D204's Daeschner fires back over 'misinformation'

Dr. Daeschner:

In that our District is engaged in litigation with its citizenry, it seems that for many of us, the only available means of communicating with our public servants is now via public exchange (in that direct communication by those who disagree with our elected and appointed District leaders is clearly not welcome).

Thus, I will use this as a forum to attempt to start an open line of communication (and perhaps start to draw out some of those facts that you have promised).

First, thank you for your note this afternoon. We appreciate you extending your thanks for our collective support of the District. As you may have learned in your first 10 months, the parents of 204 are passionate about their children and not only expect, but demand, to be involved in the education of their children. I would guess that the level of involvement in PTA and other parent activities in this community is beyond compare to your prior engagements.

Even those who disagree with the path taken by yourself and the Board have passionate support for the District and our children. I think we can all agree that the children of this district are extraordinary, as are its teachers. I hope that you do not construe those who have pursued litigation against the Administration and Board as not caring very deeply about their children and the District (which existed long before your arrival 10 months ago and will exist long after your departure).

I found the following comment from your communication of particular interest:

"I'd like to take this opportunity to re-focus on what the 2006 referendum was all about -- maintaining the high quality education that you have come to expect from District 204. Our third high school, Metea Valley, will provide students with the academic and extra-curricular opportunities they deserve."

Dr. Daeschner, it seems to me that you and the Board have had, and continue to have,complete control over the speed of which the third high school can be built. There is a perception shared by many (I believe ignorantly more than the 400 plus people who have financially supported the NSFOC legal action) that personal agendas, arrogance, power and even an ounce or two of desperation have permeated the decision making by the Board and District over the last 6 to 7 months.

However, it is apparent that the BB land is available, and based on the Board's thorough site evaluation that took place several years ago, it should be beyond debate that the Administration, Board and majority of the community agree that the BB site is the best locale (for safety, transportation and logical boundary reasons that did not include splitting schools) for the third school.

I recognize that you were not present in 2005 and 2006 when the referenda were presented to the residents of District 204, but I can assure you that the Board and Administration took great pains in communicating that the 2006 referendum was for the specific purpose to build the third high school on the BB school land. With the amount of due diligence and communication that took place between the two referenda, I do not know how this perception can be summarily discounted by the Administration. We can debate and litigate this issue for quite some time to come, but for the Administration to completely discount that this, at the very least, is a legitimate perception by many parts of the 204 community is mind boggling to many of us.

Quite frankly, but for your comment in regards to entitlement at the February 19th Board meeting, I am not sure whether the NSFOC group would have successfully formed, yet alone litigation would have been filed against the District. However, comments like "fence it in baby"..."nimkompoop"...."entitlement" and "I mean..good night" do not result in a spirit of inclusion, or inspire confidence in the leadership of our District.

I understand that there is a position that states the District can not afford the BB land. I also understand from recent reports that you do not in fact believe this to be true, but rather feel the EOLA land provides a "cheaper" alternative than BB. We can likewise debate and litigate whether BB in fact costs more than the EOLA site when you factor in the damage risks associated with abandonment as well as collateral costs such as extra transportation costs, remediation, wetlands, etc.

However, many believe that the conclusion advanced by the District that it can not afford the BB land is simply not correct. Likewise, the claim that the EOLA site will cost the District less than the BB site also seems to be inaccurate.

Quite frankly Dr. Daeschner, the damage that has been done to this community in regards to the hate that now exists between different subdivisions and communities already outweighs any financial savings that you claim you are fighting for. This divide did not exist before you arrived to our District but unfortunately, this may not be repaired prior to your departure.

In summary, we look forward to the facts that you are prepared to share in regards to this important issue (the community would like to see a detailed comparison upon which the District administration is basing its decisions). Hopefully, as you continue to share your thoughts, I hope that you will do so with a focus on all of the residents that you serve (and not just those who have demonstrated 100% support for your opinions).

Kind regards,

A concerned parent of 204

I can't believe this is the best Dr. D. could come up with. Are you kidding me? His email said absolutely nothing! I looked at it as damage control and a sign of defeat. Brach Brodie here we come!

It's about time they spoke up in response to the propaganda being produced by Collins and NSFOC crew.

Here's a summary of Dr. D's comment from my point of view,

NSFOC you are just a drop of oil in a bucket of water.

To MH:

Spoke up???? What did he say?? Nothing about the third school he references going on the EOLA site (pretty strange), no facts or contradiction to the three lawsuits or anything that has been published..

Dr. D Definately led with a shield rather than a sword (which we all know is not his style). My read on this is that something critical is coming down the tracks in the next few days(and probably not very good for the District) and Daeschner is being proactive to rally the support before it happens.

Hope BB is willing to negotiate after all the District bashing.

Looks like Dr. Daeschner and Mark Metzger's attempt to save face. Lously, attempt at best. They still didn't answer any questions regarding the 7 reports not released. Again, these are our kids we want them on a safe site.

D204 has been and still is a disfunctional group.

NSFOC please keep holding D204 accountable. We appreciate your efforts!

I am not a NSFOC member but I would rather support a cause that has tried to inform the public with truth. I find it laughable that it is your "small" group of HS wanabee's that told people there was 7 reports but only showed the one. Why would a dimweed do that other than to misinform if what you say is true. I have attended many meetings where you and the past board tried to incite negativity in the audience by inflamitory comments or just using dumb plays on words.

Let's try the play on words that your fellow dimweeds beleived that the property is "SAFE". Your Consultant told you in your last public meeting that "We found exactly what we expected to find". Then instead of clearifying the statement to the public that had not had a month to view the reports, they just continued on like everything was safe. NEWS FLASH: School Board accepts the overwhelming evidance that there is high levels of polution on land they have told the public was safe, but they would like to stick it to the public so they push ahead anyway.

I would say if there is enough polution to warrant remediation, I would not want my kids to go there. The simple fact that you just want to throw up a fense or pave it over when you have better property to choose from says that you are not capable of using wise judgement. How can you claim that you have anything to do with the grades in this district after only 10 months is beyond me. I think if you are the caliber of individual running things, our grades will most likely go down. You realy like to dumb things down here in town anyway. Why would you be any different in meetings with our teachers or heaven forbid, the students. You want to teach them how to incite negativity. Maybe you are attempting to demonstrate your keen sense of judgement. Maybe you are attempting to show students and parents that even dimweeds can get paid big bucks and still find a way to mess with the little guys. Great job with all your insight into how to build solid relationships.

I like the statement that you did not want to participate in public debate eventhough you are a public official. If that doesn't tell people how weak minded you are what does. Don't tell me your supporters would say you're taking the high road. Where I stand you're knee deep in dung and sinking fast. The best you can hope for is the rest of the heard will follow you in so you have someone else to stand on to keep from drowning in dung.

It is also funny that you think that by telling the paper and others that these reports are of no consequence and everyone should just blindly believe you. You have proven over and over again that you can not be trusted. If you move ahead with your building project on Metea before the IEPA is finished you are once again telling lies. I bet rather than swallow your pride and change paths for a better decision you will push forward just to stick it to the public so everyone can see how important you are. Keep pushing the I hate TG message. That will be fun.

Anyway, I think you're doing a great job. Keep up the good fight. Was that what you wanted to hear? I expect your support now that I am on your side.

Excellent, truly professional response.

I would like to add to it, and I have sent a similar response back to our SD, as quite frankly I find part of Dr. Daechsners' response insulting.
I have been an active parent in this district for 18 years, giving untold time and effort in ES, MS and HS, in various positions and functions. To be summarily dismissed as not being part of the parents that support the district because I disagree with the site selection for many reasons, from safety to poor location compared to population center of the district. I was one of many people who worked tirelessly for 2 -3 years, 20+ hours a week / weekends, knocking on doors, writing fliers/literature, attending more meeting than I care to remember, to ensure passage of a referendum for a 3rd high school @ Brach-Brodie. Yes, the effort started as get funds approved for a 3rd high school - but they evolved into let's put it at the best site available for our district, safest for our children. Let's not pretend that no due diligence was done as to the best site for our district, or that transportation analysis weren't done to prove boundary proposal 5A was not the most financially sound and safest, and moving the least amount of children - especially long distances.
So when I read this note that pretends that there are only 200-300 upset people in this area over the site selection I find it disingenuous. It also shows a lack of listening to the constituency. At the Watts PTA meeting this week a parent informed people they had joined NSFOC and why. There were no disapproving moans and groans, people listened intently, as the wedge being driven through our community is getting larger daily. All concerns from this area have been ignored, and do not think they don't exist here. However some are actually afraid to come forward because of all the labeling going on. There are significantly more people upset than 200-300, although all might not be at the point where they have formally joined the NSFOC. Comments like this will drive more people to do so, and if that's what is trying to be accomplished, to further segregate people and areas into 'camps', that is what will happen. I find it very distressing that it seems some of these efforts are driven by people making the decisions, directing e-mail correspondence from some areas ( sometimes led by PTA officials ) to rally 'against' others, driving even more wedges between areas. I still receive many of these e-mails as a lot of us who worked on 204tk, wind204 etc., still get copied.
So let's be honest here, blindly supporting this site selection should not be the only barometer as to whether a person 'supports their district' or not. There are plenty of people who support this site for all the wrong reasons ( school in my back yard) - when 18 months ago they didn't support a 3rd high school period. There are also some who do not support the site for the wrong reasons as well. To try and lump all people together and label them on one issue is short sighted at best. I believe I have very valid reasons for not supporting this site, and all I have gotten in response to issues is dismissal of my concerns.

I am not ready to write off my 18 years of service and dedication to 204 because someone tells me I either support what I feel is absolutely the wrong site for this high school, or I somehow am anti- 204. I was here long before many people, and will likely be here long after. I love IPSD 204, and am very proud of my one graduate of WVHS. I couldn't have more respect for Waubonsie Valley, yet my next child will not be able to attend there. The 'new' Waubonsie being crafted decided that although my driving commute would triple to the new site, and the new site would be the absolute furthest from my home, it was best for the district. Then I hear at orientation that the new boundaries will allow for the school to raise more money for it's booster club, and the re-engineering of boundaries becomes more obvious as to the reason. Then as an option we get to attend a school on a site I would NEVER build my home on, nor would I think any SB or SD member choose to do so, yet will send our children there.
It is with heavy heart that because of these decisions we will leave 204 for our educational needs. I look back fondly on my involvement with this district and am proud of it. I refuse to send my child to a site I myself would not attend, however I do not view that as anti kids, or anti district. I call it doing my job as a parent, and to be told any differerntly is insulting.

You are an insult to this district and you along with Mark Metzger should resign. It is clear that when you dont agree with the very citizens that sign your big fat paycheck that you just close your ears, mind and soul. How dare you write a letter that basically says nothing, insults the people that disagree with you and essentailly wipes whatever may be hiding on the Eola land under a nice thick layer of concrete.

Whether or not the 204 residents support, dont support (the whole new high school mess or location) or dare to ask a few questions you are a "public official", hired by the public and responsible for acting like a professional CEO. I cant imagine the CEO of any publically traded company acting like you and then not being run out of town by its board..hint, hint SB!

God help us all!

Daeschner should go back to Kentucky.

The district is being sued by someone different each day and the board is incompetent.

Enrollment has peaked and is declining and they are still trying to build this thing. The district should cut its loses and order a few portable classrooms and be done with it.

The 3rd high school will never be needed.

By Concerned 204 Parent on April 10, 2008 7:26 AM

Thank you very much for your post. It echoes many things I have said to the SB myself. Unfortunately of the emails I sent, I only received one response. The response did not contain any information, insights, reasons, or answers - only questions posed back to me. And, when I answered those questions, I received no further acknowledgement.

In one particular email I pleaded for someone from the SB to step up and acknowledge the growing divide in the community and, as a leader, ask for an end to be put to the name calling, neighborhood bashing, and outright lies. And, you see where we are today - deeper in disgrace than ever. Seems we are continuing on that same path, as the stage has now clearly been set by Dr. Daeschner to blame a small group of people for all of the problems that plague the district today, and whatever is coming next. This is very inaccurate, unfair, and disheartening - not a sign of the strong, positive leadership needed going forward.

I, too, appreciate Dr. Daeschner's acknowledgement that this is a great school district. However, based on the message he sent out today, there are apparently only enough "thank you's" to go around to those who have given their complete support to him and the school board which is, in his mind, synonymous with support for the district:
_______________
I would like to thank the many parents who over the past few weeks have expressed their strong support for the district. Your continued support is appreciated.

Stephen Daeschner
Superintendent
_______________
I'm sorry, Dr. Daeschner, but I do support the district - its teachers, students, support staff and the parents in every neighborhood that make success happen, in small ways, every day. Support for the district and support for its leadership unfortunately are not always one in the same, but it would be nice to get back to that place.

Please read this slow because some how it's still not registering in your minds!!!

The Eola site is safe.

- 71.5 of the acres are fine.
- 8 of the 15 acres of the former Peaker Plant are fine.
- Remediation of the 7 acres in the NE corner is minor.
- There was no migration of the diesel fuel or coolant.
- EMF levels are low
- Peaker Plant location where there are areas of concern is over 23 acres away from where the school will be.
- Power Lines aren't even on the property and over 300 yars away (3 football fields)
- Train Tracks are even farther away from the school.
- Pipeline is 300 feet away from the school and will be monitored every year by Kimber Morgan.

Look aroud people there are far greater risks in your own neighborhoods or at our other schools and (thank God) there have never been any disasters. All this doom and gloom is just propaganda to try and prevent a school from being built any where but on the BB property by some unhappy parents that didn't get their way. End of story.

To: Dr. D as in Diaster..."DDD" on April 10, 2008 9:19 AM

Sorry to burst your little bubble you live in but there are far more of us that support the SB and DR. D then those that are against them and throw insults at them every day.

Sorry but it people like yourself that are an insult to the IPSD.

To "concerned parent 4/10 7:26am and "By Doc 4/10 9:14am"

Both your posts were very moving. Quite frankly, they are two of the best posts I have seen in quite some time.

I am also frustrated beyond comprehension.

In regards to Steven's letter;
1. It said alot of nothing about any quantifiable facts regarding the situation (Eola site) the costs, the 3 lawsuits etc. Just alot of fluff and puffery in my opinion

2. Yes, he has greatly underestimated the level of dissenting views regarding the situation. I have a feeling that is why they (Admin/SB) are fearful of putting the site up for a confirmation vote which would settile things and defuse a some ofthe situation. If they did this (put it up for a vote), my respect for them would skyrocket and I would support the will of the majority (whichever way it fell). We would then truly know where the majority of the district stands on this incredibility devisive issue.

3. I am a supporter of D204; BUT NOT THE current actions of the administration and SB. I am also a supporter (both financially and spiritually) of the NSFOC. I do not feel these are mutally exclusive. Apparently Steven does based on my intrepertation of his letter. We can agree to disagree.

4. In the interim; the 3 lawsuits will play out, Then In April of 2009; we will all have a chance to once again see where the majority of the district stands on this issue. 4 of the 7 SB members terms come up for re-election.

GF

I can't believe the NSFOC supporters here still are looking for answers in 7 reports that predate recent testing. The testing was done on the land recently. I don't care what was on the land 25 years ago. If it didn't come up in the recent testing, what ever the NSFOC hopes to find on the land 25 years ago is not there now. There was pesticide on the Tall Grass land 25 years ago. There was fertilizer on the Tall Grass land 25 years ago. What does that have to do with today?

And to those that take offense that Dr. D doesn't agree with just 9 plaintiffs and thier supporters, the over whelming majority of the district supports the school board and not the entitled nine. I still can't believe my tax dollars have to go to defend a lawsuit brought by nine selfish self centered homeowners that believe that thier right to the shiny new high school trumps the districts need for a new high school. I commend the school board for putting the district first and 9 selfish people second. My tax dollars should go to the students not Tall Grass attorneys. Keep up the fight Dr D.

To: Anonymous on April 10, 2008 9:47 AM

I don't know what numbers you're looking at but the population spike of our kids hasn't happened and won't for a few more years. I believe the kids that are currently in 4th and 5th grade are the largest spike in our population. To add portable classrooms is very costly and for that many years almost equals what a 3rd HS would be. Then after that we still have about 10,000 kids still in 2 HS. That's not even taking into effect if certain areas start to grow again and the housing market picks back up.

If you are so against a third HS or your taxes going up then maybe you should move to a different school district. The HS was voted for and passed.

I'm surprised no one responded to my post yesterday. This concerns me more then anything that I had no takers....

How about all of us try and assist and help our own school board fight the Brach Trust and Brodie Trust? Afterall, this will surely effect us equally no matter where or when or if the 3rd HS is built. Think a HS will make our taxes go up. Add that to 2 additional lawsuits and over priced land at BB if we are forced to purchase it.

While our SB could have/should have handled some things possibly different during those 2 years they tried to aquire the land on all of our behalf. It doesn't mean we can't all support them now, does it? I for one don't want to see the Brach and Brodie Trust live off our money when it should be going towards our kids.

I would personally like to see a few members from the NSFOC organization and those that created the NSFOCfraud group to get together. Let's all help the school board and cast our differences aside for a moment. We all need to heal people and this is the only way I can see all of us pulling together for a common cause and fight how much BB is trying to steal from all of us!!!

Any takers? I'm willing.

to You're just wrong:

You may want to check with the SB-SD, or do an FOIA for their population projections from their meeting March 2008. 10,400 was a worst case scenario, and by their own projections less than 30 days ago the maximum HS population is now a little over 8900 and not until 2013.

So if you're going to rant, at least have the right numbers.

btw..I still agree we need a 3rd high school, but you need to stay up to date on your numbers, because as the data is released, using 10,400 is embarassingly wrong.

I guess we can figure out why his contract in Kentucky wasn't renewed.

Dr. Daeschner is a disgrace. He has (along with the help of the school board) destroyed our district.

I had a bad feeling back in July when he moved public comment to the end of the board meetings. I knew then he did not want to hear from any of us.

GO BACK TO KENTUCKY OR BETTER YET- ALASKA!

I'm with "Come on, People!" If people want to continue to hurl online insults at each other, I suppose that is their right. It seems like a much more intelligent and productive option to band together and protect our tax dollars agains the BB lawsuit. Ideas on how to do this?

Let's not forget that Dr. D is a carpetbagger and won't be here for long. Those of us who are long term residents have more say in this matter than he ever will.

Let's also not forget that the Superintendent serves at the pleasure of the SB so he can not question or challenge them or they will throw him out in a heartbeat. He is between a rock and a hard place because he has no choice but to fly the flag and support whatever the SB does regardless of his own personal opinion.

Thank you Dr D. for spelling out how insignificant this small group is.

If you stopped every time someone sued you, this country would be at a standstill.

Keep going on as business as usual. Even after the high school is built, they'll probably sue because you didn't use the right quality of brick. It just goes on and on.

For SC:

yes, I have a suggestion as to how. Hire a new set of attorneys and have them do the negotiation with the BB trust to put the darn school where it belongs. Negotiate away the the penalties by doing what we told them, the state of Illinois, the courts and the people here we were going to do.
Abandon the site where none of us would build our home, and return to the site where the SB and BB both agree is the right site.
It would work under the Illinois Build Smart program, require no remediation, lessen future transportation costs by as much as 13% per year over AME-MWGEN.

Do not send the same negotiation team who initially responded to negotiations by condemning the land then wondering why BB was ticked off.

How's that for a start ? And please don't counter with the we can't afford it mantra- the SB already told the courts they could, and neither you nor anyone else has seen an independent accounting of all costs...

" I hope that you do not construe those who have pursued litigation against the Administration and Board as not caring very deeply about their children..." taken from the first posting...

I don't think anyone doubts that those nine who have pursued litigation against the Administration and Board(as well as all of the residents and their children too!) care very deeply for THEIR chldren. They just don't seem to care much about anyone else's.

I think the NSFOC effectively took a lot of the heat off some of the school board decisions. People were deeply offended that a disgruntled few would go to the extreme of filing a lawsuit that we all get to pay to defend without consulting us first. Aren't they doing the same thing they blame the school board of doing?
The difference of course, is that we voted for the school board members to make decisions for us in regards to our school district...nobody asked these nine people to speak for all of us, let alone pay for them to do it!

I think there are probably some that would love to see these people not get what they want and there are probably even more that may hope they do...this keeps them sequestered in their own area ...away from the rest of us.

Another quote I found disturbing in the first letter was... " Quite frankly, but for your comment in regards to entitlement at the February 19th Board meeting, I am not sure whether the NSFOC group would have successfully formed, yet alone litigation would have been filed against the District."

Are you serious?!! Do you mean to tell me that NSFOC formed their group and filed litigation because of an entitlement comment? This would be extremely egostistical, arrogant, and self serving if true. As if they needed to stand up and defend their character and pride? Let's just say that sure "backfired".
Lots of folks witnessed their antics during the 2006 meetings. It was publicly heard that "we bought in the Neuqua district and we deserve to go there". Indifference to a few "whiners" has ultimately become a total lack of respect.

Whether this group wants to admit it or not...their actions have revitalized support by many residents for the school board as we do recognize that at least all along they have been trying to do what's best for ALL of our kids, by building a third high school to benefit ALL OF THE DISTRICT'S CHILDREN.

NO, I don't doubt for a moment that the nsfoc folks care very deeply for their children.

For SC:

yes, I have a suggestion as to how. Hire a new set of attorneys and have them do the negotiation with the BB trust to put the darn school where it belongs. Negotiate away the the penalties by doing what we told them, the state of Illinois, the courts and the people here we were going to do.
Abandon the site where none of us would build our home, and return to the site where the SB and BB both agree is the right site.
It would work under the Illinois Build Smart program, require no remediation, lessen future transportation costs by as much as 13% per year over AME-MWGEN.

Do not send the same negotiation team who initially responded to negotiations by condemning the land then wondering why BB was ticked off.

How's that for a start ? And please don't counter with the we can't afford it mantra- the SB already told the courts they could, and neither you nor anyone else has seen an independent accounting of all costs...

Same old people, stating the same old things on EVERY post on the Metea property.

Time to get some new material and do something with your lives other than sitting in front of this blog for the ENTIRE day EVERY day.

Geez people. Really. There are many things you can do that are much more meaningful and more impactful than blogging about this subject.

Time to get a new topic of discussion on these blogs...and not a new twist on the old topic either.

There are other things in the world to discuss than Metea Valley.

To: Save us from Ourselves on April 10, 2008 11:06 AM

SC... said he agreed with me. However, as you will notice I did not take a side on how I feel or where I feel the 3rd HS should be.

As I stated we need to come together and help the school board from the BB Trust's that seek an amount of money that all of us will pay above and beyond a 3rd HS. First things first, right? Sadly, I feel that if we don't fight the Brach and Brodie Trusts no HS will ever be built because IPSD would have to pass at least 2 more referendums.

I guess I just have to realize that some people will not rest their personal agendas because (as you have shown me) those are far more important then the whole IPSD and the bigger issue at hand which is paying the BB lawyers and their trusts.

MIDWEST GEN PULLED OUT OF EOLA DEAL TODAY!!

By nsfoc... but they just want what's best for THEIR kids! on April 10, 2008 11:14 AM
GREAT POST!!!

To: nsfoc... but they just want what's best for THEIR kids! on April 10, 2008 11:14 AM

"Lots of folks witnessed their antics during the 2006 meetings. It was publicly heard that "we bought in the Neuqua district and we deserve to go there". Indifference to a few "whiners" has ultimately become a total lack of respect."

______________________

I agreee!! Funny how most people that attended those meetings in 2005 and 2006 forget the way that the TG residents acted during those meetings. Shouting, walking out, cursing at the school board saying "this was not over". You can point fingers at the Brookdale residents for not wanting their middle school to be split up but they did it with respect by wearing (orange) t-shirts and had signs. They were never disrespectful. I don't live any where near either subdivision but I remember all too well.

The attitude towards 1 neighborhood starte over 3 years ago because of the way a majority of TG residents were acting. Notice I don't say all. I honestly saw this NSFOC group forming a long time ago. It was only a matter of time. Fast forward to 2008 and the members who formed the NSFOC (mostly TG residents) didn't get their way and they school board had made a decision to draw up different boundaries that they were not happy with. Well, it was just like 205-2006 all over again. Therefore the formation of the NSFOC.

Sorry NSFOC it has always been about your children it has always been about your taxes and it has always been about what you feel you deserve. I'm sorry but Dr. D nailed it when he used the word "entitlement".

Regarding Dr. Daeschner's long-awaited coming out email yesterday where he indicates:

...I have been reluctant to share my commentary on the matter. Until now." ...I'll be bringing you accurate information based on facts." My question is …what did you really say that was newsworthy in your long awaited message? Nothing!!

You cited statistics and sentiments that we already know and have about our density, schools, kids, faculty and staff. Are you a cheerleader or a well-paid executive public official? BTW, you have very little credit to take for this since you are a newbie. Unfortunately, and as usual, when you do speak you say little to nothing to quell the outstanding concerns and questions raised by parents, tax payers or the NSFOC. Your consistent documented response is its all “misinformation". What about the 3 (and possibly more) lawsuits which your management has provoked??

Thank goodness for the efforts of committed parents and the NSFOC for their tireless and organized research and due diligence to guide the proper construction of a new HS. I too have attended the futile SB meetings to learn you REALLY don't care what’s on the minds of your audience. You and your colleagues have adjourned SB meetings in record time when people have gathered and waited for hours to be heard or learn new relevant details about the looming questions and concerns raised. You require people to pre-register at an unreasonable time most likely to deter public commentary and ad-hoc dialog and thinking. Did you ever consider the possibility of real value coming from a forum supporting ad-hoc questions? Of course not, because the SB normally comes with prepared statements that have been stratically crafted to say nothing new except... 'please keep holding your breathe while we proceed with making the Aug 2009 opening'. You’re deliberate nature and coldness is coming through loud and clear. You obviously have hidden alliances, agendas and motives which in the end will be discovered. It's just a matter of time.

Finally, you need to personally take responsibility why everything is now being played out by lawyers and the media. Remember, the papers have been filed by lawyers because the SB reluctance to share pertinent information on due diligence with the very taxpayers that elected you into office and pay for your cushy incomes and because you have shunned legitimate concern as disingenuous. I'm personally astounded with your and Metzker’s demeanor as D204 executives. Your lack of openness and compassion for parental and tax payer concerns is alarming and revolting.

Good luck in the future whatever you and Metzker decide to do. I mean this. I forgive you and want to be forgiven for any personal misunderstandings. But please, do anything executive-like in the future except pretend you understand the needs and compassion of our D204 community. In my opinion the 2 of you have squandered this elected privilege.

Just heard Midwest Gen has decided not to sell their 37 acres to district 204.

Come on People think....

You are absolutely correct. This is something that everyone needs to be concerned about. This is money these BB lawyers are trying to take from our kids to pad their pockets.They are manipulating our legal system at the expense of this public school district's educational funds. Period.
I would think everyone would have to take issue with this.

For all of those who keep singing the NSFOC's praises you are clueless!!!

They are suing our school district and everyone of us!!

Their lawsuit is to satisfy thier own self interests?

If you can disagree with either of these 2 statements and give me a good reason why I should support them especially as it relates to the second point, then I will run out and join them.

Until then, the majority of the district will continue to disagree with everything the NSFOC stands for and is doing to the children, parents and teachers of IPSD. Now I will suppose you will try to turn it around and blame the SB. What the NSFOC is doing is a slap in the face to everyone!!! The SB has always tried to do what is in the best interest of all of us. What the NSFOC is doing is only for their best interests.

Dr. Daeschner says nothing, again!

Regarding Dr. Daeschner's long-awaited coming out email yesterday where he indicates ...I have been reluctant to share my commentary on the matter. Until now." ...I'll be bringing you accurate information based on facts." My question is …what did you really say that was newsworthy in your long awaited message? Nothing!!

You cited statistics and sentiments that we already know and have about our density, schools, kids, faculty and staff. Are you a cheerleader or a well-paid executive? BTW, you have very little credit to take for this since you are a newbie. Unfortunately, and as usual, when you do speak you say little to nothing to quell the outstanding concerns and questions raised by parents, tax payers or the NSFOC. Your consistent documented response is its all “misinformation".

Thank goodness for the efforts of committed parents and the NSFOC for their tireless research and due diligence to support the proper construction of a new HS. I too have attended the futile SB meetings to learn you really don't care what’s on the minds of your audience. You and your colleagues have adjourned SB meetings in record time when people have gathered and waited for hours to be heard or learn new relevant details about the looming questions and concerns raised. You require people to pre-register at an unreasonable time most likely to deter public commentary and ad-hoc dialog and thinking. Did you ever consider the possibility of real value coming from a forum ad-hoc questions can be entertained? Of course not, because the SB normally comes with prepared statements. You’re deliberate nature and coldness is coming through loud and clear.

Finally, you need to personally take responsibility why everything is now being played out by lawyers and the media. Remember, the papers have been filed by lawyers because the SB reluctance to share pertinent information on due diligence with the very taxpayers that elected you into office and pay for your cushy incomes and because you have shunned legitimate concern as disingenuous. I'm personally astounded with your and Metzker’s demeanor as D204 executives. Your lack of openness and compassion for parental and tax payer concerns is alarming and revolting.

Good luck in the future whatever you and Metzker decide to do. I mean this. I forgive you and want to be forgiven for any personal misunderstandings. But please, do anything executive-like in the future except pretend you understand the needs and compassion of our D204 community. In my opinion the 2 of you have squandered your elected privilege.

It is with heartfelt appreciation to the leaders of Midwest Generation that we are able to confirm that Midwest Generation has terminated negotiations with District 204 and will not be proceeding with the sale of this property for the purpose of hosting a school location.

As many of us have communicated from the start, this land was and is not appropriate to be used a a site for a school.

As we move forward, hopefully we can come together as a District and start rowing our oars in the same direction.

Is there anyone out there in the construction trade. Let me know if there is any chance this baby is going to be built in a 15-16 month timetable. Thanks.

I would just like to remind everyone that Dr. Daeschner is merely doing the job he was hired to do. Sure, he is divisive,arrogant and abrasive to anyone who disagrees with him. Those are characteristics that go along with being forceful. Our board wanted a forceful Superintendent for the 2007 to 2010 contract period they hired him for, which is why they chose him over other candidates.

Here's the real truth. The AME/Midwest sites became available in late 2006, while IPSD was in the middle of litigation with Brach-Brodie. The Macom site also became available at that same time and was summarily rejected. Our board continued to pursue Brach-Brodie, but their intent was already questionable in early 2007. Our board was at the altar of getting quick-take authority in early 2007, but backed away because that would have required a binding commitment to pay the jury price. Our board was supposed to put up $600k per acre in an escrow account but didn't do so. It was at that point, in Feb-07, that Dr. Daeschner was hired.

After being hired, Dr. Daeschner chose a home within a half mile of this AME/Midwest property, despite the fact that there were literally hundreds of similar homes for sale much closer to the district offices. Then in Sep-07 Dr. Daeschner began formally negotiating to buy the AME-Midwest site, according to his powerpoint. We don't know if that was before or after the jury verdict on the land price, but since the jury verdict was the 27th of September, it was likely before. Hopefully that will come out in discovery at some point.

The district pretended to take a month to think about it, but it seems from the start date of testing on the Midwest property that the board immediately rejected Brach-Brodie after the jury verdict, if not before. The board said they would look at other sites and in November the district announced the site selection criteria and process. Dr. Daeschner had 'courtesy' discussions with owners of other sites in October and November, but let's be honest, the AME-Midwest site had already been chosen. On January 15th (the Tuesday before a holiday weekend), Daeschner announced he'd recommend the AME-Midwest site to the board. He gave the public one week to comment. Most of the public anyway. At least one neighborhood that would obviously be in favor of the project was given a day's head start. The board supposedly saw his recommendation for the first time at that point as well. The board voted in its favor the following Tuesday, just 7 days later.

The key criteria used by Daeschner and the board to justify the AME-Midwest site over the cheaper Hamman site was the fact that Hamman could not be ready for 2009. The reason given for why Hamman might not be ready was the fact that no environmental testing had been done. But the district had already completed (and possibly paid for)testing on the AME-Midwest site. In addition to the artificial 2009 deadline, the reason that AME-Midwest site was chosen over the Macom site was the fact that it was slightly more expensive. Brach-Brodie was rejected because it exceeded an artificial $146.4mn ceiling for the cost of Metea by about $10mn. For those who like to note that the specific language of the referendum doesn't specifically state a site, you should know that the referendum doesn't specifically state a purchase amount for the high school, either. The referendum merely asked for a $123mn bond. The district has a surplus of over $90mn and could have easily applied $10mn from that surplus to the high school if the board had wanted to.

In his arguments supporting the AME-Midwest site, Dr. Daeschner cited "efficient boundaries" as an argument in favor of it, while he cited difficulty in creating "contiguous" boundaries as arguments against Hamman and Macom. This suggests that boundary plans had already been evaluated and could have been presented to the board at the same time the site selection was. But presumably the board wanted the site and boundary decisions bifurcated to enable it to quickly pass the resolution to buy the AME-Midwest land.

Whoever decided to bifurcate the land-boundary decision was very smart, because the boundary decision did stir tremendous community scrutiny. Imagine if the community had been actively involved in calculating comparative bussing costs, comparative environmental remediation costs, comparative school scores and comparative boundaries of the various sites at the same time. The AME-Midwest site probably wouldn't have been chosen.

Dr. Daeschner was happy to trumpet the site selection, but he let Kathi Birkett take the heat on the boundaries. Her boundary proposal was publicized on Feb-12 (again before another holiday weekend). The public was again given a week to comment and then the board made a quick one-night decision to approve his proposal. The previous boundary process had taken weeks of public input, weeks of meetings and a number of iterations before it was approved by a split board. The fact that the board approved the boundaries with only one minor change and with minimal discussion tells you all you need to know. Birkett's proposal was Daeschner's proposal, which was the board's own proposal. That proposal was probably implicitly agreed amongst board members in early 2007 when they backed away from using quick-take, hired Daeschner and sent him house hunting in the neighborhood where he now resides.

My conclusion from all this history is that the location and boundaries chosen were not Daeschner's decisions. They were probably mostly Board President Metzger's, but he obviously was able to convince his fellow board members effectively. So why would Metzger have decided in early 2007 to weasle out of Brach-Brodie and engineer a process that would lead to AME-Midwest. I don't have a sufficient answer. I laughed when some opponents of the boundaries wanted to get Lisa Madigan to investigate. Now I think that is exactly what should happen. This smells like a Tony Rezko type of situation. I only hope the local bank tellers will monitor our board members' bank transactions as diligently as Elliot Spitzer's tellers monitored his.

By Right On on April 10, 2008 11:42 AM
To: nsfoc... but they just want what's best for THEIR kids! on April 10, 2008 11:14 AM

"Lots of folks witnessed their antics during the 2006 meetings. It was publicly heard that "we bought in the Neuqua district and we deserve to go there". Indifference to a few "whiners" has ultimately become a total lack of respect."

______________________

I agreee!! Funny how most people that attended those meetings in 2005 and 2006 forget the way that the TG residents acted during those meetings. Shouting, walking out, cursing at the school board saying "this was not over". You can point fingers at the Brookdale residents for not wanting their middle school to be split up but they did it with respect by wearing (orange) t-shirts and had signs. They were never disrespectful. I don't live any where near either subdivision but I remember all too well.

The attitude towards 1 neighborhood starte over 3 years ago because of the way a majority of TG residents were acting. Notice I don't say all. I honestly saw this NSFOC group forming a long time ago. It was only a matter of time. Fast forward to 2008 and the members who formed the NSFOC (mostly TG residents) didn't get their way and they school board had made a decision to draw up different boundaries that they were not happy with. Well, it was just like 205-2006 all over again. Therefore the formation of the NSFOC.

Sorry NSFOC it has always been about your children it has always been about your taxes and it has always been about what you feel you deserve. I'm sorry but Dr. D nailed it when he used the word "entitlement".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I hope you are not one of our neighbors. Do you realize how stupid you make us look. I don't think 15 people or less walking out of a meeting a few years back, after being provoked by negative comments from the SB constitutes a majority of TG residents. I was there too and sat next to friends of mine who live there. Great People with good common sense. A shame those few felt they had to act the way they did but you can't label a whole subdivision like that. What would people say about us. I don't recall reading any blogs that came out and Bashed us without provocation. Let's get back to being housewives and stop pretending these blogs help mend fenses with our neighbors by beating the TG is bad drum. Its just flat wrong.

To COME ON PEOPLE...THINK on April 10, 2008 10:29 AM--

While I appreciate your attitude of wanting to unite the district for a common cause, I don't think assisting our school board fight the Brach Trust and Brodie Trust is an appropriate venue. According to Daeschner's own statements, he expects there will be -0- damages awarded to the B&B trusts as a result of the SD tying up their land for two years in condemnation proceedings, winning the jury verdict, and then changing their minds. Daeschner doesn't think BB will get a cent, much less be living off our money. At the very most, the board has budgeted 5 million for these expenses, a drop in the bucket considering the many millions the SB has at its disposal.

I've heard it said that you can't solve a problem until you acknowledge it, and the SB definitely does not acknowledge a $40 million damage complaint as a problem. The very fact that you see this as a threat indicates to me that you're more in touch with reality than Daeschner and Metzger are, but unfortunately you're not the one making the decisions.

Thanks for the offer, but I'll pass.

Mid West Gen just pulled out of the contract so it just doesn't matter anymore - we are back to square one!

Dollars and Sense. The $40 million you mention is what the developer would have paid to buy the land. For the BB trust to be entitled to $40 million, they would have to say/prove that the land is now worthless.

Moderator Jim: Are we going to have to wait for tomorrow to hear the big news, or are you going to post it online?

Moderator Jim: In the last hour or so there have been multiple postings that Midwest generation has pulled out of the 204 HS deal. We cannot post these comments until we confirm this development. Just be patient and if any of you bloggers have solid information regarding this evolving story, don't hesitate to contact us. Thanks.

Stonebrook Corner,
I don't think Right On was implying that ALL TG residents are also all nsfoc members.The point was that the actions of a few bad apples unfortunately and unfairly reflected poorly on the subdivision's name.
The statements were directed toward the nsfoc lawsuit filers....not the subdivision as a whole, obviously.The post even stated that.(...."Notice I didn't say all")
I personally know many residents there that do not agree with this group at all.I feel bad for the situation they have been put it.What a nightmare!
These statements were also not unprovoked. They are in response to a certain lawsuit filed against all of us.

To Anon on 4/10 at 12:52 PM--

All the same, this is what they are suing for. I really don't think they'll get this either, but I can't believe they'll get $0, and I think it's very likely they'll get more than the $5 million that is budgeted. And keep in mind this is just from the Brodie Trust, the $40.2 million figure does not include the Brach Trust damages.

1. Ref failed 2005
2. Ref failed in 2006 (BB was marketed as to what created a yes vote, that is obvious, as it was determined that the school site and boundaries needed to be determined before voters would vote yes).
3. So, let's say it again - 2005 failed. 2006 failed
4. 2006 the vote was "yes" with 100% voter perception at BB land, and boundaries.

Again, if in the marketing of the ref they had said *may be built near TOXIC DUMP near I88 Exp and **these boundaries for BB are only if we can buy the bb land then it would be one thing.

Dr. Dashner will be suing the SB. Mark my word. His career is ruined. After he's done supporting a Board who tears up a community, no one in their right mind would hire this guy. Thus, he may know this. Which is why he's siding with the unilateral decision making of a couple rogue board members.

I can't believe the sb and Dashner (Phd, c'mon) - I'd like to know where it's from. The Ed program he went to I'm sure did not say build schools on toxic dumps for school children.

Lastly, my gosh, you know how desperate Dahner is when he calls NSFOC 200-300 members. That tells you something - which is they (sb) needs to spin the opposite. For him to insult the group means they are worried about the group. Also, last count I heard was over 3000 individual donors.

Let me say that again - 3,000 donors. Who do you think is paying the lawyer? 200-300 people? Movements take on a life of their own. Obama raises it off of millions of small donations.

Embarrassing. Embarrassing. Has pride gotten to them over what thousands of residents are asking for: a fair shake.

Why would anyone attending Metea after these reports want to go there. That's a shame.

I can just see those toxic reports showing up in the research one does on district 204.

YOU LIVE IN MAY WATTS - SOMEONE GOING TO BUY A HOUSE THERE. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SEARCH METEA VALLEY OR DISTRICT 204 AND YOU SEE A TOXIC DUMP.

BUYING A HOUSE IN BROOKDALE, SOMEONE SEARCHING SCHOOL DISTRICT THEIR KIDS ARE GOING TO ATTEND. GOOD LUCK.

One of the biggest factors when someone buys a home with kids is where do they go to school. Right now our whole district looses with this situation. Everyone. I'd run like wildfire from a district being sued and building on land that is dangerous.

Moderator Jim to Anonymous: Just confirmed it....we're putting it up at napersun.com now. Read all about it.

It's true. Midwest Gen pulled out. Feel free to contact Linda Holmes's office (use the Springfield number 217-782-0422). They'll confirm the good news! Brach Brodie here we come.

Moderator Jim: We just called - senator's office out. However, it is confirmed. Check napersun.com for details. We're posting it now.

I heard today that Midwest Generation is refusing to sell. Has this been confirmed?

if that is true that Midwest Gen pulled out because of the influence of nine people, it is a sad day in the district. I am going to get 8 of neighbors together to sue anybody and everybody to get whatever I want.

Dr. Daeschner....

The timing of your note yesterday seemed a little suspicious. "I mean...goodnight!"

I have been participating in these blogs for weeks. I have posted under a variety of names. I have posted thoughtful notes as well as flames. I have posted serious notes intended to encourage real thought as well as polemics designed to provoke and label. I have done it partly for sport, but also because I care deeply about the education of all the kids in our district. But I have been a consistent supporter of the Eola purchase. (My kids attend a school in the south unaffected by the new boundaries.)

I am now encouraging the SB to re-look at BB because I do not believe the cost difference will be significant – and with litigation looming, may be zero. Or negative. Furthermore, continuing to fight these fights saps the board of the time to do other things which will be more value-added related to our kids education.

But I find NSFOC to be reprehensible. I think most others who are not their direct supporters do as well. And I have some advice for them now that I am hoping for the same outcome they are – the purchase of BB.

- Quit trying to make something out of nothing. The environmental concerns are bogus. And I think most of you know it. But they are a very attractive target because many people are ignorant and easily scared. So you use this as an issue despite knowing it is a load of malarkey. But when you do so, you lose credibility with people who are intelligent enough to avoid succumbing to hysteria and are able to see through the smokescreen.

- Quit saying you were the victim of a legal bait-and-switch. You weren’t. That term has a very narrow legal definition, and this case does not meet it. By claiming it, you again lose credibility with people who are informed enough to know the difference and it weakens your case. However, I feel your pain. Most of you are from WE/TG and are disappointed not to go to the school you are closest to. You supported the referendum and your schools and you feel that a penny-wise but pound-foolish choice has been made.

- The school is on the far edge of the district, away from the growth. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. Use that. You will gain more support by using truthful argument.

- The Eola site is an ugly, bleak, industrial-looking site, surrounded by power lines and railroad tracks. It does not make you think……“I look forward to coming here to learn every day.” BB is far more attractive, surrounded by residential and retail. It simply feels ‘warmer.’ Aesthetics may not help your legal case, but I think it might help you gain more public support.

- The outcomes of various legal cases are uncertain. Not just your own case, but those of the estates. Even a best-case settlement narrows the cost gap between BB and Eola. A worst case outcome blows it away. The idea of rolling the dice on getting the correct legal outcome makes me queasy. I think it does most rational people in the district. Use that fact.

- Admit that both sites are workable. Argue that BB is the BEST overall choice. Avoid the hysterics and hyperbole which fills your web site and the content of most of the bog submissions here. These do not convince intelligent, rational people. They turn them off.

- Admit your agenda. You are unhappy with the boundaries. Get it out front because it is truly the elephant in the corner. Diffuse it by admitting it, and asking people to put themselves in your position – you will be going to a facility which is much further away and you don’t like it. And you don’t believe they would either. You will be pilloried by some, but at least you can avoid being called selective at best in disclosing your motives or liars at worst.

- Quit demonizing the SB. They are not demons and they do not deserve your spiteful comments. This will not help you in your cause. The members of the SB were elected by you to be your representatives. If you don’t like the job they are doing, vote them out and do a better job selecting next time around. Or go ahead and run for these unpaid positions yourself and experience the venom first hand. See how well you are able to keep your composure and continue to make unbiased judgments.

- Be careful who you select as your allies. You have been joined by many who do not want to see a third HS built anywhere. It makes people not hear your arguments because they distrust your motives.

Good Luck. I hope to see you all the ribbon cutting for the new BB high school.

If Linda Holmes did this I hope the voters remember this in November.

By the way, this could be good news. If the church sells the district the south portion of their land instead of the north portion then there isn't a word the entitled nine can say/do.

How sad and narcissistic are the people who created NSFOC, as well as their legal represention. They adjust and readjust their purpose to cover up their true reason for their existence. It's laughable watching the public comment portion of the Board Meeting videos prior to the new boundaries being drawn...easy to figure out who is a member of the NSFOC. Now all of the sudden, in their opinion, our new Superintendent and School Board are "bad" people. Imagine how the people affiliated with the NSFOC conduct themselves at their job or within society..."what is in it for me!" Kudos to you Dr. D. and the School Board for your allegiance to the kids in this School District and for letting your intelligence shine through in such a ridiculous situation. Read between the lines of Dr. D.'s public comments NSFOC; you are already good at turning something into nothing. Lastly, it appears that the writers covering this story at the NS also have some type of personal connection with the NSFOC...probably why the people writing, editing and publishing the "stories" work at a "local" newspaper rather than one that requires seasoned and unbiased reporting. O.K. now, read the rebuttals following this e-mail from the NSFOC (Narcissistic Superficial Folks Overtop Constituents)...they demonstrate why they are who they are.

Now that Midwest Generation is out and the Eola site is not an option - I would urge the School Board to think this through. Don't rush into another hasty decision.

Answer the following questions logically and rationally - putting aside your petty political and geographicl considerations - which means you need to think beyond Brookdale, Springbrook, Aurora, WE/TG, or whatever your favorite constutuency is. Perhaps the best approach is to hand this whole effort over to a third party consultancy which does not report to the School board to ensure impartiality-

1. Do we really need a third high school or is there a better alternative in the short term?

2. If yes, then how can we make the original BB proposal work. That was what was marketed by the school board originally, though it was carefully (and politically expediently) left out of the specific referendum wording. Since people bought into that site and boundary proposal the school board should seriously examine all options to make this happen. The additional consideration now is the fact that we will potentially face damages if we move to another site.

3. If the school board doesn't believe BB will work and the third party agrees, then look at other sites.

4. Consider other out-of-the-box soutions such as do we even need a district 204 - should we merge with district 203. Should district 204 be split. Should another referendum be held to understand what the district really wants.

The same old ramrodding will not work.