSFOC IS NOT THE PROBLEM!! THE SCHOOL BOARD IS THE PROBLEM!! THE SCHOOL BOARD IS THE ONE SCAMMING FUNDS FROM THE TAXPAYERS!!

Federal EPA??? When did they get involved?? They are not involved!

State EPA???? When did they get involved (give em a call, or do a FOIA, they have no idea of any testing or oversite, and have not been contacted by ANYONE as of yesterday).

Naperville Sun...check on it!

Where are the Phase II studies? Sounds like a conspiracy of (the administration, or two if you include the Board)...

I live on the same street as Mr. Andrews.

There was a posting on a website that had an aerial view of Todd Andrews' family's home with a red arrow pointing directly at the house (with obvious implications). Yes, I know that this has been very disturbing to his family and yes, this behavior is unforgivable (and unbelievable coming from "mild mannered" parents).

I understand that there have been a few calls and messages to his house, but thankfully, nothing threatening (just very ugly language--and nothing much worse than has been posted on this site, which seems to now be an acceptable level to communicate to children).

If you have concerns, I would ask tonight if NSFOC is paying its officers a salary (I think we all know this is not the case, BUT ASK...

Naperville Sun Editors...here is a story worth looking into. I am assuming you do investigative research. The NSFOC claims to have hundreds of members. Based on the issue of who is represented by their attorney in this lawsuit and the issue of how ownership of the NSFOC is set up, can you tell us the true number of owners of teh NSFOC? All you have to do is ask for a copy of the incorporation papers. That is the true number of the NSFOC. That is the true number that their attorney represents. I am sure you will have someone at their meeting or they will come back to your offices for another shot of PR.

Please note the differentiation between owners and members/supporters/donors. After all, its the owners, not the members/supporters/donors, who will settle this suit.

environmental concerns are a scam to get the uninformed to donate money. Does anybody beleive the school district, the Illinois EPA, and Federal EPa would allow the school to be built if the site wasn't safely remediated? Must be some conspiracy...boy I'm glad we have the NSFOC looking out for us when the state and federal government in addition to the school district go to such an extreme to pull the wool over our eyes.

I might feel sorry for the Tall Grass and Whine Eagle people who do not get the school of their choice. But I cannot repect anybody who is falsely scaring people into donating money to serve their purpose.

NSFOC is definitely trying to fleece the genral public with misinformation. Sorry Tall Grass and Whine Eagle but with the ethics you display, your property values deserve to drop.

FYI...all nonprofits have to account for where all the money is spent. I bet there are dozens of people who will call the IRS after your papers are filed next Spring.

Hey donors...I hope you realize the NSFOC owners are legally entitled to pay themselves a salary. Keep on donating.

Itsy bitsy spider went up the waterspout..
Down came the rain and washed the spider out.
Out came the Naperville Sun and dried up all the rain...
and looks like the board has to look for new land again...

They hid the Phase II study...
Don't seem like they can close...
The Doctor's in a panic..
and wants them to bulldoze...

Will BB negotiate now that
the Board has stubbed its toe
See Daeschner sneak out at midnight with a
flashlight and new red hoe.

Metzger says he will close when
Metzger says the he will close
And Dr. Daeschner promises that
he will tune out each and every foe.

The Fall of 2009 looks like
The Fall of 2010
As the Itsy Bitsy Spider starts
a new boundary process again.

To: SCHOOL BOARD IS A JOKE!! on March 25, 2008 1:04 PM

Perhaps you didn't read the timeline.

The people who make up NSFOC KNEW that Eola was the location LONG BEFORE the boundaries were known. Is it just cooincidence that it wasn't until "certain neighborhoods" found out that they were no longer going to NVHS that they screamed their battle cry and formed the mob that we now know as NSFOC? I think not. It is so transparent. But I guess I'm not "intelligent" enough to see it your way.
_____________________________________________________________

October 2007: Brach-Brodie is abandonded due to cost. Yet there is no outcry from NSFOC insisting that MVHS be built on this specific parcel of land. Heck, at this point there is no NSFOC.

January 21, 2008: Eola is announced as the new site for MVHS. Yet there is no outcry from NSFOC insisting that this location is unsafe. Heck, at this point there is no NSFOC.

February 13: Boundaries for MVHS are announced. And, lo and behold, a few weeks later NSFOC is formed, a rally is organized, an attorney is hired, frenzied parents are stuffing cookie jars full of their neighbors' money.

Any Questions?

To: Or perhaps.. on March 25, 2008 12:41 PM
"The community (especially the few people from Brookdale that run NSFOCfraud.com and spend all day populating this blog with ugliness and vile but state they live somewhere else to make it look like their group is more than a few who have been pulled from WVHS to go to Metea) have really demonstrated what a tolerant and great place this community is."

I do not live in Brookdale - I live in Harris Farm, the subdivision right across from the Eola site. Maybe if you stepped outside your little world in South Naperville (or wherever it is you live), you might learn that there are other people with differing/valid opinions than yours. Don't be so narrow-minded. There are angry people on both sides of the argument. However, I do not condone anyone posting directions to someone's house or leaving threatening messages. If that has happened, I hope the Andrews family has contacted the authorities to take appropriate measures against these people.

To: SCHOOL BOARD IS A JOKE!! on March 25, 2008 1:04 PM
"The NSFOC was formed once they found out that MV was possibly being built on a hazardous site. Sure they formed later, so what!"

NSFOC was NOT formed when they found out that Eola was a potential environmental concern. NSFOC was formed just 2 weeks after the new boundaries were approved by the board; a month-and-a-half AFTER the Eola site was approved.
To back up my statements, here's a little lesson in history - try to keep up if you can...

1/22/2008: Board Approves Metea Land Purchase
At the January 22, 2008 board of education meeting, the school board approved the administration's recommendation to purchase 86.57 acres on Eola Road for Metea Valley High School for a total cost of $16,547,500.

2/20/2008: New Boundaries Approved
The board of education approved new boundaries for the elementary, middle, and high schools. The elementary changes begin with the 2008-09 school year, while the middle and high school changes take effect in 2009-10.

3/4/2008: NSFOC formed
Excerpt from the Naperville Sun dated March 5, 2008: "Promises were made during the campaign to bring a third high school
to Indian Prairie School District 204, but according to some
residents, those promises are being broken. About 200 of those residents packed the White Eagle Owner's Club on Tuesday evening to discuss filing a lawsuit to see if the courts can slow down the process, force the district to do more "due diligence," and maybe even make it keep its word and build Metea Valley on the original proposed site."

3/8/2008: NSFOC sues school board
Excerpt from the Naperville Sun dated March 9, 2008: "An activist group of parents called Neighborhood Schools for Our Children has sued the 204 School Board in DuPage County court. The suit, filed on behalf of the group by Naperville attorney Shawn Collins, calls for injunctive relief for violations of the Illinois and Federal Constitutions. Among the salient points in the 19-page lawsuit are: The board, after holding many meetings with 204 parents, had stipulated that the Brach-Brodie location and the resultant boundary configurations would be the site of the new school. The referendum, according to the suit, passed on the basis of this information after an initial referendum had been voted down. Secondly, the new site of the third school (Eola/Molitor) had previously been considered by the board and had been rejected due to environmental concerns. The suit seeks for the court to order the board to purchase the Brach-Brodie land for the construction of the new high school; cease in its attempts to buy the Eola/Molitor location; in the event a deal is not struck with Brach-Brodie, return all money collected in the 2006 referendum and enjoin it from collecting any future money from the taxpayers and, lastly, have the board pay attorney and court fees."

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT

Again, love the level of debate...

shut up;
just say no to entitlement;
elitist snobs;
GED's need no buldings;
thems the facts...can't change them no matter how hard you try;
NSFOC = Naive Suckers Financing Obvious Charlatans

Still 50 and 0 baby, still 50 and 0.

to School Board is a Joke...you do realize that the owners of the NSFOC can settle this case in such a way that benefits only their interest (keeping Tall Grass out of WVHS) and not settle in a way that resolves the issues posted on their website? Why don't they restructure the NSFOC in such a way that their attorney represents all of the NSFOC donors (not just the handful of people who originally formed it)? They are collecting money based on all the issues they are using to scare up money, why don't they restructure so all issues can be resolved and not just what is important to the owners of the group (Tall Grass residents). They will never raise enough money to take this case all the way through the courts. The best they can hope for is to settle. I would have to beleive it is their goal to file this suit, raise money, raise a stink, and settle for a new boundary change.

I'm sorry, I don't buy the BS on the NSFOC site. They do not represent the interests of the taxpayers of D204. If they did, the structure would be different. I am not trying to scare anyone away from supporting the NSFOC. I am just saying buyer beware!

Will Collins be available at the meeting to answer our questions?

I keep reading on the blogs that the NSFOC is trying to hold the school board accountable and not to change the boundaries. The school board is not being sued. The school district is being sued. The taxpayers are being sued. As a taxpayer, I am being sued...and so are you.

just say NO to Entitlement!

To: SCHOOL BOARD IS A JOKE!! on March 25, 2008 1:04 PM

I'm not the one on tape begging for boundaries - so my kid can go to NVHS - and then changing my tune because it's an unpopular position that is unlikely to garner the additional support needed to get my way.

Thems the facts...can't change it no matter how hard you try.

By Anonymous on March 25, 2008 10:07 AM
An Inconvenient Truth for NSFOC on March 24, 2008 5:22 PM

"I am re-blogging Harris Farm Resident on March 20, 2008 9:10 AM because some of you NSFOC supporters MUST have missed this."

_______________________________________________________________

Obviously, your not looking at the whole picture. Sure, people wanted to stay close to where they live. Don't you? No one missed anything.

The NSFOC was formed once they found out that MV was possibly being built on a hazardous site. Sure they formed later, so what! They are concerned parents about the way TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT and if the school board will not listen maybe this will get their attention.

Get a grip it is not about attending WV even though you would like everyone to think your way. It is about a SCHOOL BOARD BEING ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

NO ONE IS BEING DUPED..........EXCEPT MAYBE YOU BY THE SCHOOL BOARD!
_______________________________________________

I would have to agree with you. These people who think it is not about the community have got it all wrong but that's okay. We know that it takes awhile for an organization to form and let them believe what they need to believe.

Looks like the negative nellies are on the run trying to scare people away from NSFOC but the ones who are intelligent will follow what NSFOC is doing. I for one am grateful that the NSFOC is standing up and making the school board take notice and hopefully slow down and get all the answers. It is about the kids.

To - Or perhaps.. on March 25, 2008 12:41 PM

In case you hadn't noticed, you're not THAT silent.

But I would liek for you to be, so please shut up.

To: Or perhaps.. on March 25, 2008 12:41 PM

Wow! "NSFOC has now expanded to hundreds of people ". Really impressive...NOT! A couple of hundred people? That's it? Strap on a brain. How in the world do you expect to win this lawsuit?

I think the NSFOC are the ones who are trying to create hysteria and who are trying to "intimidate and bully the community to unwittingly sign on to their own precious self interests".

What "self-interests" has the NSFOCfraud people claimed? The interests expressed by NSFOCfraud are community interests.

Not the interests of a few, loud-mouthed (few hundred anyway) individuals who now seek refuge from the very storm they created.

Btw, anyone else notice that Todd Andrews' is keeping a really low profile lately? Seems like the NSFOC and the lawyers decided it was best for him and them that he not be portrayed as their leader/spokesman.

Or maybe the low profile is due to the fact that the Andrews had directions posted to their house on the internet (with a big red arrow pointing to their front door), and they have received a number of disgusting and ugly calls to their home. Perhaps he has decided that this is not a fight worth the safety of his family (especially when there are others who believe in the fight who have not come up to the forefront because they believe others will do this for them). Or maybe it is because the face of NSFOC has now expanded to hundreds of people (and you can no longer will be able to beat up just one person---which probably scares the hell out of you!).

The community (especially the few people from Brookdale that run NSFOCfraud.com and spend all day populating this blog with ugliness and vile but state they live somewhere else to make it look like their group is more than a few who have been pulled from WVHS to go to Metea) have really demonstrated what a tolerant and great place this community is.

Really a shame that there are people, even in Naperville, that think it is okay to act like thugs and lowlifes. You can certainly have an objection about the lawsuit, or to the position of NSFOC or the people who have spoken in public (where are the people hiding behind NSFOCfraud.com?). However, there are also civilized ways of addressing your disagreement (even if it rises to the level of disgust) that DO NOT INVOLVE SWEARING ON THE PHONE TO A 10 YEAR OLD!

I will give you a hint of who these vile and hateful people are...they wear orange--and now white-- shirts and want to make you believe that they have an idea of what NSFOC stands for.

Yet, I challenge anyone to listen to the speech given during the first NSFOC meeting (with 200 people) and show me one place where they talk about boundaries or not wanting to go to WVHS. Find just one place! I would implore the Sun to post the entire speech on their site in that I think that this would expose those who are continuing to spew hatred and ugliness as their only defense.

I am glad that the District is slowing down. I am hopeful that they will start to engage in decisions that are thoughtful and lead to safe and fiscally responsible decisions for the community. I just contributed to NSFOC.org because I will no longer be intimidated by those who think they can bully the community to unwittingly sign on to their own precious self interests.

So here it comes!!!! "TG and White Eagle are racists"...."They are elitists"......"They do not want to go to WVHS"......"Shawn Collins is a thief" ....."NSFOC is stealing your money"...."They are suing us".....

So a little telathon.. For the next 24 hours, after you make your donation to NSFOC, send a quick email to the site (email address on the site) saying that it is being made on behalf of NSFOCfraud and those who find it acceptable to make them who threats and incite horrible things to those they disagree with. Donate $1...it does not matter. Have a voice and let's show them who the real silent majority is!

I have to agree with Harris Farm...everything the NSFOC has done has proven that this is all about collecting money to pay for their self serving cause. Mr Collins is a self claimed environmental attorney and yet he cannot seem to answer basic claims the NSFOC brings up. If the truth was out there that people were sending their money just to keep the Tall Grass kids from attending WVHS, the moeny would dry up. Why wasn't the NSFOC set up to include "membership" that would be represented as a whole by the attorney. They way the NSFOC is set up, the chosen vocal Tall Grass property owners collect the money to support only the result they seek. Sorry donors, your money is not going to support your concerns unless you live in Tall Grass.

I vote NSFOC uses the monies to pay for their next lawsuit against Naperville and the developer after the environmental studies are released within their own neighborhood.

To: BINGO on March 25, 2008 11:50 AM

I vote that monies can be given to the "ambulance chaser/personal injury" lawyer for their losing the lawsuit.

To "An Inconvenient Truth for NSFOC": Thanks for reposting my original blog entry with the Andrews' tape/confession. I believe its important that everyone (on both sides of the argument) see and understand what the original intent for the NSFOC was/is.
This whole issue simmered within a small group of neighbors in the Tall Grass subdivision. When the BB site fell thru, and the board recommended that TG (and WE) be re-districted to WVHS due to overcrowding, they nominated one of their own (Todd) to speak for them at the board meeting. The proof is in the tape.
>> http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/Subpage.aspx/OnDemandVideo (go to 58:12)

When I first saw the tape in mid-February, I fully understood and even sympathized with Todd on his situation. He actually came thru as a genuinely concerned parent and was certainly within his rights to plead his case. But then a few weeks later, I heard about the lawsuit and couldn't believe my eyes and ears. There he was, the lead spokesman for this new group called NSFOC, at the WE clubhouse, spewing the same message about boundaries and NV/WV, urging folks to write checks to pay for their attorney. To me, its one thing to express an opinion and be passionate about it, but to be so self-centered as to solicit money from gullible folks who actually believe that this is more than a personal agenda for a few select folks who cling onto their notion of self-entitlement is UNBELIEVABLE.
My kids will ultimately go to the new MVHS, which will be built in my backyard. Am I concerned about the perceived environmental issues with the site? Absolutely! Am I willing to reserve my opinion and judgement until AFTER the Phase II studies and remediation procedures have been detailed out? OF COURSE!! That would be the sane and normal thing to do.
Ultimately, I hope that the new high school is built on a site that is safe for all the kids and makes sense in the district, regardless of whether it gets built on Eola or somewhere else. Trust me, I won't be crying foul and trying to recuit my neighbors to help me with a senseless lawsuit against my SB.

Btw, anyone else notice that Todd Andrews' is keeping a really low profile lately? Seems like the NSFOC and the lawyers decided it was best for him and them that he not be portrayed as their leader/spokesman. Wonder if the tape had anything to do with that decision since their platform du jour is environmental safety and he had nothing to say about that.

To: Timing is everything....

Yeah, I have a question. When will the NSFOC be required to pay back the money to their membership if their lawsuit fails. My guess is never.

To: Anonymous on March 25, 2008 10:07 AM

This timeline (taken from a previous blogger) sums things up quite nicely.

October 2007: Brach-Brodie is abandonded due to cost. Yet there is no outcry from NSFOC insisting that MVHS be built on this specific parcel of land. Heck, at this point there is no NSFOC.

January 21, 2008: Eola is announced as the new site for MVHS. Yet there is no outcry from NSFOC insisting that this location is unsafe. Heck, at this point there is no NSFOC.

February 13: Boundaries for MVHS are announced. And, lo and behold, a few weeks later NSFOC is formed, a rally is organized, an attorney is hired, frenzied parents are stuffing cookie jars full of their neighbors' money.

Any Questions?

Au contraire, Anonymous on March 25, 2008 10:07 AM

It's on tape! Todd Andrews states it better than ANYONE else from NSFOC could.

The ORIGINAL reason NSFOC was formed was to dispute the boundaries. Something they vehemently deny, because it's an unpopular platform to run on. That's when NSFOC started to try to pull in other reasons for people to join NSFOC. My personal favorite was the "unsafe RR crossings", get real.

You're not going to win this one.

It IS about the boundaries and EVERYONE knows it!

To the members of NSFOC please explain something for me because I'm trying to understand. There are 4 items within your lawsuit that you are requesting of the Defendant (IPSD204) please explain.

(a) Order Defendant to purchase the Brach-Brodie property for the purpose of developing a high school site thereon.

If this is the only option of where to build a high school (according to NSFOC) why would you do this to yourselves? At the price that BB is requesting the IPSD does not have enough money to complete the school. If they did build the school at the BB property something would have to be cut like the swimming pool or the theatre or the football flield. Otherwise the IPSD would surely have to come back to the district and request more money and I highly doubt that referendum would pass and then we would have a 3rd high school that didn't meet the standards of NV or WV.

(b) Order Defendant to refrain from doing anything inconsistent with the purchase of the BB property, including the purchasing of the EM property or the construction of a school thereon.

Again, the IPSD did everything in their power to purchase the BB property and the price tag is too high. So is this just a stall tactic? So if it was being built on the BB property you wouldn't have a problem with them if they were currently building?

(c) In the even Defendant is unable to purchase the BB property, order it to return the money they have already collected from the March 21, 2006 Bond Referendum and cnjoin(sp?) it from further collccting(sp?) money from the taxpayers.

So if it can't be built on the BB property don't build it at all? But if they do build it there the money isn't there to complete it, correct? If they don't build it do you think this protects you from not attending WV? Our schools are already overcrowded would you not agree? Should we be known in the state that as the district that has 2 high schools that are overcrowded? How will that affect all of our home values? I urge you to look at the numbers of students and we are growing. Sure things start to decline in 2011 or 2012 but that is a couple of hundred students at NV. WV still remains constant on their attendance levels. Why should all the students suffer if the 3rd HS can't be built at the BB property? Remember this does not ensure that children of TG or WE will not attend WVHS at some point in the future.

(d) Aware Plaintiffs its attorney's fees and costs.

Then on top of it all you want to have the IPSD pay your attorny fees? How is this being fiscally responsible and caring about your school district. You claim that the school board has not been forthcoming with information and has not been fiscally responsible have your eyes been closed? Where were you the past 2 years when the IPSD board members were sharing everything on their website and in the papers and in our kids backpacks? They were forthcoming with all the information and in some cases let us know what their next plans were. They won every battle for the BB property except for the last and most important battle to aquire the land at a price that we could afford. Those board members don't get paid remember and they took time away from their familes to do everything in their power to get the BB property. At the last boundary meeting which lasted 5 hours they spent the last 45 minutes apologizing to the residents of TG. So for their being open and honest and fighting the battle as best as they could you decide to sue. Then you wonder why people in the district are mad at you?

I urge every member of the NSFOC to review the 4 points above and is this what you really wan to support? A 3rd high school only at the BB property and if it does get built it will be missing quite a few things such as a swimming pool or football field. If a 3rd high school does not get built are you willing for your kids to be in overcrowded high schools and our property values will surely be affected. Can you be sure you still won't have to attend WVHS? If this is what you are trying to avoid can you be sure this lawsuit protects you of that?

These are the tough questions for the NSFOC?? I wish the Sun would ask these questions.

An Inconvenient Truth for NSFOC on March 24, 2008 5:22 PM

"I am re-blogging Harris Farm Resident on March 20, 2008 9:10 AM because some of you NSFOC supporters MUST have missed this."

_______________________________________________________________

Obviously, your not looking at the whole picture. Sure, people wanted to stay close to where they live. Don't you? No one missed anything.

The NSFOC was formed once they found out that MV was possibly being built on a hazardous site. Sure they formed later, so what! They are concerned parents about the way TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT and if the school board will not listen maybe this will get their attention.

Get a grip it is not about attending WV even though you would like everyone to think your way. It is about a SCHOOL BOARD BEING ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

NO ONE IS BEING DUPED..........EXCEPT MAYBE YOU BY THE SCHOOL BOARD!

These 2 need to be read together to see what is really happening.

By An Inconvenient Truth for NSFOC on March 24, 2008 5:22 PM
I am re-blogging Harris Farm Resident on March 20, 2008 9:10 AM because some of you NSFOC supporters MUST have missed this.

You have been duped by Todd Andrews and the rest of the NSFOC mob. And now you're so deep in BS you can't see your way out
_________________________________________________________________

Bull-crap! Watch the video from the SB's 1/28 meeting (see link below). Todd Andrew makes his passionate plea as to why the SB should consider keeping TG residents with Neuqua and not re-district them to Waubonsie.Go to 58:12 where you will see Todd talk at length about boundaries, their proximity to NV, the TG bridge and why his children should go to Neuqua as opposed to WV.

http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/Subpage.aspx/OnDemandVideo

Funny how this lawsuit only came about AFTER TG/WE were re-districted to WVHS - why wasn't the commute time an issue with these folks when they were supposed to go to MVHS on the BB site?
__________________________________________________________________

By Anonymous on March 24, 2008 3:00 PM
By anonymous on March 24, 2008 2:22 PM
Has anybody noticed that the NSFOC is taking donations and not corporate owners (shareholders) to their organization?

Has anybody realized that this gives the NSFOC the right to settle the case for the settlement that they think benefits the precious few who actually own the group?

Has anybody realized that their attorney only represents the owners of the NSFOC and does not represent the donors of the NSFOC?

Does anybody realize their attorney can mislead the donors of the NSFOC in order to protect the best interests of the owners of the NSFOC?

The NSFOC has already heard from their attorney that the environmental issues will be resolved but need to play the environmental card to keep the suckers donating money.

The uninformed are the easiest to scam.

Fools and their money are easily parted.

so this will end if D204 allows the select few from Tall Grass to stay at Nequa? They can claim victory by saying the environmental issues are resolved and it was the NSFOC who saw to it the district cleaned it up. They can be heroes even though the environmental issues were going to be resolved prior to the lawsuit.

That does make sense. Why else would an attorney take a case he knows would cost millions when the clients have a few thousand dollars?

That also explains why the owners of NSFOC say on their website that some of the money collected will go for security

NSFOC = Naive Suckers Financing Obvious Charlatans

I am re-blogging Harris Farm Resident on March 20, 2008 9:10 AM because some of you NSFOC supporters MUST have missed this.

You have been duped by Todd Andrews and the rest of the NSFOC mob. And now you're so deep in BS you can't see your way out
_________________________________________________________________

Bull-crap! Watch the video from the SB's 1/28 meeting (see link below). Todd Andrew makes his passionate plea as to why the SB should consider keeping TG residents with Neuqua and not re-district them to Waubonsie.Go to 58:12 where you will see Todd talk at length about boundaries, their proximity to NV, the TG bridge and why his children should go to Neuqua as opposed to WV.

http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/Subpage.aspx/OnDemandVideo

Funny how this lawsuit only came about AFTER TG/WE were re-districted to WVHS - why wasn't the commute time an issue with these folks when they were supposed to go to MVHS on the BB site?

Anonymous on March 24, 2008 2:08 PM

From the Herald....

Before the referendum, the district acquired 25 acres for the school--at a cost of $257,500 per acre--from two trusts, including the estate of the late candy heiress Helen Brach.
The district sought the remaining 55 acres from the trusts for the same price and later upped its offer to $260,000 per acre, but the Brach trust contends that the parcel is worth $600,000 per acre........
District officials maintained that even if they obtained the quick take power, they would pay whatever price the jury determined for the property. But a lobbyist representing the land trusts
"We believe that we have sufficient funds available through referendum or other sources to pay fair market value of the property," Crouse told lawmakers.

I support holding our Board and District accountable. I also do not support our Board and School Administration continue to spend my tax monies (millions and millions and millions and millions on legal fees and accepting untold liability for backing out of BB and speeding ahead with building a school on the EOLA land without perfroming reasonable due diligence).

I also financially support the NSFOC cause because it is about my children and about the future of my community. I hope that others that feel the same way will take the time to contribute as well (even $2.04 dollars will make a difference in that it allows for your voice to be heard).

______________________________________________________

I AM WITH YOU ALL THE WAY!! The school board did not want to listen to the people and they continually lie to us. We need to do whatever it takes. Thanks for your hard work NSFOC. It's truly appreciated.

By anonymous on March 24, 2008 2:22 PM
Has anybody noticed that the NSFOC is taking donations and not corporate owners (shareholders) to their organization?

Has anybody realized that this gives the NSFOC the right to settle the case for the settlement that they think benefits the precious few who actually own the group?

Has anybody realized that their attorney only represents the owners of the NSFOC and does not represent the donors of the NSFOC?

Does anybody realize their attorney can mislead the donors of the NSFOC in order to protect the best interests of the owners of the NSFOC?

The NSFOC has already heard from their attorney that the environmental issues will be resolved but need to play the environmental card to keep the suckers donating money.

The uninformed are the easiest to scam.

Fools and their money are easily parted.

so this will end if D204 allows the select few from Tall Grass to stay at Nequa? They can claim victory by saying the environmental issues are resolved and it was the NSFOC who saw to it the district cleaned it up. They can be heroes even though the environmental issues were going to be resolved prior to the lawsuit.

That does make sense. Why else would an attorney take a case he knows would cost millions when the clients have a few thousand dollars?

That also explains why the owners of NSFOC say on their website that some of the money collected will go for security.

Has anybody noticed that the NSFOC is taking donations and not corporate owners (shareholders) to their organization?

Has anybody realized that this gives the NSFOC the right to settle the case for the settlement that they think benefits the precious few who actually own the group?

Has anybody realized that their attorney only represents the owners of the NSFOC and does not represent the donors of the NSFOC?

Does anybody realize their attorney can mislead the donors of the NSFOC in order to protect the best interests of the owners of the NSFOC?

The NSFOC has already heard from their attorney that the environmental issues will be resolved but need to play the environmental card to keep the suckers donating money.

The uninformed are the easiest to scam.

Fools and their money are easily parted.

From the Herald....

Before the referendum, the district acquired 25 acres for the school--at a cost of $257,500 per acre--from two trusts, including the estate of the late candy heiress Helen Brach.
The district sought the remaining 55 acres from the trusts for the same price and later upped its offer to $260,000 per acre, but the Brach trust contends that the parcel is worth $600,000 per acre........
District officials maintained that even if they obtained the quick take power, they would pay whatever price the jury determined for the property. But a lobbyist representing the land trusts
"We believe that we have sufficient funds available through referendum or other sources to pay fair market value of the property," Crouse told lawmakers.

I support holding our Board and District accountable. I also do not support our Board and School Administration continue to spend my tax monies (millions and millions and millions and millions on legal fees and accepting untold liability for backing out of BB and speeding ahead with building a school on the EOLA land without perfroming reasonable due diligence).

I also financially support the NSFOC cause because it is about my children and about the future of my community. I hope that others that feel the same way will take the time to contribute as well (even $2.04 dollars will make a difference in that it allows for your voice to be heard).

To: Here's a thought: Why not have a debate? A public debate about the 3rd. H.S. and the recent decision? Rent out a large space and bring in speakers. Sponsor the discussion as a Naperville Sun Community Forum whereby readers, residents and professionals can discuss.

Great idea Mark...

However, I expect that the Board and District would never go for it.

If they have nothing to hide, why should the pending lawsuit have anything to do with being willing to share facts and stand behind their position?

So it is not the pending the lawsuit....it is because I am not sure how long of a debate you can have while avoiding the facts.

How will the Board address each and every one of their previous statements, flyers, community meetings, site plan recomendations, email promises, phone promises... (by calling TG and WE elitists and stating that anyone who disagrees with the Board and District have an issue with WVHS?.)

And does not the argument that we can not base actions going forward on the wishes of those who are so selfish to have voted based on boundaries beg the question as to why boundaries were announced before the 2nd referendum was voted on anyway?? Remember, you may not like the reasons, but the first referednum FAILED and the consultants told the District it was because the voters needed to know where the school was going to be built and what the boundaries would be!!!

Looks like the frauders argument is that the Board and District did not like the reason that the first referendum failed, so they were willing to say anything to get the second referendum passed. Sounds like real fraud to me.

First, thank you to the Sun for providing space in the publication for back and forth. The Sun and their Editors are able to disregard and understand the passion (rude in some cases) and continue on.

Here's a thought: Why not have a debate? A public debate about the 3rd. H.S. and the recent decision? Rent out a large space and bring in speakers. Sponsor the discussion as a Naperville Sun Community Forum whereby readers, residents and professionals can discuss.

We live in a community that deserves to have a proper forum on the topics.

anonymous on March 23, 2008 11:32 AM

Call me a sucker!:)

After reading these blogs, I am so in on the lawsuit!

For those of you above, if you are really that worried about the $204.00 I beleive I read, then you need to stop blogging and get a job.

Also, I personally don't care if it isn't tax deductable that's one night out for us. Anyway, I would willingly spend my $204.00 to find out that the land is safe and the power lines are safe so kids can go to school and not be harmed in any way.

Moderator Jim to Anonymous: I don't know how many times I have to say it...the poll was always labeled "unscientific." As to your contention that people stopped voting because it was unfair or not legit - I really doubt that, as evidenced by the high number of voters.

Moderator...I think you meant to say "votes" as opposed to "voters", in that it seems like the vote trend significantly changed once it was posted how to cheat and vote multiple times on the NSFOCfraud.web site (I actually misunderstood that this group was sponsoring a "how to" website until this post came up...now I get the fraud reference).

I think it is a very unscientific conclusion to say that there were suddenly a high number of voters after these cheating instructions were posted and circulated around by the fraud folks.

I did not see similar instructions on the NSFOC site, so not unfair to assume that the gigantic swing that took place for the no's was due to a combo of multiple voting and a disinterest by those on the yes side because of the insignificance of the results given the introduction of cheating ((at least unscientifically). To the extent there was more "no" vote activity after the first few days, I also think Ms. Tyle using her official influence to garner many to vote "no" for the specific stated reason of impacting ongoing litigation, probably had some input as well (and you would expect that her official position would result in some voting activity from her followers,neighbors and Daily Herald journalist friend).

Regardless, pretty amazing that even in the "unscientific poll" that garnered its own story in Sunday's paper, AND EVEN WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE, AT LEAST 1/3 of the Sun readers who voted (over 1,000) support the lawsuit (wow!). Thus, the 33% results are pretty remarkable in that even many NSFOC supporters wish the Board would have slowed down and used due diligence so we could have avoided a lawsuit as well (however, with the announced March 10th...and then March 19th closing dates, there was little choice).

to anonymous at 12:40.

do a little homework and be informed. Or continue to be uninformed and easily scammed.

Of all the chemicals your elitist group lists that may be at the Eola site, all can be remediated. That can be established without seeing the phase I or Phase II reports. Midwest Gen has already said that all remediation will be done with IL EPA oversight. They didn't even need to say that, since that is the law in Illinois.

if you have money to throw away, donate it to a worthy charity. The NSFOC is a few self centered residents at Tall Grass that are preying on the uninformed and then donating that money to an attorney that has already told the forming members of the NSFOC that they cannot win...the best they can hope for is an extra year at NVHS.

what do they say about a fool and his money?

To: Anonymous on March 23, 2008 6:06 PM

I beg to differ.

Maybe the NSFOC people stopped voting when it became apparent that they could no longer flaunt the fact that they were "ahead" in the voting. Yes, you heard right, they were flaunting it and claiming the authenticity of the poll - we all read about that.

After the community at large became aware that there was a poll and began voting, then the NSFOC decried that the poll was...
1. Flawed
2. Unscientific
3. Everyone voting "yes" was cheating

Funny how these things weren't so when (early on in the voting) the NSFOC was showing 75% in agreement with the poll. The early lead did not last long otherwise I am certain that NSFOC would have rallied behind the results in an attempt to garner additional support for their losing cause.

This is yet another feable attempt by NSFOC supporters to bastardize the truth. The truth being that despite the NSFOC claims, most of us do not support your ever-changing reasons for the lawsuit.

this so called "poll" was not conducted fairly and many stopped voting because of it

Poll: Respondents oppose lawsuit against school
March 23, 2008
By Tim Waldorf twaldorf@scn1.com
By a 2-to-1 margin, respondents to an unscientific online poll said they oppose the lawsuit a parent group has filed against the board of Indian Prairie School District 204.
More than 2,000 voters, or 67 percent, said they didn't agree with the lawsuit, which has been filed by Neighborhood Schools for Our Children. The remaining 33 percent said they did agree.
The survey was conducted on napersun.com starting March 10 and ending Friday. Voters in the poll were not chosen based on a scientific, random sample of the district's population.
The suit demands that the district build Metea Valley High School on the Brach-Brodie property at 75th Street and Route 59. The district originally intended to build the school on 80 acres there, and, after a earlier condemnation suit, it even purchased 25 acres of the site for a jury-determined price of $6.5 million.
But the jury in the district's latest condemnation suit settled on a much higher price for the remaining 55-acre parcel. It ruled the district would have to pay the Brach-Brodie trust $31 million for the land. That's twice as much as the district expected to pay. So it abandoned the suit, and found another site for Metea - 87 acres at Eola and Molitor roads in Aurora. The district believes it can purchase this property for $16.5 million, adequately address any environmental problems presented by the site, speed up construction, and still open the 3,000-seat school to freshmen and sophomores in the fall of 2009.

To anonymous on March 23, 2008 11:32 AM

Why don't you argue the facts instead of name calling.

What proof do you have that the site is safe? Is your proof a non-existent environmental report? What was tested in the Phase I/II environmental report? Is your proof an IL EPA letter that we haven't seen either?

Can you argue that the school board has a $20 Million lawsuit hanging over their head?
Can you argue the fact that the Eola site will increase busing costs over the 40 plus year lifespan of the school ?

It's easy to name call when you want to distract others from the real facts at hand.

to the suckers who send money to NSFOC.

Have any of you been told what their attorney is telling them?

There is no case law supporting their fight.

There are no toxins or chemicals suspected at the site that cannot be remediated.

The more they fuss about the Eola site being unsafe, the more money they raise to pay the attorney regardless of the fact that any environmental attorney will tell you the Eola site can be remediated. Their attorney has doubt told them the best they can hope for is a delay in the opening of the new school and he can arange that if they can scare enough people to keep donating money.

The select few that started the lawsuit only started the lawsuit to keep their entitled children at NVHS for as long as possible.

That your donation are not and never will be tax deductable (and they already know this if they filed their paperwork with the stae and feds. If they have not, this opens up a new can of worms).

I have admit it is great to see so many people sending money to keep the entitled few at the school of their choice. Proves the fact that the uninformed are the easiest to scam.

Anonymous on March 22, 2008 12:16 AM

I whole heartedly support the lawsuit filed by NSFOC. I am not a White Eagle or Tall Grass resident.
__________________________________

I couldn't agree more with what you wrote. I want the children who attend any school to be safe. I'm sorry but I don't see how anyone can possibly think the land is safe. The SB needs to be held accountable for this if they move forward without getting these answers.

HAPPY EASTER EVERYONE!! I HOPE YOU ALL HAVE A WONDERFUL TIME WITH YOU FAMILY TODAY.

To: Thank you SB March 22, 2008 7:58 pm

You are joking right?

Your analogy would have to have a few edits in order to apply it to our little vacation in 204.

When you were planning the European vacation you lied to your wife and said although the travel agents told you the trip was going to cost you up to $600/person you were not going to pay that... no way! You were going to get that for half price. You were so stubborn and arrogant that you actually filed a suit against the travel agent and hired lobbyist and paid thousands to try and get that trip for your fantasy price.

All along despite several friends encouraging you to look at other options you plowed ahead since you knew better. You did not need options you were getting the trip for $257/person. Stop worrying; I know what I'm doing.

When you found out that the travel agent was right and you would have to pay the $600/person you immediately planned a trip for the family to a destination you said you'd never go because it was so dangerous. You booked the trip without consulting your family.

The travel agents called and said you now had a cancellation fee of thousands of dollars. Actually, three times as much as the deposit you paid. You tell your wife not to worry. They'll never get that much from us. I know better I am Mark the wise Monarch.

She begs you not to book the new trip until you know how much you need to pay since she knows you don't have the money. You ignore her and in fact tell her that despite telling her you're broke and need a raise that you actually do have $91,000 extra in the bank and so there is plenty of money to blow on the trip. She then asks why the new destination is OK when you said yourself it was dangerous and you'd never take your family there. What changed Mark, Mark never replies. He tells his wife I know best and will make all the plans in my executive session. Trust me, look at my history. I know best and I know more than you and your friends.

I think this story sounds a bit more like the nightmare we're all living now... Sorry, but I can’t tip my hat to these guys yet.

to anonymous at 12:16....

I don't know how people in cambridge chase and stonebridge can sleep at night with the constant explosions and zombified cancer victims invading their neighborhoods nightly.......

Think of it this way....You promise your kids an amazing European vacation this summer but guess what the bonus this year wasn't what we expected, the price of gas is hitting hard on the wallet and oops we owe US so this year we will take a vacation but we need to be fiscally responsible and take a cheaper vacation. You still get your vacation kids but we will stay in US and visit some of our beautiful National Parks.

It's a win win for the kids because they get their vacation and are happy to be with mom and dad. Momd & Dad are happy because they didn't go into debt. They are showing their kids that we can still have a vacation without going into debt. Now here's a life lesson for your kids.

Thank you SB for looking out for all taxpayers in IPSD 204! Love the fact that you care about those of us who know longer have children in the schools but are still paying for them.

My hats off to you!

Mr. Howie Krause you should be held accountable for voting for a third high school only if you got it. That's not what demoracy is about - oneself.

Another quote from the past (make it 3002 NSFOC supporters)...

> The referendum presented to the community was based on the Brach-Brodie
> land and boundaries were determined. Those boundaries would no longer be
> in effect if the location of the school changed. In our opinion, the
> location of the land and boundaries are contributing factors to why people
> voted as they did. A promise was made to the community and the community
> supported the district by passing the referendum.

Mr. Howie Krause

You mean fraud like elected officials misrepresenting after time after time to get a referendum passed after it failed the first time, land contracts signed, etc. Does that mean that there may be a fraud case available against some of the Board members and Dr. D individually?? Interesting...thanks NSFOCfraud folks (but doubt that the parents behind NSFOC would ever stoop to that level and you will not find directions on how to cheat in polls, or directions to Dr. D's house to incite horrible things on the NSFOC website).

I think NSFOC has indicated that it has applied for non-profit status and that it may or may be granted. Should be very careful of alleging someone has committed fraud unless you have real facts to base it on.

I think there will be a few hours of silence in that I heard the Brookdale Easter egg hunt is this afternoon (being sponsored by the mild mannered folks at NSFOCfraud.com). At least the inane comments should slow down for awhile. Make sure you pick up all of the orange eggs...

Who's self interest now(and by the way...where are the names of the NSFOCfraud folks...or are they too busy laying Easter eggs).

to anonymous March 22 at 12:16 am

I have to take exception to your claim of "PROBABLE AND ALMOST CERTAIN exposure to toxins and radiation." 3 years ago that looked at the property line stopping at Midwest Gen. The notion was that the peaker plant would have been operating while children attended school. Now, three years later, the plan includes removing the peaker plant and remediatng the land. That is what has changed.

In regard to your attorney you think so highly, I;m sure you are aware that many corporations find it cheaper to settle a lawsuit than fight it. If Mr Collins is willing to share a list of the suits he has prepared, I would like to review to see how many were nuisance suits settled like or full blown court battles like hs has to handle here.

Your attorney is also actively campaigning to scare more dollars to line his pockets. I hope he billed the NSFOC for his time at teh Naperville Sun this week. As an environmental attorney, he can tell you that the toxin issues can be remediated. But he needs to scare more people to donate money. He knows the NSFOC will run out of money in the next couple of weeks. Oh, they will run out of money since it will have all been paid to him.

to clarify the point of finding out who the NSFOC supporters are via paypal and checks...if they are a nonprofit, they are responsible to account for where every dollar comes from and where every dollar goes. Don't believe for a minute that a dozen or so people in the district won't be asking for the IRS to keep an eye on thier paperwork. We are entitiled to request copies of thier financials in the state of Illinois - if that is where they incorporated. The directors of this non for profit will personally responsible for fraud if fraud is found. Being a corporation will not protect them individually.

To by Welcome bac X TG,,,, Wow, calling people trash now - after you've been responsible, in part, for trashing the reputation of your own neighborhood.

I whole heartedly support the lawsuit filed by NSFOC. I am not a White Eagle or Tall Grass resident. I therefore cannot be labeled , as so many of you have labeled others, Waubonsie-phobic. I have neices who attended W.V, I've no problem with it.I am ashamed of all of you people who claim that this lawsuit is frivalous and all about snobbery. Don't ANY of you people realize the potential danger to your children, to OUR children in the community if they are forced to attend a school that sits on land which has housed a power plant, gas lines and petroleum tanks ? Don't ANY of you realize how IRRESPONSIBLY the District Superintendent and the school board have behaved in the last 3 years and how much of our $$$ THEY have thrown away trying to force a quick-take and steal the BB estate at a fraction of it's worth? DON"T any of you realize that as a result of that fiasco, we, the taxpayers own a 25 acre parcel of swamp-land that sits on that property because the district bought it without being anywhere close to closing on the remaining acres? What are we to do with that land now, stupid, stupid move by our District that so many of you worship. The district has forced the NSFOC to sue because they are once again plowing ahead irresponsibly to break ground on a site that they themselves disqualified from their site- selection phase in 2005 because of PROBABLE AND ALMOST CERTAIN exposure to toxins and radiation. But now, just 3 yrs. later, what...those dangers magically disappeared??? How can anyone who cares about or children's health support the school board. PEOPLE, LISTEN...either we stop them now or we might possibly be facing a much more costly and tragic dilemna in the future. Have you ever heard of cancer clusters? Have you EVER lost a family member to cancer caused by toxins? I have. SO HOW DARE YOU SUPPORT this group of jerks rushing to build on this site !!!
For those of you who refer to Mr. Collins, this groups atty., as an ass, I think you better do your homework. He has a brilliant record defending and winning suits against corporations who have exposed residents to toxins which have caused cancer. He is a man of integrity. He doesn't take frivalous lawsuits. His stellar reputation comes from helping the little guy. I would also like to point out to all you uncaring parents who seem only to be interested in attacking this group because they live in fncy houses, that I am a life-long 5th gen. Napervillian, who is NOT a member of any group, pro or con. I am however, sick to death of the arrogance and the power hungry school board and our super. of LESS than 2 years who think they know what this district wants and needs without bothering to listen to public opinion. I , for one, would like a new referendum. I do not now and have never believed that a 3rd high school is needed. Our enrollment #'s are down, we are in the middle of a full blown RECESSION people ( according to Alan Greenspan and Warren Buffet) This is not the time to be building a new school. Sometimes our kids just have to make do. Classes are not overcrowded, the avg. size is 27 students. Big deal if the halls get a little crowded during passing periods. WE DON"T NEED A 3rd school. We don't need a school built on a toxic site. We don't need to be bullied by a board and newby superintendent.
WE need to hold them accountable for their actions and stop this group of egomaniacs!!!! STOP AND THINK PEOPLE! Better teachers not more schools !!! Listen to a nearly 50 year resident who thought she'd seen it all until a guy named Daeschner waltzed into town and immediately thought he owned the place. NO NEW SCHOOL !!!

By anonymous on March 21, 2008 4:34 PM
Kudos, Kate. You have the courage to say what the rest of us have been too cowardly to say. I am waiting for the Tall Grass people to sue to have the Illinois delegates switched from Obama to Clinton. For environmental reasons of course.
__________________________________________

Actually, I'm looking into a way to have the Illinois Obama delegates switched over to John McCain.

For all the right reasons, of course.

McCain is a great candidate. A true American Hero!

It's going to be real expensive for the 200 people in the NSFOC when we file the class action lawsuit. We are going to form a class action to collect the wasted tax dollars used by the school district in defending this fraudulant suit if they lose. To the NSFOC you can hid behind your attorny and your non-profit status, but if you donated by paypal or check we will find you.

Yes, this is America and you have the right to sue, but the people who disagree with you or are harmed by your suit also have the right to sue back if you lose.

That why the NSFOC people are hiding. Ask Mr. Collens if you could be sued for damages if you lose.

To Dan in Tall Grass--How nice to hear from an adult! I completely agree. I think the SB is being reckless and should wait just a couple of weeks to get BB resolved before making another commitment.

By Kate on March 21, 2008 12:04 PM
"Dress it up how you will, but this is about wealthy lilly-white naperville parents"

By anonymous on March 21, 2008 4:34 PM
"Kudos, Kate. You have the courage"

You two disgust me. Maybe, you should move out of Aurora, Bolingbrook, or Naperville. No one wants people in these areas to even associate with people who say such derogatory things. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I happen to know for a fact that their are alot of different ethnic groups that attend NVHS and all of them are wonderful students who are well mannered and would never stup to such a level.

By X Tall Grass Resident on March 20, 2008 7:01 PM

We actually moved out of TG because we thought alot of the residents (OF COURSE NOT ALL OF THEM) were very low class and self serving.
**********************
I doubt you ever lived in Tall Grass. It is a great community with people who care just like all neighborhoods in the district.

There are goofs though in every neighborhood so if you did live here and moved theres one less goof in TG.

Please come back though whenever you like. Maybe during a garage sale or better yet on trash day. You can find some great stuff to decorate your trailer home.

Dan, A Tall Grass Resident on March 21, 2008 12:38 PM

I couldn't agree more!

Kudos, Kate. You have the courage to say what the rest of us have been too cowardly to say. I am waiting for the Tall Grass people to sue to have the Illinois delegates switched from Obama to Clinton. For environmental reasons of course.

To Garbarge on: Sweetheart I am from the South Side of Chicago. I did not expect to see that in Tall Grass, that was my point, since everyone there is so "upper class". I am glad I moved as well.

To Just wondering on March 21, 2008 11:59 AM :
Please don't mention terrorism -- we'll have video of the planes crashing into the WTC on the NSFOC site next. After all, planes fly over that site EVERY DAY.

By what a joke on March 20, 2008 8:08 AM
Mr. Andrews is right it is not about his kids and those of the NSFOC (90% of which are TG and WE residents) attending NVHS. It is about those kids NOT attending WVHS. They have made that perfectly clear!!! Look at their own lawsuit. It's the BB property or nothing as far as they are concerned. Nice try Mr. Andrews but you can't fool the majority of the district, they can see right through your smoke screen. Everyone look at the lawsuit, it's BB or nothing or return the money to the taxpayers. Well, that's not an option Mr. Andrews, we voted on the referendum for a 3rd high school not the location of a third high school. You and the group you claim you are just a member of are holding the rest of the district hostage and for that no one will ever forgive you. It's really a shame since the IPSD has done nothing but try and aquire the land for BB and up until the last judgement won every decision prior to that. The IPSD now can't afford the BB property and it's time to move on to another location. I'm disappointed that the Sun would even consider interviewing such a minority voice. Then again Mr. Andrews and the NSFOC is more concerned about their own desires and wants then the district. Thanks NSFOC for suing US!!!

By Calll it as I see it on March 20, 2008 8:17 AM
Of course it is not about Neuqua--it's all about Waubonsie Valley and NSFOC supporters' desire to do anything humanly possible to prevent their children from going there.

By MH on March 20, 2008 8:21 AM
What do I make of Andrews position? Trying to defend the obvious (that NSFOC is truly about boundaries).

Also, I thought previously they said had "thousands" in their ranks.
Appears to be the same ~200 from weeks ago............

The above posts have it accurate folks. Here's yet another fine example of this group's abominable attempts to send their kids anywhere but WV. Yes,it's about boundaries ...SAD BUT TRUE!!!

An email was sent to me by a friend in the south dated Jan.16, 2008. It's author is a Mr. Greg A. and he spent much time and effort putting together a lengthy email and spread sheet with boundaries worked out for the Macom site.
He states he "strongly disagrees with the Eola site"."Presumably Fry&White Eagle would be shifted out of Neuqua and in to Waubonsie". He goes on to provide numbers and how they could gerry rig to send Fry, White Eagle and 4 other schools to Metea on the Macom site and leave the current schools today at WV.
Further down,"However, the district administrators'(Eola) plan would cause major disruptions on the south end of the district with the aforementioned shift of WE and Fry students presently attending Neuqua to Waubonsie.This disruption to students will not be soothed by happy parents excited about the impact on their home values.Instead, it is likely to cause LAWSUITS, CALLS FOR A NEW REFERENDUM with the potential to delay the project..." (resulting in more costs). Lastly, he states, "...put Metea in south NAPERVILLE at the Macom site where it belongs. If you don't I'm also quite confident that you will face a horrendous public uproar from the southern Naperville residents...".

This is just the beginning for this district. Daschener loves bigger class sizes, and says our teachers are spoiled. Just wait = it will get worse as long as he's in power.

First, to all the people, on either side, that are verbally attacking the other side just because they have a different opinion than yours, you should be ashamed.

Second, I recognize the people on the north side have been driving down to Waubonsie forever. True, you moved there, but it is really cool for you to get a school built on the north side. I don't begrudge you for liking it. I think it is reasonable to hope the NSFOC fails to stop it.

Third, I have spoken to a lot of people about Waubonsie. There are some reasons why I like Waubonsie. It's a fine school. I know a lot of people and kids that go there. They are pretty much all good people (some aren't so great, but hey, I have relatives that aren't so great). I good friend of mine's daughter is going Notre Dame next year so obviously, you can do pretty good coming out of WV.

Fourth, would I prefer to have my son go to NV. Of course... it is less than a mile away. I can see the stadium lights in the fall and hear the band play. Will it be a pain in the butt to travel to Waubonsie... Yes. So If I say I would prefer BB than Eola... that only makes sense. Anyone who would have a problem with that would be unreasonable.

Fifth, do I think the SB has made a lot of mistakes and is less than truthful. Of course...any reasonable person would have to come to that same conclusion after reviewing their track record. It is for this reason that I contributed $204 to NSFOC. I think the SB numbers are faulty. I am concerned that Eola is now suddenly a good site when it was 'hazardous' before. People in blogs have asked why a person on the south side would care. Two reasons. I would not want any child injured. Also, I would not want my tax dollars paying for an eventual suit.

I would like the SB to settle on the BB suit before they start spending a lot of money on the Eola site. I think any reasonable adult would want to understand their risks and liabilities before they made significant purchases. I also think north and south would want that regardless of how they fall on the proximity to high school issue.

Am I concerned about safety issues around Eola? Yes. All things being equal, prestine farmland without gas lines is better than one having outstanding questions.

If the SB can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Eola land is clean and they can prove, using public records, that Eola is significantly cheaper than BB, then I would feel much better. Then the only question, for the court to decide, should the SB be able to change its mind if it can get a clean property at a significantly cheaper price. If the SB cannot prove these two points, they should be stopped.

I doubt anyone would have a problem with my logic. I don't think anyone would prefer to travel to further schools than one close to you. I think we all want what is good for our kids and what is convenient for us. I also think we all want out kids safe and the SB to manage our money in a responsible manner. Maybe we are just leting emotions get the best of us and are more alike than dissimilar.

Thoughts?

To:Suckdale
I don't live in any of the neighborhoods being named in this disgusting crossfire of a blog, but everyone knows you can write anything here-- many seem to be doing so in order to fan the fire. Threatening phone calls to "innocent people", give me a break.

time to grow up. Whether you support NSFOC or not, the name calling is pretty sophmoric. My personal opinion is the whole lawsuit thing is perposterous and transparent. I have no personal attacks to dish out though, so sorry to those reading this looking for that!

Dress it up how you will, but this is about wealthy lilly-white naperville parents not wanting their precious children to have any exposure to (gasp!) minority students at wvhs. sickening.

Has any one taken into consideration that a school housing approximately 3000 students/staff near gas pipelines, power generators, etc... may be a target for terrorists, foreign or domestic( ie.Timothy McVey)? It seems like it would be a sitting duck for some wacko(s). What would the school do in an instance of a terrorist threat? Just wondering...

Hey Suckdale?

Those weren't harassing phone calls. That was interference from the powerlines passing through Tall Grass.

Who is Dale and how long have you 2 been together?

Hey Suckdale (brookdale) people
Stop calling TG peoples' houses and terrorizing our families....that's right people...the suckdale (brookdale) and springbrook people have taken this to an extreme - they are now harassing innocent people in TG by calling homes and threatening people....

Just realize there are ways to track phone calls and we will...then you'll be looking at jail time....

to: Anonymous on March 21, 2008 1:22 AM

What...the class of people who point out the obvious without an elitist, egotistical, self-serving attitude?

Yeah, I am really bad aren't I???? Hardly....

MORE EXAMPLES....

Looks like Dr. D ("The Candy Man) has a long history of not being willing to consider any ideas that are not his. I hear the PTA is getting a great dose of this right now.

Who came up with this "miracle" of a new site and decided that there was no need to fulfill the prior promises to the people he is supposed to serve....The Candy Man did.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- Don't let politics get in the way of progress, and involve the community.

Those are two of the major lessons Erie School District leaders are learning from their counterparts in Jefferson County Public Schools in Louisville, Ky., about how to manage a $15 million College Bound grant from the GE Foundation.

The Louisville district was the first of five districts to receive a College Bound grant, a $25 million gift aimed at boosting math and science achievement and increasing the number of students going on to college, in August 2005.

Political infighting got in the way of Jefferson County reaching those goals, at least at first, said Brent McKim, president of the 5,515 member-strong Jefferson County Teachers Association.

The GE Foundation had asked the district, its School Board and the JCTA to commit to working collaboratively on the grant, McKim said.

But that didn't happen, he said, primarily because of the "acrimonious" relationship between the powerful union and then-schools Superintendent Stephen W. Daeschner.

"He was completely autocratic," McKim said. "He made decisions and didn't inform us."

One of those decisions, McKim said, was to use part of the grant money to write a new elementary and middle school math textbook from scratch in one year, a goal that ultimately proved to be unrealistic.

Daeschner also refused to release teachers from their regular job duties to work on the grant, as had been agreed, McKim said.

When the union threatened to withdraw its support of the grant, the GE Foundation stepped in. The foundation enforced a memorandum of agreement all sides had signed pledging to work together, and required the district to release six teachers from their regular duties, McKim said.

Ultimately, the union pulled its support for Daeschner, and the board chose not to renew his contract in 2006.

"It had been made clear that we weren't going to be able to work collaboratively," McKim said.
And as for politics, Barker said he hopes the experience in Jefferson County has convinced everyone -- administrators, teachers, School Board members -- that there is no room for infighting.............

"Forget about the turf," Barker said. "If someone has a great idea, we've got to use it, no matter where it comes from."

WOW, nice to see that the TG bashing has taken it to a new level. With 1000 homes not everyone is "low class" like you suggest. I dont see any beer bottles laying in my neighbors yards. Weeds...oh God, dont ever go to the south side of Chicago...you might see a few of those...are they low class to? Gang grafitti? Gee, how horrible...call the cops, maybe they can send in a SWAT team and run the terroist's out. Frankly I am glad you moved.

To Majorianthrax, if you hate this subdivison so much then stay out...you are a self serving biggot. Try the mirror, the "real" image may scare you based upon what you ahve become.

God forgive these people above...I cant imagine how their children must think if their parents are like this. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You people are unreal...shut this bog down and stop this insanity.

My friends let me know that pretending to be a Tall Grass resident and slandering Waubonaie and the kids there was not what I should have submitted. I apologize.

I don't think the SB would knowingly put our kids in danger and it is our turn to have a school in the north.

To 204 on 3/20 at 5:15: By calling Tallgrass a "bitch" on a public blog site, you identified yourself as the class of people she does not want her children subjected to.

To Just trying to stay neutral on 3/20 at 6:17: No one knows what the school board was discussing tonight except the school board, because between 6-7:30 PM tonight they were at the H.C. Center on Shoreline in a "secret" executive session. They came out for 3 minutes to hear 2 people make comments, then adjourned. The 25 or so parents in the room weren't acknowledged or spoken to. No information was shared with them. There were several more people there who had wanted to speak, but there was no sign-up sheet out when they arrived. Dr. D. was asked about the sign-up sheet, and he put one out at 5:50. It was picked up at 5:55. People who arrived after 5:55 weren't allowed to sign-up for comments. The parents who were in attendence had their listening ears tuned in, but the board would not speak to us.

First time in my life, I actually feel that there are some good attorneys. NSFOC and its attorney actually asked many questions that I shared but do not know where to find listeners! My biggest concern is what the final cost will be when the 3rd high school is completed, on BB site or EOLA site. Second, is the EOLA site really safe for our kids? Can the SD provide more detail, straightforward information about the safety issues on the EOLA site? Third, since the SD used 2005 projection number of high school students, the economic condition, job market, especially the housing market has become much worse since, is the projection still right today? in orther ward, do we really need another high school? Lots of questions... no answers yet.... Thank you, NSFOC for bring these issues to the 204 parents' attention!!

The cost of BB is no longer a valid concern... you will pay it in the costs of damages (2005 value vs 2008 value plus the 3M for legal) or you can re-engage BB to purchase the land.

Have you considered the cost of remediating MDW Gen property and the cost of the long term damage the chemicals (details listed in the complaint & MDW EPA permit application). Run the list of chemicals and their effects by any nuerologist and they will talk about nuerotoxins, increased risk of Addictive behaviors and Aggression in short term and Leukemia, Brain and nuerological cancers long term. Is this what you want for your children. Step back and take an objective look at this.

MDW Gen did not approach 204 about this sale.. they know it is not suitable and certainly are not willing to take on the liability for land... once again taxpayers will pick up that bill! Stop this stupidity.. no one wants to poison our kids.. do you really trust the SB based on their past history???

Abe Froman, the sausage king?

Thanks for that blast from the past, I love that flick! Nice grab on the CB quote, too. I'm officially going to go kick myself for not listening better to Knight and Calcaterra..... M2 doesn't disappoint though - same arrogant, ultimately wrong windbag he's always been. Don't see how any of the current board will ever get re-elected after this train wreck.

By Anonymous on March 20, 2008 6:20 PM
George:

just came across this rather interesting quote from Curt Bradshaw.

Incumbent Curt Bradshaw said many problems exist with the Macom site and until those are resolved, the school board needs to stick with the Brach-Brodie site.
"We explored the plan in great detail," Bradshaw said. "The school would sit next to a ComEd substation and that is just one among the long list of negatives. I do not think putting kids next to a substation is in the best interest of our kids."

My how times/opinions change.

CAN YOU PROVIDE SOURCING FOR THIS....(a reference where it can be confirmed)...
___________________________________

Mr. Bradshaw's quote was in the local paper. I think it was in the Sun. Might have been the Herald.

I'll go through my documentation tonight and provide you with the exact date of publication.

I think it's time for the Sun to stop these blogs. Do you find enjoyment to sit back and watch a community come apart like this? Is this the only way you can get ad space/subscriptions? Reading your paper is getting as bad as the goofy tabloids at the checkout counter.

Let's not forget people that we are in the middle of holy week. If Jesus Christ can forgive for what was done to him I'm sure we can all find forgiveness for those you feel have done you wrong.

May God Bless you all, you need it.

To from Deep in the South. Good post. I especially agree with your point on how you've always thought BB was an unsafe location for a school. It's at a heavily traveled intersection in the middle of commercial developments. Not only does this lead to the safety, but to the inflated price of the BB site - it's more suited for retail than an Educational facility. Good point.

TALL GRASS RESIDENT- I am from White Eagle and have always disliked TG because of the attitude of people like you. The fact that the media seems to think WE and TG are joined at the hip is just not so. TG has never been a classy place. As for the gang culture you mention at WV, how do you know? Where do you get your information? I am over at WV enough to know there are kids in gangs but they are not a threat in the school. WV is as safe as any. And you think NV is perfect? There are alot of problem kids there. Just go to 95th and Book and see the kids hang around. There has been police activity there in the past. And there were the NV kids who tried to rob a bank a few years ago. And a boy who was beaten so badly he is paralyzed below the neck. His attacker was allowed to stay in school. These examples are documented in the papers and not rumors. My kid is going to Scullen next year. I shudder to think he will be in your neighborhood.

Nice quote from Bradshaw, George Fox! I'd nearly forgotten about that one. It was in the paper before the election.

Dist. 204 candidates discuss Brach-Brodie, Macom sites
Naperville Sun, The (IL) - April 6, 2007
Author: By Britt Carson

If all goes according to plan , Metea Valley High School will open in fall 2009.

Construction of the 3,000-seat high school has been the focus of many questions posed to the candidates running for school board in Indian Prairie School District 204. Everything from the location to the cost per square foot has been under the microscope recently with the upcoming April 17 election.

The school is slated to open with freshmen and sophomores in 2009 on 80 acres along 75th Street and the future extension of Commons Drive in Aurora. The district's condemnation lawsuit for 55 of those acres is scheduled to go to trial Sept. 17 in DuPage County. The district already owns the adjacent 25 acres.

However, if the Illinois Senate approves "quick take" legislation, the district can take possession of the property and let a jury later set the price per acre. That also means it would be locked into purchasing the property at whatever price a jury determines.

Earlier this year, a local developer came forward with a new plan to locate the high school at 95th Street and Wolf's Crossing Road at the northern end of Macom's Ashwood development. Paul Lehman, president of Macom, proposed theplan , but the school board decided the site had too many challenges to overcome and it would stay the course with Brach-Brodie.

If the construction schedule gets compressed, school officials have said they could open the building in phases.

Seven candidates are vying for three unpaid school board seats, each of which has a four-year term. Here is what they told The Sun about the third high school, Brach-Brodie and the Macom site during endorsement interviews.

Bradshaw

Incumbent Curt Bradshaw said many problems exist with the Macom site and until those are resolved, the school board needs to stick with the Brach-Brodie site.

"We explored the plan in great detail," Bradshaw said. " The school would sit next to a ComEd substation and that is just one among the long list of negatives. I do not think putting kids next to a substation is in the best interest of our kids."

Calcaterra

Candidate Steve Calcaterra said the school board needs to be cognizant of the timetable and expensive delays that could pile up if plans don't move forward soon.

"On paper Brach-Brodie looks like the better choice right now, and I think we could get it at a better price," Calcaterra said. "There are some issues with traffic patterns, and along with that comes the safety of the kids coming and going. But as the clock keeps ticking, I think Brach-Brodie starts to look less and less desirable."

Lyons

Candidate Leanne Lyons said the school board needs to let the public know about all the options for land that are available.

"I do have reservations on how the school will be delivered," Lyons said. "If there was another plot of land out there, we could have gotten started on it, then fine, but we should have known about other viable options out there."

Tyle

Incumbent Alka Tyle said the Macom site would require extensive engineering work and other issues that would cost the district both time and money.

"Relocating roads and working out stormwater issues takes time as well as the other issues associated with the (Macom) property," Tyle said. " The Macom plan is not the best-case scenario for the district."

Mark Metzger

Incumbent Mark Metzger said most of the legal issues have been worked out, and he is confident the school district will have the land in time to open it by 2009.

"I have always said the Brach-Brodie site is by no means the best site, but is the least wrong available and that remains to be true," Metzger said. "I don't think most people realize, all the legal issues were ruled in our favor, all we have left is the price and when."

Michelle Davis

Candidate Michelle Davis said the district should have been more open about the issues relating to Brach-Brodie before the voters went to the polls.

"I tend to go back to the decision making and think we were all led to believe Brach-Brodie was a done deal once we went to the polls," Davis said. " The public should have known about the Macom situation, and the district was not forthcoming."

Kevin Knight

Candidate Kevin Knight said the district should be more open about any contingency plans that are inthe works to ensure the school will open on time.

"I have been asking the board since 2006 about contingency plans , and I don't see any of that," Knight said. "It is April, and we still don't have a building. Brach-Brodie is a good location, but what concerns me about the Macom proposal is that the school board and Paul Lehman appear to be playing a big game of chicken. When we have issues like these with millions of dollars at stake, maybe we need to come back to the table because it is worth discussing again."

Contact Britt Carson at bcarson@scn1.com or 630-416-5269.
Section: LOCAL NEWS
Page: 18

Is it journalism to sponsor, and even go so far as to create the topic for, a blog which based on previous blogging was obviously (no accident here) going to end up as a vehicle to personally attack a member of a group that the paper has taken an editorial stand against?

Where is the blog on what do you think about the amount of legal fees spent by the Board on BB so far. How about the incompetency of missing the boat by almost 100% on the per acre value.... Maybe the email by Ms. Tyle (a Board member) this weekend advocating voting on the poll for the specific purpose of influencing the lawsuit against the District (seems ripe to get some good personal attacks about Ms. Tyle and her family). How about, where are the names of those supporting NSFOCfraud.com??

What do you think of Andrews' position? Is that news or is it designed to incite an ugly reaction against a resident that the paper has a beef with? Perhaps it is designed to incite people to act on previous postings on other blogs that have given the directions to Mr. Andrews' home (I understand he has children so wouldn't that make a great story for the Sun)?

I think we just figured out the difference between a tabloid and a newspaper.

I get the distinct impression that many people in Brookdale feel like this is 'pay back' for NVHS 10 years plus ago....how sad!

The think the term "entitlement" is better applied to some attitudes in Brookdale. What a shame.

To Interested.. on March 20, 2008 3:41 PM

"This is the time to think this through and pick a side....Maybe NSFOC is just a small group of approximately 200 people. Maybe there are more people out there willing to give some support."

I have. I do not support Naperville Schools for our Children.

@ Welch and walking on March 20, 2008 3:43 PM:

Ok, I'm from the Deep South of Naperville. I am making negative commens about the NSFOC.

1) I'm fine with a North location. We have two schools south of 75th street already.

2) "May" cost more money. "May not". The BB property "may" cost more money too now since the District's right to buy it expired with the lawsuit and lack of appeal. Sure they want to talk to 204 now. But what's their new price?

3) I always thought BB was an unsafe location for a school. It's at a heavily traveled intersection in the middle of commercial developments. That's my 'perception' of that location.

4) There is no proof BB 'increases' transportation costs. Having buses sitting at the corner of 75th and Rt. 59 trying to make a left turn through 3 cycles of a light would also increase transportation costs. There is no proof of increased transportation risks either. School buses stop at railroad crossings. Been doing it to get to WVHS for years with no incidents. UNLIKE the school bus accidents that occur on major roadways.

We're not "glad we're safe at the closest school of our choice". We are concerned with how much money is the SB going to spend DEFENDING ITSELF AGAINST THE NSFOC LAWSUIT" and we don't want another vote.

To "Tall Grass Resident" on March 20, 2008 4:13 PM:

I oppose the NSFOC and their lawsuit (mainly because it just means Shawn Collins gets richer and we pay to defend another lawsuit and I can't stand all the toxic waste they are spewing on their website) but even if NSFOC is a 100% Tall Grass-roots effort, I don't believe the majority of TG feels the way you do (if you are indeed a TG resident) and if people do feel this away about Waubonsie, too bad for them.

My eldest son will go to Neuqua. Based on where we live, unless they put the new HS in the far, far South, he'll never be moved unless they try to annex us out of 204. (I can only imagine the lawsuit that would be filed if they tried to redistrict people to Aurora East or Plainfield or Bolingbrook -- it would make NSFOCs look like small claims court).

But he swims with the Waubonsie swim team. These are some of the best young men and women I've dealt with, as are their parents.
None of these kids are part of a 'gang culture' or attempt to propagate on.

Meanwhile, however, a Neuqua feeder middle school advertised its Spring musical with the tag line "let's get gangsta". Hmmm.

To Tall Grass Resident. I am glad you are so honest in your statement. We actually moved out of TG because we thought alot of the residents (OF COURSE NOT ALL OF THEM) were very low class and self serving. I guess everything is relative in what you are use to. We saw paper all over the subdivision(Low Class),GANG graffiti written all over the common areas(again low class), out of control teenagers with no respect or regard to any ones property. We also saw unkept lawns and unsightly weeds, (again very low class) Beer bottles on folks yards for days at a time(again low class). Also lets not forget the teenagers using the bathroom in the pool.(I don't know what kind of class that is) I was always afraid of the snow melting in that subdivision because I knew I would have to look at litter for days. I think that WV parents should be worried about what kind of company and values YOUR kids might bring. p. S. I am an X Tall Grass Resident for real. Have a Great Day.

ANOTHER LIE?

The Illinois EPA is NOT overseeing the District's envirenmental studies. Do not believe me...just give them a call.

To: Anonymous on March 20, 2008 6:06 PM

I'm not the one who is stating that I'm better than others and don't want to co-mingle with someone from a different "class".

Who are you the Queen of England? Funny how I could tell you are a woman, huh? You just don't like being called what you are. And it's true. Nobody would disagree, not even your husband.

I'm completely happy that I dont' live in Tall Grass if that means living near simple minded people like you.

To Tall Grass Resident 3/20 4:13 pm

If we're all being honest here, I want the high school in the north. I've had to drive too many years across the district. It's my turn to have a high school in my area.

George:

just came across this rather interesting quote from Curt Bradshaw.

Incumbent Curt Bradshaw said many problems exist with the Macom site and until those are resolved, the school board needs to stick with the Brach-Brodie site.
"We explored the plan in great detail," Bradshaw said. "The school would sit next to a ComEd substation and that is just one among the long list of negatives. I do not think putting kids next to a substation is in the best interest of our kids."

My how times/opinions change.

CAN YOU PROVIDE SOURCING FOR THIS....(a reference where it can be confirmed)...

to: Tall Grass Resident on March 20, 2008 4:13 PM :

I would bet that you are most certainly not a tall grass resident, but someone trying to portray themselves as one.

To everyone else, keep in mind that this is an anonymous blog and people can write whatever they wish. They can also say they are from wherever they wish. One way to make a group look bad is to pretend to be one of them and write vile comments like this person has done. In this case their hope is that everyone will now jump on yet another Tallgrass Resident as being evil. Very transparent and something I learned in high school discussion and debate class 25 years ago.

I personally think the sb did a good job with the boundaries, and do not agree with the NSFOC groups efforts, but I will fight for their right to pursue a remedy they think is right.

If you don't like their lawsuit then I suggest you run for President and change the constitution. Otherwise just let it play out in the courts, I believe the Eola site will be built and the boundaries will stay as they are, but again I'm leaving it up to the courts to decide.

Re: Tall Grass Resident 3/20 4:13
I really have to believe that a non resident of Tall Grass wrote this, come on people lets write something that is on topic. Is Andrews just a scapegoat, Is the attorney for nsfoc a nut, Is the next meeting for nsfoc going to be at a more neutral location. If so can it be at a bar so I can have a couple of captain and cokes, the country-club venue is a little above my social stature. Anyone have a guess what the school board will be discussing tonight. At least the meeting started at 6 pm (not under the cover of darkness). Has there been any pipeline explosions today? if so get a u-tube feed asap. I hate picking on anyone personally.

To Tall Grass Resident 3/20 4:13 pm

Looks like you need to upgrade again. Good Luck selling! Your subdivision is now known as All A_S.

BY 204
You need to stop name calling. What kind of low-class, ignorant, self-centered are you?

Mega Dittos to "Welch and Walking" - wish I were in your shoes :) Yes, a large majority of the people painting ugly accusations upon TG, WE, nsfoc, and anyone who dares have the audacity to question site safey are from Brookdale - simply use the web to look up their addresses and you'll see a majority of them are in Brookwail, I mean Brookale. This subdivision, and it's nsfocfraud website, are the biggest group of witch hunters since Salem. Need proof? Take a look at their front page, where they call out a newspaper reporter. I forgot when they outlawed free speech, I'm sure nsfocfraud can let me know. Hey nsfocfraud, instead of your smear and slander campaign, how about some facts? Since when is it a crime against humanity to fight against an autocratic SB who continually ignores it's people? Since when is it a crime to demand fiscal responsibility? And while you are at it, stop dragging sub divisions through the mud!

Re: George Fox
George, I cant tell you how disappointed I am that you are not using your real name. Can you tell me are you from out east (maybe New York State). But seriously the Macom site had other issues also like a "life trust issue" maybe the board had dealt with enough crap and wanted a site that was going to be available this century. Just an idea, I have no facts to back it up.

Kudos Tall Grass Resident March 20, 2008 4:13 PM. Finally a bit of honesty. I do not agree with the overall sense of entitlement of your subdivision but it is refreshing to see some honesty in the motives.

To Tall Grass Resident on March 20, 2008 4:13 PM

You say.."the class of people are not what I want my children subjected to".

You want them to associate with low-class, ignorant, self-centered types like you? God save us ALL!!!

What a bitch you are.

A applaud Mr. Andrews for the lawsuit being brought forth against the school board. As a resident of Tall Grass I do not want to see my children (3 - ages 8, 11 and 13)have to attend WVHS. Say what you will about WVHS..it's a good school, great teachers, blah, blah, blah...The fact of the matter is that it has a large gang culture that has infiltrated the school over the past decade. In addition the class of people are not what I want my children subjected to. I know, I sound like a snob, but I upgraded my house and moved to Tall Grass so my children could attend NVH, not WVH.

Most of the negative comments I read in these blogs regarding NSFOC appear to be coming from North (Oakhurst, Brookdale, Stonebridge) people who just want the HS built for their own selfish reasons at any "cost". I draw this conclusion because those never dipsute with facts or discuss the real issues at hand and only write derogatory and irrelevant stuff like "get over it", "welcome to WVHS" and "it's all about NVHS & TG &WE" I conclude that these comments are coming from people from the North and they just want a new school close to them so they are mad if there is someone in their way. They don't seem to debate what these unhappy people (really don't want
1) a north location
2) a north location that may cost more money
3) a north location that has the perception of being unsafe, if not a reality
4) a north location that increases transportation costs and transportation risks overall for the district,

I would love to hear if these comments are coming from the South, SW or SE. Please identify your neighborhood before you sling mud. My non-blogging contacts in other South neighborhoods (not TG, WE, Ashwood) are saying stuff just "glad we're safe at the closest school of our choice" (translated as Apathy) or "are concerned with how much money is the SB going to spend" "or do we really need this school afterall"(translated as "let's vote again with the real facts straight")

Legitimate points brought up about NSFOC.....

Lot's of people on this blog willing to sound off either way.

However, is everyone reading this blog and posting in support of the slowing down the Board willing to come forward and donate to support continuing to fight against what is happening in our District (there is a link to donate at www.NSFOC.org and takes less than 30 seconds).

If there are only 200 people who donated as has been reported, then it is going to be questionable about how much longer this group can fight against "the millions" that the Board keeps saying it has budgeted for lawsuits.

Will be interesting to see if over the next few days, this movement is joined (at least financially) by those who support slowing down to make sure reasonable due diligence is being made, the thousands who voted NO against the last referendum, the folks who voted yes but feel "duped", the folks who believe Dr. D is autocratic and is ignoring resident impact, the people who believe that the Board is now over their head and making decisions that are not based on good judgment, or those who feel that the EOLA location does not make sense (for safety, location, etc.).

Perhaps someone willing to post on the ProBoards, etc. to see if this is in fact a grassroot movement or a sham?

It may not even be about the dollars (even a $10 donation by Payapl would count in that it is a measure of support).

This is the time to think this through and pick a side....Maybe NSFOC is just a small group of approximately 200 people. Maybe there are more people out there willing to give some support.

Legitimate points brought up about NSFOC.....

Lot's of people on this blog willing to sound off either way.

However, is everyone reading this blog and posting in support of the slowing down the Board willing to come forward and donate to support continuing to fight against what is happening in our District (there is a link to donate at www.NSFOC.org and takes less than 30 seconds).

If there are only 200 people who donated as has been reported, then it is going to be questionable about how much longer this group can fight against "the millions" that the Board keeps saying it has budgeted for lawsuits.

Will be interesting to see if over the next few days, this movement is joined (at least financially) by those who support slowing down to make sure reasonable due diligence is being made, the thousands who voted NO against the last referendum, the folks who voted yes but feel "duped", the folks who believe Dr. D is autocratic and is ignoring resident impact, the people who believe that the Board is now over their head and making decisions that are not based on good judgment, or those who feel that the EOLA location does not make sense (for safety, location, etc.).

Perhaps someone willing to post on the ProBoards, etc. to see if this is in fact a grassroot movement or a sham?

It may not even be about the dollars (even a $10 donation by Payapl would count in that it is a measure of support).

This is the time to think this through and pick a side....Maybe NSFOC is just a small group of approximately 200 people. Maybe there are more people out there willing to give some support.

I just came across this rather interesting quote from Curt Bradshaw.

Incumbent Curt Bradshaw said many problems exist with the Macom site and until those are resolved, the school board needs to stick with the Brach-Brodie site.
"We explored the plan in great detail," Bradshaw said. "The school would sit next to a ComEd substation and that is just one among the long list of negatives. I do not think putting kids next to a substation is in the best interest of our kids."

My how times/opinions change.

Enough is enough! Let's just get it done, the district seems to favor the new site for Metea and the second sight people (mostly from Will county who pushed for the referendum) should accept it. I will say that I can understand you hard feelings after the district suggested boundaries contingent on the purchase of B.B. for a reasonable amount. They didn't sell you out, but they sure wanted that third school so they did their homework and decided that you folks in Will would be the easiest to convince to back the proposal. Of course they did this by offering those ridiculous boundaries and playing on your desire for a third high school in your backyrads. By the way, Brookdale kids were among the 204 students with the most hours on the bus. They were still selected to attend Waubonsie even though the BB site is closer. I can't remember you Will people complaining about that! Perhaps some did and to those I apoligize. I also feel that sections of Tall Grass should continue at Nequea, but WE and North-Western TG should attend Waubonsie and yes, WE should have stayed at Waubonsie and never moved to Nequea. Its all about fairness to everyone.

Majoranthrax, I agree. Why are the memebrs of NFSOC keeping thier identities a secret? They must be embarassed. They must know that the fight is a losing one. They must know that even their Tall Grass and White Eagle neighbors would be embarassed by their actions.

Just say NO to Entitlement!

This is to: You're joking right?

Quote in Daily Herald article:

Daeschner scoffed at Andrews' allegation and questioned the group's motives. "It's a little suspicious, isn't it? I mean, good night. None of their children would even go to Metea Valley," he said.

I don't think it's right to scoff at parent's concerns and attack their character. Our superintendent should conduct himself in a more professional manner. Presumptuous too, as my kids are assigned to Metea Valley.

I have to shake my head at all the Brookdale pawns who are doing the dirty work of others. A majority of the recent LTEs have been from Brookdale, the "Vote No" whiners from the last referendum who now get a shot at a new high school, and like a dog on a pork chop are refusing to give it up, and growling at anything that threatens them.

Let's drag Brookdale through the mud too! The noble, silent majority who, wow!, is no longer silent! Give me a break. Brookdale malcontents are part of the problem. "Bill and Chad's Excellent Adventure" in web-design and LTE writing will paint Brookdale in an equally ill light. Welcome to the club.

The school board and Dr. D are quite pathetic.

This ENTIRE debacle could have been avoided if the SB & Admin would have engaged in open, honest communication, and actually listened to input instead of rubber-stamping a decision they made behind closed doors, i.e. it was widely know well before the SB meeting that Owen East would be "fixed".

The real cost of all this is a legacy of distrust which will exist for years and years to come. The damage many of you are inflicting by your continual derogatory remarks about TG and WE is equally pathetic, and will fester for years.

I have to shake my head at Andrews for allowing himself to be the NSFOC "stooge". He takes the all the shots and is berated in the press and blogs while the real Tall Grass leaders hide in secret behing him.If NSFOC was really legit they would identify themselves instead of hiding like rats while their dummy takes the abuse.

Turth be told TG's name is mud (and to a lesser extent WE). Seems like this was not well thought through, but reactionary at best.

Sorry Todd,

As much as you will hate to believe it, this Board has actually been trying to work in the best interests of the district. They actually tried to get BB (really, they did). There is so much innuendo and spin on some of the blogs it is ridiculous. Some people (NSFOC members?) actually believe the School Board took actions to punish certain subdivisions. Give me a break.

D204 parents are smart enough to see through your group (NSFOC) for what it truly is all about.

Today, in the Sun artilce, they acknowledge they only have 200 memebers.

===================================================================

That is not very good membership. The Napergate Man signed up 3500 members in his one liquor store. Then he signed up another 3500 members a few years later to fight that Spring Green cause.

If all NSFOC can do is get 200 members while 14,000 voted for the referendum, I think they need to stop passing the hat around.

Maybe it is time for them to surrender!

I just read Shawn Collins' comment from today's Sun article quoting him as saying in feference to NSFOC,

"This organization and the people in it are very offended and upset at what District 204 has done in approximately the last eight weeks, and I'm speaking specifically about the decisions it has made regarding the third high school," Collins said."

HELLO NSFOC - I am "very offended and upset at what NSFOC has done in approximately the last eight weeks, and I'm speaking specifically about the decisions it has made regarding the third high school".

If the membership of 200 people (according to the article) think they speak for any majority of people they are sadly mistaken.

They're nothing more than loud-mouthed bullies threatening to sue, sue, sue if they don't get what they want.

That's quite a Brain Trust you've got going for yourselves NSFOC. Hardly...

Which brings up another question...what do they want? Depends on the day I guess.

I know what I want...for them to fade away.

To: My kids are assigned to MVHS

My kids are as well. However, I'm a little confused by your comment of how the school board "are not operating above the board"? Are you really serious? The SB has been nothing but up front and honest about everything that has gone on from the hard fight and failed attempt of the BB property to the countless studies and work they have been doing at the Eola site. Only recently have they not shared as much with the district/public until their attorneys give them the go-ahead. Could it be because there are 2 lawsuits out there? If anything, those residents that are part of the NSFOC forced the board to only release information as they get it and are sure they can relase it and not to be so open about everything like they were in the past and sharing everything that the board is doing and planning. They (NSFOC) brought this upon themselves.

I also don't recall any name calling by the school board or Dr. D. Is this the next bullet point on the NSFOC website..."the school board and the superintendent called us names?"

There has been far more name calling slug at the school board but a minority group of unhappy, selfish, "don't send my kid to WV" parents. Yes I did call them names, I call it like I see it.

To; My kids are assigned to MVHS on March 20, 2008 12:19 PM

There you go - thank you for proving my point.

The MINUTE someone disagrees with NSFOC they can't take it and freak out.

Face the facts....pretty much nobody believes your platform of lies, half-truths, misquotes, and data manipulation. Less support the NSFOC group. And even less have contributed to the losing cause.

You're in the crapper and are about to be flushed out.

To: fight the good fight...

"This SB needs to be accountable to the taxpayers of D204. In the end they will cost everyone millions of dollars(YOUR TAX DOLLARS). I know you face some negativity but, sometimes when you do the right thing that happens."

You are right they are accountable, they are building a 3rd high school that will cost millions of dollars. I for one (and the majority of the district) applaud the school board for the positive things they are doing and also dealing with a negative unhappy selfish minority.

Kudos to NSFOC for asking tough questions of our school board and superintendent. They are not operating above board.

It is very difficult to stand up to the name calling and nasty comments (by our own superintendent, even).

Again, thanks for your efforts.

You would think Shawn Collins would have told his client (NSFOC) to shutup by now.

Everytime Mr. Andrews speaks, he has hurt the credibility of the NSFOC.

Yesterday, Mr. Andrews sun blog admits that this started as a boundary issue which has now transformed into something bigger due to his hatred for the SB.

Today, in the Sun artilce, they acknowledge they only have 200 memebers. Wasn't the YES vote for the referendum something like 14,000. TG alone has 1,000 homes.

NSFOC is a small radical group really ticked at the SB. Thanks NSFOC founder, Mr. Andrews, for continuing to speak and expose your true agenda.

Shame on you (who?),

This was written when the question was posed whether they would change the BB boundaries after the initial process in regards to the BB site. MM was speaking that this would be unfair to do so. If you would like, they could keep the BB boundaries recommended and apply them to the Eola site. I would be fine either way, although it doesn't make much sense.

The point is, the board did everything they could to obtain the BB site. They did not do the whole process "just for fun" or for some conspiratorial motive. We didn't own enough property on any site to build at the time of this letter. We ALL knew that when we voted for a third high school. The board listened to those residents that insisted on drawing boundaries to a property they knew we didn't own and unfortunately after all of this, the property fell through.
I focused on the other information in these meetings such as the enrollment numbers in this district compared to other districts with less kids but more schools, as well as projections.This letter speaks to the fact that BB was still the property being seeked and they were working toward that goal....nothing else was "in the works" as some attempt to promote.

It is unfortunate that the BB property fell through but anyone that has been living in this district for more than five years knows that growth continues to bring change. It's a fact.

We will not send our children to an unsafe site and this is not as a reflection of the NSFOC lawsuit as they would like us to believe.
This is because our SB fully intended to not only perform all necessary testing to ensure safety but to go above and beyond by performing testing not mandated.Anyone that attended any of the board meetings prior to the lawsuit should have known that.

The bottom line is we voted for a third high school, we need a third high school and we don't have time or patience for anyone that attempts to direct our energy away from this important goal.
Mr. Andrew's lawsuit has done just that.This is unfortunate because I do not believe he or the others in his NSFOC group had all of the district's children's futures in mind as the lawsuit relief states "Build on Brach Brodie or don't build the third high school at all".

It is also unfortunate that Mr. Andrews is hurt by the response he has received from people unhappy to be paying for his frivolous and misdirected lawsuit. Perhaps he should have thought things through a bit more ....the same thing he keeps berating our volunteer school board members about.He could also choose to stop posting on the blogs. Thank you.

To: Shame on you.... on March 20, 2008 10:48 AM

God, where do you people (NSFOC) dredge this stuff up? I thought NSFOC wasn't about the boundaries and which schools they were going to??? Hmmmmmm, what's the argument du jour?

You're the ones that keep bringing up the boundaries - yet claim it's not about the boundaries it's really about the "safety of our kids". Whose kids? Yours or mine?

Your double speak and continued circling back to the boundaries rings loud and clear to me (and likely others). And...it ain't about the Eola site's safety. Let there be no doubt about that.

I applaud Mr. Andrews efforts. This SB needs to be accountable to the taxpayers of D204. In the end they will cost everyone millions of dollars(YOUR TAX DOLLARS). I know you face some negativity but, sometimes when you do the right thing that happens.

To: It's painful to watch the downward spiral.........
Yes, you are right, Mr. Andrews and the NFSOC do not speak for everyone. Yet, I can't tell you how many negative, spiteful blogs I have read talking in GENERAL,STEROTYPICAL terms about the "people of TG and WE" as somehow being the cause of all that is wrong with the district these days. That is an absurd and indefendable accusation. So, it cuts both ways. The hateful and childish comments need to stop. As Mr. Andrews and the NFSOC cannot assume spokesmanship for thousands of people, pro-Eola bloggers cannot claim that everyone in a certain area are all of the same mold. Some people in Mr. Andrew's neighborhood support him/the NFSCOC. Some may be, as you say, embarassed or dismayed. However, most are probably someplace in the middle. Same goes for neighborhoods that are slated for MV at Eola. Some think its safe, others are concerned. So, it's no one's place to be assuming ANY neighborhood is "all or nothing" on this issue. And don't forget the many who may be less in the fray, that surely have an opinion about things - they are just not being vocal because they do not see themselves as having as much to gain or lose by the board's actions. Some don't see the bigger picture, but others may just be choosing to ignore it. Too bad, because this really does affect everyone.

A shock that more people have not been willing to publicly talk about what our school district and Board has been doing.

This blog invites specific hate (or praise)towards a single individual, rather than focusing on NSFOC, the Board or the District officials (how about some hard questions for the Board instead of whether Mr. Andrews wants his children to attend NVHS or WVHS??).

Although Mr. Andrews put himself in this position by speaking in the first NSFOC meeting and subsequently speaking to the Sun, I do not think this is professional journalism to mobilize a hate campaign led by the Sun against one individual (who has painstakingly gone out of his way to indicate he is not the leader or founder of NSFOC). The Sun knows what has been on the blogs (previously directed towards NSFOC, Tallgrass or White Eagle). Why it feels it appropriate to now focus the hate towards a single private resident is troubling.

The Sun knows exactly what it is doing here (shame on the paper). Hope it continues to sell papers for you!

I hope however, this has the opposite effect and mobilizes those who support holding the Board and District accountable to come forward in droves...

I think Mr. Andrew's nose is bleeding (mission accomplished), so how about a blog about the following quote from a public official (in a public email from MM regarding the last referendum)...or is that too far off of the paper's editorial position:

"So that leaves the question of why the Board isn’t likely to revisit boundaries. As painful and agonizing as the process was for
residents, I can assure you that it’s much worse for Board
Members. None of us will be in any hurry to do that again. That
means that the only way the boundaries are likely to change is if
the Board is willing to abandon one of the core tenets of this
school district – public involvement in the boundary process – and
simply decides to make the changes by itself. Frankly, if we were
going to do that, we would have done so in January rather go
through the process we selected. And don’t forget that doing that
means that the majority which voted for the selected plan would
need to decide to undo that decision. Someone on the losing side
of a motion can’t move to reconsider.
Beyond the practical reality lies the idea of simple fairness. We
did the boundaries two years earlier than normal because the voters
told us that they needed to know the boundaries in order to
evaluate their votes. To change the boundaries after the vote
smacks of a bait and switch and is just simply unfair.......Do you want to believe those who stand up and are willing to be
accountable for their words and actions or those who sling mud
and spread lies from a perch of anonymity? I hope for the sake of
this community, our children and our property values we make the
right choice. My vote will be YES, and I encourage you to do so
as well.
Mark Metzger
mark_metzger@ipsd.org

I am pleased to see the overwhelming number of posts that see through the NSFOC BS and are aware of their true agenda.

One thing I do want to point out though.... several posts have mentioned that TG will go to WV no matter what. That is probably accurate.

However, what about the current 8th graders. Several of the core TG people behind NSFOC have 8th graders. Their belief is that if things are delayed until a 2010 openning, then their current 8th graders would be jrs and would most likely stay at NV.

This brings further light to their self-serving agenda.

"Read through the blogs and then think, is this what we want for our children? Are we being good examples for them? What are the real issues and how can we work TOGETHER to resolve them?"

Amen

I think the article is clear. The NSFOC primary concern is beating the board and secondary concern is the safety of 204 children. I also find it interesting the NSFOC choose the play the pity card with respect to their lack of organization. I'm sure the 204 board members got a good chuckle out of the "late hours" comment.

I am concerned about the safety of the Eola land. If the land is not safe we shouldn't use it. But, I'll wait for the environmental reports before I yell fire.

Give'em enough rope....they'll hang themselves.

NSFOC's position....

Neighborhood Schools for Our Children....."Yes, we'd love to stay at NVHS."

Neighborhood Schools for Our Children...."Ok, we can't stay at NVHS? Then we'll file a lawsuit to make sure we MUST go to MVHS on the BB property"

Neighborhood Schools for Our Children...."No way we don't want our children going to WVHS, not "that" school!!"

Neighborhood Schools for Our Children...."Well, looks like we're not going to get our way no matter what we do, so the school board is incompetent and everyone must go. They obviously don't know what they are doing, even though the school district elected them. We need a school board that has "our" interests in mind."

SORRY THE REST OF THE DISTRICT ISN'T BUYING IT!!!

Here's how i see it. Here are the issues that the NSFOC/Mr.Andrews/TG/WE have tried to raise.

*It's not about NVHS.
*It's not about WVHS.
*It's about BB property.
*It's about the concern for our children.
*It's about our property values.
*It's about contamination and the environmental issues.
*It's about the bad school board.
*We want a re-vote
*Can't we wait
*We don't want to drive far and cross railroad tracks.

Seems to me that they are trying to throw anything and everything at the wall and nothing is sticking!! Maybe instead you should try to stick with one issue and see how that goes? Then again the school board is playing it smart and picking off your issues one by one. How many more lawsuits will the NSFOC try and file? When will you be able to move on? Unfortunately, I doubt ever. It is really sad to see adults acting in such a selfish way.

Thanks to Todd and his lemings,
We will all be afforded the opportunity to make their attorney Shawn Collins richer,jeopardize a third high school altogether, AND tear a community apart. And yes, this lawsuit is about his desires to send his kid to the school of his choice.He admitted it when he thought noone was listening. I'm just glad we moved from the southern part of the district when we did. I feel bad for the innocent neighbors in these subdivisions that are embarrassed and dismayed by his actions.Please know that there are more than a couple thousand people in these neighborhoods combined. 200 people do NOT speak for them.

What do I make of Andrews' position?

NSFOC has been so transparent in it's actions by jumping from one rallying position to another namely; safety, busing times, now SB accountability. The bogus information NSFOC uses in an attempt to scare people and support their ever changing reasoning is really outrageous. I believe their membership is simply grasping at various concerns and positions in order to justify their resentment of not getting what they deem is the absolute best alternative for individuals that joined their group. It seems they view the best alternative for themselves is not going to WVHS. I for one, don't buy into Andrews'statement that this is not about staying at NVHS.

By $10 will do on March 20, 2008 7:12 AM
Mr Andrews,

A day late and a dollar short.
_____________________________________________

Mr. Metzger

Two years later and 25 million and counting short.

ENOUGH OF THIS!!!! This is a train wreck! I applaud Mr. Andrews and the NSFOC for seeking some accountability in this district.

Moving forward without knowing the BB damages is wrong.

Bull-crap! Watch the video from the SB's 1/28 meeting (see link below). Todd Andrew makes his passionate plea as to why the SB should consider keeping TG residents with Neuqua and not re-district them to Waubonsie.Go to 58:12 where you will see Todd talk at length about boundaries, their proximity to NV, the TG bridge and why his children should go to Neuqua as opposed to WV.

http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/Subpage.aspx/OnDemandVideo

Funny how this lawsuit only came about AFTER TG/WE were re-districted to WVHS - why wasn't the commute time an issue with these folks when they were supposed to go to MVHS on the BB site?

Read through the blogs and then think, is this what we want for our children? Are we being good examples for them? What are the real issues and how can we work TOGETHER to resolve them? People are struggling financially and we are suing who (ourselves?) Be careful that you don't deface what you value so much. These blogs do not make Naperville District 204 look very good. Think about that. Each and every one of us has a responsibility here, think about how you can help.

"We assure you... that we are solidly bonded and united by three things: the desire fir safety for our children, fiscal responsibility by the ipsd204 and accountability for the school board's action. This is the last paragraph in today's Sun pg 7. As I look at this groups website and read the ad in the Sun the other day, a concern comes to mind. I) The ad regarding the costs of the two school properties had enough **** next to figures it reminded me of a bad car advertisement. To think that someone from this group actually would spend the money to put this kind of rubbish out is very "telling" indeed. 2) The website has very little factual info., just a lot of propaganda. Get some real scientific evidence PLEASE!
Now at least a bit of good news. It appears this group will be represented at tonights board meeting, which is a giant step in the right direction. It is high time communication is with the leaders that can make a difference, and not thru some Jack A_s attorney(who seems to represent other Jack A_s cases in the area). While your at this board meeting tonight you may consider listening before speaking. But more important than this board meeting may be the ones in the future, leave the attorneys at home.

Did Todd Andrews read the lawsuit? The lawsuit is demanding that the Brach Brodie site be built and that no other site be built. Hey Todd! How stupid do you think we are? He wants to hold the board accountable but they are asking the entire district to absorb the legal costs of their narrow minded group in addition to the district having to pay to defend it. These are our tax dollars being spent to fend off a small group of self centered homeowners who beleive they are entitled because of the subdivisions they chose to live. Just say NO to Entitlement in D204!

I'd suggest three additional polls be placed out on the sun page...

Are you confident in the current leadership of IPSD 204 (SD and SB)?

Does the change in location, cost and demographics of the new Metea Valley School warrant a new vote/referrendum?

Do you believe at least one of the school board seats should be held by a professional teacher?

All decision making is "questionable" - if there wasn't a question no decision would be needed. Have the board's decisions been hasty or illogical? No, they haven't.

The people behind this suit are trying to dress it up in respectable terms - but it's not difficult to see what's behind it. They are unhappy because they thought their kids were going to a brand-spanking new palace of a high school (either Neuqua, or a new one at BB), and now it looks like they won't.

Yeah, right. Nice try, but we're not buying it.

What do I make of Andrews position? Trying to defend the obvious (that NSFOC is truly about boundaries).

Also, I thought previously they said had "thousands" in their ranks.
Appears to be the same ~200 from weeks ago.

Of course it is not about Neuqua--it's all about Waubonsie Valley and NSFOC supporters' desire to do anything humanly possible to prevent their children from going there.

Mr. Andrews is right it is not about his kids and those of the NSFOC (90% of which are TG and WE residents) attending NVHS. It is about those kids NOT attending WVHS. They have made that perfectly clear!!! Look at their own lawsuit. It's the BB property or nothing as far as they are concerned. Nice try Mr. Andrews but you can't fool the majority of the district, they can see right through your smoke screen. Everyone look at the lawsuit, it's BB or nothing or return the money to the taxpayers. Well, that's not an option Mr. Andrews, we voted on the referendum for a 3rd high school not the location of a third high school. You and the group you claim you are just a member of are holding the rest of the district hostage and for that no one will ever forgive you. It's really a shame since the IPSD has done nothing but try and aquire the land for BB and up until the last judgement won every decision prior to that. The IPSD now can't afford the BB property and it's time to move on to another location. I'm disappointed that the Sun would even consider interviewing such a minority voice. Then again Mr. Andrews and the NSFOC is more concerned about their own desires and wants then the district. Thanks NSFOC for suing US!!!

I am totally ashamed for you and your children. Do you honestly think by posting false information in the paper that it is going to make a difference? The NSOFC doesnt realize that no matter what, WE AND TG WILL ATTEND WVHS IN 2009. Even if you manage to slow down the process, the district will have no choice but to send you anyway to help the overcrowding at Neuqua Valley. They WILL NOT have a school with over 5000 students, and WILL NOT put mobile classrooms in front of the Taj Mahal. Your two subdivisions are first on the trading block. WELCOME TO WARRIOR LAND

Mr Andrews,

A day late and a dollar short. Your timing is off.

Its not about MV, NV, or the SB. Just a bunch of BS.

As a 2 year resident of this community I am so sorry to have opted to educate my children in this district. My oldest is slated to attend MV in 2011. Although I am not sold on the site being hazardous, I do feel that our school board and Super are acting NOT in the best interest of our community. The haphazard (and I say this because everything is being pushed so quickly) decisions are alarming. As for Andrews, I support the efforts of ANY people/group that take a stand on their beliefs. How can we condemn others when we ALL have passion for what we want.....the question is what do we want as it relates to MV? Speaking for myself, I want to feel that the leadership of our district are being fiscally responsible and they are not. We are sitting on land at BB that we CANNOT even use. Stupid move. We are building a school on the side of the district that has the least amount of students and shifting everyone's attendance area (for the most part) North. Am I glad to have a high school in my "backyard"? Yes. But do I think this is right - NO! Kudos to Andrews and NSFOC for taking the actions that my family is not willing to do openly for professional reasons. I applaud your efforts!