Judge delays ruling on NSFOC lawsuit

I think the judge will dismiss the case, and I am an NSFOC supporter. Unfortunately, the judge has information in his possession that the NSFOC has not been able to counter. Why they have not countered, is a mystery to me.

First, the judge may be thinking the NSFOC is a small group, when it actually is a large group supported but not necessarily joined by of most of the 15,000 YES votes from the 2006 Referendum who feel disenfranchised today, plus many of the 10,000 NO votes who are probably still NO today based on the bad decision-making of the school district.

Secondly, the judge probably thinks the school board was justified in going to Eola because the land at BB was much more expensive than Eola, even though he does not see the fact that damages from Eola are likley (+$20M for Eola) and higher transportation costs are guaranteed for Eola (being where 17% of population lives vs where 64% where BB is, so add another $30M). These two figures alone swing the BB into a savings versus Eola. When you add risks and liabilities from 3 gas lines thru the middle of the Eola site, proximity to hazardous chemical contamination, RR tracks and power lines at Eola, there appears to be no good reason or justification for Eola over BB.

If Eola cannot be justified on a financial basis, then what is the real reason for the switch. Did something happen during the condemnation trial that made the SB take advantage of their own luck, to hide an upcoming academic problem - like all achievement tests to be taken in English, or some other major issue? Do not know, but something happened in 2006-2007. What was it?

Finally the judge will honor the SB rights to make decisions on boundaris, locations, etc., but he does not seem to understand that those decisions were made IN ADVANCE of the 2006 Referendom, very different from other typical referendums.

NSFOC and its attorney did not make these points very well.

"How do I have the ability to order them to purchase that (Brach-Brodie) site?" asked Popejoy.

In response, NSFOC attorney Shawn Collins backed off of this demand, and offered other avenues of relief for his clients

Ok, now the plot thins a bit. We now know the NSFOC is ok with the school where it is. Can anyone tell what comes next?

This district and SB marketed and sold the BB site and boundaries to voters (they have admitted as such).

They screwed voters to get what they wanted. In fact the boundaries and location not only apply to the referendum election, but the 2007 SB election as well.

Metzger, Bradshaw and Tyle ran their campaigns on NOT CHANGING the referendum boundaries and location.

We were lied to again and again during 06 and yet again during 2007 when challengers to the incumbents asked for a Plan B if BB came in too high.

I went to every meeting regarding the 2007 SB election. Metzger, Bradshaw and Tyle stood behind the BB location every time they were questioned on it. There was NO other plan in mind for those three as they repeatedly stated IT WAS NOT NECESARRY as BB would not be an issue. ALL THE CHALLENGERS stated they were not comfortable with the BB condemnation suit.

Makes me sick thinking about the last school board election. All 3 incumbents were challenged on BB and they shot down the other candidates.

We are morons in district 204. The incumbents ran on boundary promises, no doubt in my mind. Some of the people that ran the campaigns for Metzger, Tyle and Bradshaw are FURIOUS right now because of broken promises.

I hope NSFOC nails them for their lies.

"NSFOC and its attorney did not make these points very well."

that's because they are the unfounded rantings of a group of people who will throw anything against the wall to see if it sticks....

By ONH on May 25, 2008 5:19 PM
"How do I have the ability to order them to purchase that (Brach-Brodie) site?" asked Popejoy.

"In response, NSFOC attorney Shawn Collins backed off of this demand, and offered other avenues of relief for his clients..

Ok, now the plot thins a bit. We now know the NSFOC is ok with the school where it is. Can anyone tell what comes next?".....

ONH, I think we can probably concur what comes next :).Too bad for all of the nsfoc supporters that will now be thrown under the bus by their own group "leaders" :) Every man for himself! But who can be surprised?

thank god its almost over. I am so tired of hearing a small group of angry homeowners say they speak for me. They do not. They never have. They never will. I do not want a small group of entitled elitists claiming the speak for me.

The NSFOCers were pretty giddy Friday afternoon, when the news was that Judge Popejoy didn't throw the suit out. They could smell victory. Then, the story was revealed that Popejoy will not and cannot force the SD to buy and build on the BB site. So, what's left? The only thing that NSFOC can get (based on the remedies outlined in their amended suit) are to stop construction on any site (other than BB) and rescind the bonds that were sold. If this happens, the third high school will never be built. Do the NSFOCers want to hurt the whole district? DO the NSFOCers still hold any hope for Popejoy to force the BB site on the district, or through appeal?

By Anonymous on May 25, 2008 10:06 PM
"This district and SB marketed and sold the BB site and boundaries to voters (they have admitted as such).

They screwed voters to get what they wanted."

Sure, we all wanted BB but knew we had to own the land before we could build our third high school on it. The SB did not "screw voters to get what they wanted". In fact, WE (all of the yes voters) got what WE wanted. A third high school for all of our children. However, now nsfoc is trying to take our votes away. THEY are the ones screwing the rest of us.

I cannot believe that people would jeopardize all of this for everyone, just for their own personal agenda to attend THE particular district high school THEY want for THEIR kids. Such blatant altruism. It truly saddens me.

I hope the judge takes his time on this case. As much as we'd all like a new school up North so we can say we've got one in the North Central and South the dempgraphics don't support one. Its obvious the SB has not thought this out and if BB was not affordable they should have really looked into all options. IF gas does hit $8-$10/gal we're all going to be paying through the nose for Metzger's, Clark's and Daschner's arrogance.

We have a major mess on our hands here with multiple lawsuits, parents and neighbors fighting. When the board is not spending our money foolishly they are gambling it on multiple lawsuits. I for one am fed up and so I hope the judge can give us an unbiased ruling on this one since there are several behind this one that will cost us millions of dollars.

We have a great school system in 204 and great students because of great parents and teachers. The issue here is with the board who needs to be governed. They obviously don't care what the parents think and are not accountable to those who elected them so maybe a judge can restrain them so that we can get out of this lawsuit happy time.

if it never gets built then brookdale will get what they voted for.
karma.

Anonymous on May 25, 2008 10:06 PM :

“This district and SB marketed and sold the BB site and boundaries to voters” Sadly for you, the BB property was not written on the referendum. Perhaps you should be more careful with your vote next time.

“Metzger, Bradshaw and Tyle ran their campaigns on NOT CHANGING the referendum boundaries and location.” The SB did not own or control the BB property at the time of the vote. Everyone knew this would present some challenges. While the many candidates were in favor of the BB property, it is these representatives – and not the voters – who get to decide on building a new school or not. Sorry you do not agree with their decision, but you elected them.

"Finally the judge will honor the SB rights to make decisions on boundaris, locations, etc., but he does not seem to understand that those decisions were made IN ADVANCE of the 2006 Referendom, very different from other typical referendums."

I think the judge understands this very well as it was described in detail in the lawsuit. What the judge understands even better is that it does not matter. Illinois law states "the presumption is that a referendum ballot is considered on its own unambiguous terms without any reference to extrinsic information".

So although the the previous admin and most of the board timed the location and boundary selection to get the referendum passed (not what I would consider totally ethical), that information legally cannot be considered as part of the actual vote.

I think most of those so-called swing voters (those who had voted no on the initial referendum because of boundaries) heard what they wanted to hear and failed to listen to a very small minority who did remind us that the land was not ours yet. Shame on the previous administration and rest of the board for not being upfront and avoiding questions about a "plan B" should we fail to get the land.

I find it ironic that the lesson we learn from our group of educational leaders is that it is the end result that is important (the third high school) and never mind the means (lawsuits, condemnations, use of taxpayer money to promote your viewpoint, misleading voters) it took to get it. Not exactly one I want my kids to learn.

I'll leave it to you to decide how we should vote in the next election.

By Who's screwing Who? on May 26, 2008 4:54 PM

Sure, we all wanted BB but knew we had to own the land before we could build our third high school on it. The SB did not "screw voters to get what they wanted". In fact, WE (all of the yes voters) got what WE wanted. A third high school for all of our children. However, now nsfoc is trying to take our votes away. THEY are the ones screwing the rest of us.

*********************************************************
To "Who's screwing Who?",

Nobody is trying to take anyone's vote away. A re-vote would allow everyone in the district the opportunity to vote on the referendum now that it is known that many of the representations made by the district prior to the 2006 referendum vote were inaccurate. A re-vote allows people to vote based on the facts. How is this taking your vote away? You and everyone else would have the ability to vote exactly the way you see fit. Absolutely no one - on either side - is in a position to state they know the wishes of the "majority of the district" and to what extent the SB's misrepresentations impacted people's votes. For you, obviously there is no impact. For others, it does make a difference in how they would have voted. A new vote is the only accurate way of determining this.

By Time for SB accountability on May 26, 2008 5:03 PM

The REAL issue here is with certain district residents who cant get their way, so they want to look back in history and change what really happened. There is NO way that any reasonable business person would have expected to pay $250K per acre for BB, and in my opinion $475K per acre was about right for the market. Having said that, the only recourse was to buy "cheaper" land. And the SB did that. This debate has always been about ONE thing for the NSFOC and that is boundaries. The school board has done a very poor job of managing this whole process. But at this point it makes no sense to stop the process. We need the school and we need to build it now. So give up the frivilous lawsuits (the reasonable ones are already going to cost us a fortune), and lets move on. We can vote them out when the time comes.

If no reasoable business person would have expected to pay 250K per acre for BB, that makes me think that "bait and switch" WAS the strategy of the School Board.

First of all the other parcels in the area at the time had gone for 265K to 270K so 250K was a bit low, but not unreasonable. In addition, I just had a garage sale, I priced some items higher than I reasonably expected them to sell for. Some of them sold at those "unreasonable" prices. In other cases buyers made a counter offer much lower than what I was asking. When I made a counter offer it either sold or not. Of course the school board said they expected to pay less than they would be willing to pay. It's a negotiation tactic.

Anybody out there ever bought a house? Did you really go in with your highest possible bid the first time, or even the most you were willing to pay for that particular house? If so, I want to know who your agent was, I want them to represent anyone who is buying my house when I sell it!
___________________________________________________________________
By Anonymous on May 27, 2008 7:00 AM
If no reasoable business person would have expected to pay 250K per acre for BB, that makes me think that "bait and switch" WAS the strategy of the School Board.

First of all the other parcels in the area at the time had gone for 265K to 270K so 250K was a bit low, but not unreasonable. In addition, I just had a garage sale, I priced some items higher than I reasonably expected them to sell for. Some of them sold at those "unreasonable" prices. In other cases buyers made a counter offer much lower than what I was asking. When I made a counter offer it either sold or not. Of course the school board said they expected to pay less than they would be willing to pay. It's a negotiation tactic.

Anybody out there ever bought a house? Did you really go in with your highest possible bid the first time, or even the most you were willing to pay for that particular house? If so, I want to know who your agent was, I want them to represent anyone who is buying my house when I sell it!
___________________________________________________________________
By Anonymous on May 27, 2008 7:00 AM
If no reasoable business person would have expected to pay 250K per acre for BB, that makes me think that "bait and switch" WAS the strategy of the School Board.

The part about nsfoc that frosts me the most is that most of these folks are transients that have lived here on average for five years or less and could care less what kind of mess they leave behind for all of us. They'll just move to their next "locale" and make sure their kid attends the "right" school there.
No wonder their property values are such an immediate priority for them. Anyone planning on sticking around knows values will come around again eventually. Sickening.

By nsfoc still transients and still care less what mess they leave behind... on May 25, 2008 7:42 PM
By Joe on May 24, 2008 1:22 PM
"With regards to transients caring less what kind of mess they leave behind for all of us:

I would guess that those listed as Plaintiffs have been here longer than the head of the District Administration who is driving all of the decisions."

Joe,perhaps, but not by much. His intentions are for the good of all children in the district and not just a few who feel entitled to a certain school for their children.He is trying to improve our overcrowded classrooms. Nsfoc is attemting to not only prolong our current conditions but perhaps deny our children the opportunity altogether for a third high school.

When he arrived we had already voted for a third high school to be built to relieve overcrowding.That is exactly what he is trying to do. I'm sure he as well as thousands of other yes voters never would have imagined a misguided group would sue themselves and all of us for such selfish and senseless motives as the boundaries not to their liking or standards.

I would also venture that unlike the nsfoc folks that have stated their personal property value concerns, this was not a concern for him as he opted to purchase his home in the vicinity of the school where these others are trying to get away from attending.

Or perhaps he realizes the whole "property values" argument as ridiculous in the first place....right up there with train track and EMF safety in regards to this site, and "walkers"(who are actually bussed), and "bait and switch" (we voted for a third high school, are they trying to switch it with something else?), and building at a major highway intersection for millions of dollars more is "safer and more fiscally responsible" per the nsfoc mantra du jour. I have to admit though, I haven't checked out their website as of late so I'm sure I've left out a new and very legitimate "excuse" for suing all of us.

The REAL issue here is with certain district residents who cant get their way, so they want to look back in history and change what really happened. There is NO way that any reasonable business person would have expected to pay $250K per acre for BB, and in my opinion $475K per acre was about right for the market. Having said that, the only recourse was to buy "cheaper" land. And the SB did that. This debate has always been about ONE thing for the NSFOC and that is boundaries. The school board has done a very poor job of managing this whole process. But at this point it makes no sense to stop the process. We need the school and we need to build it now. So give up the frivilous lawsuits (the reasonable ones are already going to cost us a fortune), and lets move on. We can vote them out when the time comes
--------------------------------------------------------------------Revisionist history works both ways. Perhaps $475K per acre is/was the right price for BB yet we'll never know if the land could have been obtained for this price. Why? Because the SB overplayed their hand in thinking that the Court would force a transaction in their favor. I could suggest that the SB had every intention of moving to Eola with full knowledge that a good number of voters in 204 specifically did not want this. How? The lack of transparency is the site selection/purchase post BB decison weighed against their efforts to get the initial referendum passed.

As an earlier poster stated, the only way to know what the district truly wants is to re-vote on the site location. Until then, no one can speak with any certainty as to how the ENTIRE district feels.

drd's home is very close to ame. think about that when throwing around the property value argument.

I think the judge is just playing nice, and wants to lessen the pain of pointing out the obvious to Collins and crew. Their lawsuit has no basis. The school will be built.

Sitting in the courtroom last Friday it became very obvious that Popejoy thinks this lawsuit has merit. It would have been tossed last week if not. This lawsuit will be successful and in my opinion, Popejoy will rule in favor that the lawsuit has the basis to continue, the building at AME will stop dead, and we'll be back to a new Referendum (that will fail miserably). No 3rd HS.

Find me anyone that thinks a Referendum would have passed if the AME site was the proposed location? NO way that it would have passed. I don't care if the AME land was free - it's not safe, it's far from the student population, and it's just plain wrong. No HS is better than one there. Like a poster said earlier, Brookdale will get what they voted for.

Roger, Excellent Point.

Dovetailing on that; dont most of the board members live in the central and the North? If I remember correctly, the farthest south any of the SB members live is BG in White Eagle (83rd street West of 59) and AK and JS in Springbrook area (75th street East of 59). Strange how there is no representation on the school board south of white eagle? People keep throwing out population density numbers of 64% or 60% of the student POP living south of 83rd. If this is true, we have zero geographic representation for 60% of the constituents. This is a total travisty and lends to the view that in large districts such as ours, we should have 7 districts by population and geographcis where each of the 7 SB members come from.

Question to the group: what would it take to get this change executed and into the IL SB code?

In the last round of appointments (AK, CB etc etc.) its very interesting that M2 and crew kept the board backloaded in the central and the north. Very smart for what they are trying to do. People will get a chance to correct the sins of the past (even in the current, no geographic limitations process)in April 2009 and April 2011 and get a broader geographic diversity onto the board. I cant wait.

If the process is left unchanged, whos to say that in 4 years all 7 board members will reside south of 83rd? (if 60% of the pop lives there and they all vote solely on geographic location). This is not fair either (just as the current board geographic locations are unfair). Just the perception of no representation (every board member living in only part of the district) is not good even if all 7 were 100% altruistic (working for the good of the whole district). The perception of nepitism is tough to shake and is easy to point to in situations like we have here.

---------------------------------------------------
By Roger Waters on May 27, 2008 10:08 AM
drd's home is very close to ame. think about that when throwing around the property value argument.

Greg, Greg, Greg..... We all know you would like to be on the board now that you have a personal interest at stake.

Many of these board members have fulfilled their civic duties for years without thanks or recognition from anyone. They have donated their time and energy to handle the daily decisions and operations in the district that most would view as "mundane".They ran for the offices and were elected by us to represent us.

I think it's great that you have newfound interest in the Board of Education in place for all of our children. I also think it will be a hard sell to most of the district residents (beyond your homeowners club) to vote for someone that supported a lawsuit against all of us for such transparent and absurd reasons.

The very fact that they (nsfoc members) are attempting to negate our votes and take away the voter approved third high school would be somewhat of a "red flag" to most folks in the future voting booth.

Nobody is trying to take anyone's vote away. A re-vote would allow everyone in the district the opportunity to vote on the referendum now that it is known that many of the representations made by the district prior to the 2006 referendum vote were inaccurate. . . . A new vote is the only accurate way of determining this.

---------------------

It would take away the votes of everyone who voted to build the new school now and not later.

The only re-vote there will ever be is the next SB election. Maybe if (when?) the case is dismissed people will start focusing their energy there -- like they should.

Mom Too-
Before things broke down between BB and SB and the price determination went to trial, it is my understanding that BB showed the SB appraisals and/or other offers it had received on the land that were significantly higher than the 250K/acre they were offering. I believe in the ballpark of 450K+. So, with this consideration and a jury involved, it's ridiculous to think that the SB thought they were going to get away with such a low ball offer. Saying the BB price came in at twice of what they EXPECTED to pay is disingenuous on their part...twice as much as what they WANTED to pay, maybe. As Metea Either Way stated, the SB overplayed their hand thinking they'd get a sympathy pass from the courts. At the time too, if you paid any attention to their pre-referendum rhetoric, buying the cheapest piece of land available was not a criteria. And if it was, the SB had no business condemning the BB land - no way would it have been the cheapest, as compared to other "much more remote" sites available at the time - all of which were summarily dismissed for a variety of reasons. This cost savings obsession on the land is just the newest "spin" on things - back then, per the SB, the BB site was chosen not because it was going to be the least expensive, but because it best served the district (proximity to student population, transportation savings, amount of infrastructure needed, etc.).
*********************
By I am a mom too on May 27, 2008 7:52 AM
First of all the other parcels in the area at the time had gone for 265K to 270K so 250K was a bit low, but not unreasonable. In addition, I just had a garage sale, I priced some items higher than I reasonably expected them to sell for. Some of them sold at those "unreasonable" prices. In other cases buyers made a counter offer much lower than what I was asking. When I made a counter offer it either sold or not. Of course the school board said they expected to pay less than they would be willing to pay. It's a negotiation tactic.

Anybody out there ever bought a house? Did you really go in with your highest possible bid the first time, or even the most you were willing to pay for that particular house? If so, I want to know who your agent was, I want them to represent anyone who is buying my house when I sell it!

The one thing that has never been explained to me is:

How could the SB have a referendum for the BB land in March 2006, when the contract to exercise the purchase of the land for the negotiated price ended months earlier, around December 2005?

Isn't this why the right to exercise the purchase of BB at approximately 275k per acre no longer existed?

So, it was always my understanding that the referendum was always to build a third high school, period, with hopes, only, that BB would be willing to continue negotiations for sale of the property at the earlier negotiated price, but by the time of the referendum, BB had no legal need to accept the previous price.

I fully understand that the school board implied boundaries prior to the referendum, based upon building at BB, but I further recall the referendum only to read basically allowing the SB to issue bonds to build a third high school, with no mention of location.

Therefore, it seems, the voters acted with enormous naïveté, and the SB proceeded either with total lack of regard for the voters, or really did not fulfill their fiscal responsibility and due diligence.

To Hmmmmm

You have completely missed the point of the post. Your hatred for the NSFOC has blinded you, which is very sad. I can see both points of view regarding this huge mess. However, If the SB would have just kept their yaps shut (no info or written statements on location/boundraries) for the 2nd redo ref; we would not be in this mess.

No one is trying to negate your vote; quite the contrary...the NSOFC is trying to rectify an illegal act (IMO and TBD) and put the process (the SB chose to take at their own discretion to get it passed...their words not mine) back onto solid legal/moral ground and allow everyone to vote with all the actual facts due to all the changes the SB felt were needed that contradict their original written statements to the courts and their constituents.

On the actual topic of my post; If you think geographic districts is a bad idea, thats fine...just say so and move on.

Vote for whoever you wish with whatever criteria you wish. I would hope everyone does that. No one's feelings will get hurt if they doont win an election. if there are better candidates out there...all the better. However I get the feeling you think the current board has not made any major mistakes over the past few years. If you feel that way, then I disagree with you. I think new blood will be voted into the SB in 2009 (and perhaps even 2011). I guess only time will tell

I am not running in 2009. However, I think I will run in 2011, so you will have ample time to gear up the anti Greg support group.

I hope MR runs in 2009. MR, I will support your candicacy!! However, I would still like to see at least one candidate from south of 83rd on the board. There are 4 spots coming up for re-election in 2009 so plenty of room for MR and a person from the south.

-----------------------------------------------------
By HMMMM....I think I'll vote for the guy that didn't sue me.... on May 27, 2008 12:31 PM
Greg, Greg, Greg..... We all know you would like to be on the board now that you have a personal interest at stake.

Many of these board members have fulfilled their civic duties for years without thanks or recognition from anyone. They have donated their time and energy to handle the daily decisions and operations in the district that most would view as "mundane".They ran for the offices and were elected by us to represent us.

I think it's great that you have newfound interest in the Board of Education in place for all of our children. I also think it will be a hard sell to most of the district residents (beyond your homeowners club) to vote for someone that supported a lawsuit against all of us for such transparent and absurd reasons.

The very fact that they (nsfoc members) are attempting to negate our votes and take away the voter approved third high school would be somewhat of a "red flag" to most folks in the future voting booth.

Make no mistake. If the third high school does not get built,the self-serving lawsuit filed by Nsfoc and Collins is to blame. How will they apologize to 20,000 kids? That's right, they won't.

The very fact that they (nsfoc members) are attempting to negate our votes and take away the voter approved third high school would be somewhat of a "red flag" to most folks in the future voting booth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this argument is invalidated based upon actual events. First referendum: No propoganda, no site, just a 3rd HS, this resulted in a NO vote. Second referendum: Public opinion firm employed, site selected, advertised and promised and boundaries established this resulted in a YES vote.

It sounds as if you advocate negating the votes of those who believe they voted for a 3rd HS on BB. And if this is true, regardless of the number you attribute towards this group, it is still wrong. By the way, you state that you simply wanted a new HS and voted yes in 2006. Were you expecting it to reside on BB? If you answer yes to this question then your vote only stands to be validated. Thus no one can claim that their vote was negated as those that opposed the BB site and or 3rd HS voted no in 2006 and were fewer than those who voted for the BB site and/or only the 3rd HS.

By Greg Forrest on May 27, 2008 11:47 AM

Greg, why the sudden conspiracy theories? The only thing that's "strange" about your perceived lack of geographic representation is that 60% of the population of this district can't seem to get their collective act together to push one or more candidates of their liking onto the SB. I expect that to change in the future, but c'mon, you gotta stop whining about what you folks in the south did or didn't accomplish 2+ years ago. The current makeup is not a travesty nor is it unfair to anyone -- you didn't "get out the vote" and now you're blaming somebody else for the result. That's YOUR fault, not M2's. Don't take this comment to mean the folks in the north did anything differently or that we're somehow smarter on the politics of all this as that's not the point I'm trying to make.

As for the last SB election, you voted. I voted. Many of your friends and neighbors, however, did not. If you have a candidate or a slate of candidates you support for the next election, campaign for them. Get those friends and neighbors who sat on the sidelines involved in the process. Simple as that. I see no need to redistrict our district into sub-districts and I do not support an effort to push this through.

By Where's THEIR Accountability? on May 27, 2008 1:36 PM
Make no mistake. If the third high school does not get built,the self-serving lawsuit filed by Nsfoc and Collins is to blame. How will they apologize to 20,000 kids? That's right, they won't.

-----
they don't care about 20,000 kids. They don't are their own kids are in over crowded NVHS. All they care about is thier short term property value.

so the NSFOC is suing on the grounds that they voted yes for a third high school because obviously the district needs a third high school...unless of course the third high school means thier kids go the WVHS and then district doesn't need a third high school if that is the case?

By HUH? on May 25, 2008 11:06 PM
"NSFOC and its attorney did not make these points very well."

that's because they are the unfounded rantings of a group of people who will throw anything against the wall to see if it sticks....

--and--

By Anonymous on May 26, 2008 12:26 PM
thank god its almost over. I am so tired of hearing a small group of angry homeowners say they speak for me. They do not. They never have. They never will. I do not want a small group of entitled elitists claiming the speak for me.

-----

These comments are part of a strategy by the school board and district admin, and will not stick. The facts are the NSFOC is much larger than you portray, they present valid concerns and are not entitled elitists from what I have seen. This constant bombardment of lies only makes D204 less of a school district long term, and voters/taxpayers should note the situation and what some residents will do to any opposition. You are ignoring the following:

-BB was decided by SB in advance and promoted to get our $
-BB was re-emphasized to get AT, MM and CB elected
-BB once the $ was in and the election occured, then the location was changed for reasons still confounding voters because 1. they had the money for BB, 2. the full cost of Eola beyond just land is higher than BB, 3. the risks and liabilities being undertaken by the D204 is significant, 4. the damage to the district will be permanent.

The worst thing about this situation is even the justification for a new school was a trumped up pack of lies (see enrollment study by Ehler's and Associates Bond Brokers and NIU study which claimed 11,200 HS students, when per D204's current projection, it appears to be 8900 or less - an entire HS difference).

Voters, you were taken for a nice ride and will pay for this over the next generation. You deserve it too.

By Where's THEIR Accountability? on May 27, 2008 1:36 PM
Make no mistake. If the third high school does not get built,the self-serving lawsuit filed by Nsfoc and Collins is to blame. How will they apologize to 20,000 kids? That's right, they won't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
They'll be sitting next to the current SB memebers who will be expected to apologize to the taxpayers for intentionally using inflated population figures and scare tactics (split shifts) to get the referendum passed after the closing of WVHS.

Metea Either Way....

I voted yes in 2006 based on the new awareness of enrollment numbers and the HUGE high school class sizes that quite honestly I was unaware of until the meetings prior to the 2006 referendum.

My point is that noone's vote is negated under the 2006 referendum in which we voted for a third high school. Period. The ballot language spoke for itself.We didn't own land to vote on. Now we are almost four plus years into the process of aquiring a much needed third high school due to overcrowding and nsfoc is attempting to stop it as we are finally able to move forward with available/affordable land.

Do we keep "revoting" until specific people obtain personally acceptable results (don't worry kids it'll only take 4 or so more years..)? How does one determine each and every voter's intent in the district and whether they voted for the bond restructuring, THE NEED BASED ON THE NUMBERS of kids in our huge district,the potential location, or any other countless personal reasons? I don't see how one overturns a referendum without negating someone's vote unless actual ballot language was compromised.Build a third high school. Yes or No.

20,000 kids???????? Where'd this come from and will we need two more HSs?

By I am a mom too on May 27, 2008 7:52 AM

Comparing an institutional land purchase to buying a home is not Apples to Apples. The fact is that while we were waiting on the courts to decide the price most of the 75th street frontage land in that area was sold. And if you had looked up these sales you would see that they came in over $400k per acre. This includes the land behind Home Depot which is not more than 500 yards from the BB land. The school board did NOT do any additional appraisals of the land value after they started the condemnation process. Huge mistake. I beleive they took the advice of their internal real estate and legal group that the jury will always side with the school district. And 90% of the time that is true. However in this case they didnt, and the market for institutional land had changed so much that there was no way the jury could agree to the low price.
I think the overall spiraling costs along with the jury price drove the desire to build elsewhere. And again the in house legal team has said several times that they believe the SD will only have to pay legal fees to the BB Trusts. This is of course a bad assumption. We will end up paying damages. But at this point the courts are not going to force the SD to buy BB. So the question to all is, Do we want/need a third HS or not. If you answer yes to this question then we need to support the Eola site. If you answered no, you havent been in the halls of NV or WV recently. They are WAY WAY over crowded, and will get worse. So if you dont like the current outcome, lets vote in a new school board. Thats the only REAL option we seem to have.
And could everyone just agree with GF so he can stop calling those who disagree "haters".

To Reap What You Sow... on May 27, 2008 1:27 PM--

RE:

The one thing that has never been explained to me is:

How could the SB have a referendum for the BB land in March 2006, when the contract to exercise the purchase of the land for the negotiated price ended months earlier, around December 2005?

Isn't this why the right to exercise the purchase of BB at approximately 275k per acre no longer existed?
___________________________________

If you go onto the nsfoc.org website and read Brodie Complaint Part I, this is all explained there. It's mentioned at the very beginning of the complaint, so you don't even have to read the whole thing to find it. In a nutshell, the SB filed an eminent domain case against BB in 2003 to acquire 25 acres on which to build an elementary school. During the proceedings, the SB decided instead to pursue 80 acres for the 3rd HS. A settlement agreement the SB had with BB said the SB could purchase the entire 80 acres for around $250,000K/acre if the referendum passed in 05. When it didn't, the SB only bought the 25 acres it had orginally pursued as this was all they could afford without the ref funds. The settlement agreement became void and BB was free to set a new price. The SB then filed another condemnation suit for the additional 55 acres, hoping to get it for the same price as the first 25 acres. We all know the rest of the story.

Re:

I fully understand that the school board implied boundaries prior to the referendum, based upon building at BB, but I further recall the referendum only to read basically allowing the SB to issue bonds to build a third high school, with no mention of location.

Therefore, it seems, the voters acted with enormous naïveté, and the SB proceeded either with total lack of regard for the voters, or really did not fulfill their fiscal responsibility and due diligence.
________________________________________

Whether you believe the voters were naive or the SB proceeded with total lack of regard for the voters depends on which side of the aisle you're on, hence all the haggling on these blogs. I was at every boundary meeting in 06 and I can assure you the SB did more than "imply" boundaries. They had 5-6 various plans drawn up--I still have the copies--and various subdivisions debated and argued with the SB for WEEKS over which plan was best for the district. The SB eventually settled on one and this was the one voters were told would apply to the 3rd HS. Those who believe that only the wording on the referendum should count disagree that any location or boundaries were guaranteed by the SB. Given that the school district has almost 30 hours of those boundaries meetings on videotape, I guess that would mean the SB spent all those hours talking to themselves and the voters in attendance assumed the boundaries and location all on their own. Not very likely.

To GF, Metea Either Way--

Maybe you guys can help me with this. Didn't we get an opportunity to "vote" on which boundary plan we wanted back in 06? I remember going to the Waubonsie Gold Campus where there were tables and stacks of copies of the various plans under consideration. We checked which plan we wanted on slips of paper that we then slipped into boxes. I remember the purpose of this was to let the SB know what the district preferred; it wasn't an actual binding vote. I do remember the place as packed and there were people there answering questions for folks who needed additional info. If I'm remembering this correctly, this was a far cry from just "implying" boundaries. Thanks!

D&S

By Incredulous on May 27, 2008 12:39 PM

It would take away the votes of everyone who voted to build the new school now and not later.

*********************************************************

The referendum did not include a timeframe for the completion of a 3rd HS. Anyone who thinks that their vote is being "taken away" by it not being built according to their own time expectations didn't read their ballot. The "didn't you read your ballot?" argument cuts both ways. So does the fact that any representations made by the SB leading up to the 2006 vote should be considered to be meaningless. So what if the SB said the 3rd HS would be completed by 2009? They also said the location would be BB and that Eola/Molitor was an unsuitable site.

If people are upset about the timeframe, then be upset with the SB. They had a site chosen with voter approval. The SB were the ones that decided to change directions and move the location to a site different than the one they presented to the voters prior to the referendum - a decision that has caused enormous division amongst the community and the filing of four lawsuits against the district, three of which the SB should have known would be filed when they walked away from BB.

By Anonymous on May 27, 2008 2:11 PM

Yo D&S, Sniper or Stalker here? Definitely needs to be accounted for.

"It sounds as if you advocate negating the votes of those who believe they voted for a 3rd HS on BB." as posted earlier..

So, now we should reverse and redo all elections based on what some people "thought" or "believed" they were voting on and not what they ACTUALLY voted on? Talk about a big can of worms. The ballot wording is there for a reason. So you know what you are voting for or against. Nothing more. Nothing less. That's why we will get a third high school. Seriously. This is crazy,man.

To GF--just a point of info--everyone at Spring Brook is south of 87th except for the PACE kids who are from all over. I'm assuming of course that you wrote AK and meant AT. 75th East of 59 is not Spring Brook. Spring Brook is 87th to approx. 95th (I'm a little confused because they moved 95th a few years ago and now that SB has Kinloch I think we do go south of 95th.) and east of Plainfield-Naperville road (though we picked up part of clow and that may be west of Plainfield-Naperville--not sure). Anyway, we are all solidly in Will county. That would put one if not two board members in the area you claim is not represented.

_________________________________________________________________
By Greg Forrest on May 27, 2008 11:47 AM
Roger, Excellent Point.

Dovetailing on that; dont most of the board members live in the central and the North? If I remember correctly, the farthest south any of the SB members live is BG in White Eagle (83rd street West of 59) and AK and JS in Springbrook area (75th street East of 59).

My point is that noone's vote is negated under the 2006 referendum in which we voted for a third high school. Period. The ballot language spoke for itself.We didn't own land to vote on. Now we are almost four plus years into the process of aquiring a much needed third high school due to overcrowding and nsfoc is attempting to stop it as we are finally able to move forward with available/affordable land.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an "ends justifying the means argument". Put it this way, lets say the SB decides to build only a 3rd HS with no amenitites nor plans for any extracirricular activities, etc. would you find this acceptable because after all the 2006 referendum language called only for this didn't it? While this is extreme your logic dictates that this is within the SB's discretion. This would be similar to, I don't know......eliminating a 3rd HS site for environmental concerns only to then say the land is fine without further investigation/remediation save the chain link included to "fence it off baby."

Do we keep "revoting" until specific people obtain personally acceptable results (don't worry kids it'll only take 4 or so more years..)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the tenor/nature of this debate beginning immediately after the first failed referendum, yes I believe a site confirmation is in order. Again this is not about specific people rather its about the entire district as I have seen/heard people from north to south who have landed on both sides of this debate.

"Those who believe that only the wording on the referendum should count disagree that any location or boundaries were guaranteed by the SB."

D&S,
You are correct.The school board could not guarantee any location or boundaries applied to it since they didn't own the land for the school yet. That is why many of us did not waste our time going to boundary meetings.
I attended meetings I thought were relevant at the elementary schools where I first became aware of the HUGE graduating classes from our two high schools. All the while, our elementary schools were holding art and music classes on portable carts so they could utilize those rooms for the even larger class sizes coming up.

I absolutely believe only the wording on the referendum counted and I voted for a much needed third high school to relieve the current and future overcrowding mess.

D&S,
We (residents) did not get a chance to vote on boundaries. The board decided the boundaries as it would apply to BB if the sale went through.

D&S
Apparently we're all guilty of selective intrpretation as we were supposed to rely on the SB actions/announcements/publications that engendered the necessary support for the 3rd HS on BB only to shut it off and read the language as it appeared on the referendum.

We are not to look at this situation in its entirety rather we are to isolate each issue and make a decision that is mutually exclusive of everything known or learned.

I guess its pretty simple. The first time the referendum was presented it only called for a 3rd HS and it failed. The second time the referendum was presented it only called for a 3rd HS and it passed. Nothing changed nor was anything discovered, to suggest otherwise is naive.

Glad you used the word believe. I see you finally understand that it was just a belief, not a reality. Given that it was not a reality, your votes for a third HS are not being negated, they are being honored. On a ballot, you don't get to read what isn't there.

In consumer ed. over 25 years ago I was taught not to sign a blank contract for fear that something could be changed. To me this was not a blank contract it was a vote for a 3rd HS and that is what I am getting. Clearly for you it was a blank contract and yet you signed onto it, as did the others who "believed" that it said BB. If you think of a referendum as a legally binding contract, we contracted for a third school. If it wasn't in the contract, it wasn't legally binding. ____________________________________________________________________
By Metea Either Way on May 27, 2008 1:49 PM
It sounds as if you advocate negating the votes of those who believe they voted for a 3rd HS on BB

By Anonymous on May 27, 2008 2:11 PM

"The worst thing about this situation is even the justification for a new school was a trumped up pack of lies (see enrollment study by Ehler's and Associates Bond Brokers and NIU study which claimed 11,200 HS students, when per D204's current projection, it appears to be 8900 or less - an entire HS difference).

Voters, you were taken for a nice ride and will pay for this over the next generation. You deserve it too."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

This is clearly one of those "no 3rd HS PERIOD!" supporters of the NSFOC.

Why should we buy any of what you're selling when you don't even support the primary goal of the NSFOC, which is build the 3rd HS at BB as promised?

Idiot.

To:

Make no mistake. If the third high school does not get built,the self-serving lawsuit filed by Nsfoc and Collins is to blame.

Yeah...NSFOC, Collins and the fact that, in your scenario, the Court will have found that the SB's conduct WAS ILLEGAL AND THAT THE BOARD AND ADMINISTRATION VIOLATED THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THOUSANDS OF ITS RESIDENTS!

But yeah, they would have gotten away with it if it were not for those meddling kids!

It disgusts me that those who seem to have been favored by the District's illegal conduct somehow feel that there interests trump the legal rights of those who disagree with them.

What I have been told and read is that the price of the land should have been set as per the price of other parcels as of the date of condemnation, not a year later when the courts finally get around to hearing the case. So by your own words it should have been in the 400K range. This is not what the jury awarded. The jury awarded almost 50% more than this.

That is outrageous and would have been fiscally irresponsible of the board. If it weren't an outrageous amount of money BB should be able to get it from any prudent man (prudent man rule). Since they have not been able to sell it for that amount to anyone else, then clearly no prudent man will buy it for that price and the SB was right to walk away from overpriced land which had even less testing done on it that AME.
____________________________________________________________________
By Greg Forrest for Galactic School Board President on May 27, 2008 2:38 PM
By I am a mom too on May 27, 2008 7:52 AM

Comparing an institutional land purchase to buying a home is not Apples to Apples. The fact is that while we were waiting on the courts to decide the price most of the 75th street frontage land in that area was sold. And if you had looked up these sales you would see that they came in over $400k per acre. This includes the land behind Home Depot which is not more than 500 yards from the BB land.

Hello K Kid

where in my post are you reading about conspiracy theories? All I said is that when it comes time to appoint folks to open positions NONE have been SOUTH of 75th street. Please point out an appointment that has been south of 75th street. The reasons the board did not look at any candidates from the south is open for debate and maybe that is where you are suggesting I have a theory ready to go (I do).

So... for the 60% pop and south in disarray; Yes I agree with you. Its no ones fault but our own. I also agree with you that this will no longer be the case rolling forward. Like I said quite a while ago (multiple threads back): like it or not, the SB just picked up a whole bunch more active participants. These folks may not be the ra ra cheerleader types they are have enjoyed in the past, but it is participation and interest nonetheless.

Regarding the districts: no one is saying break the district apart. Just have the SB positions elected just like congress. No one wants to see all 21 ILLinois congresspersons come from the Western suburbs. I think the rest of the state would look at that with some skepticism. Don't you? Or take it to the state level. How about all the state reps to Springfield coming from Naperville/Aurora?

-------------------------------------------------
By Khazakstan Kid on May 27, 2008 1:57 PM
By Greg Forrest on May 27, 2008 11:47 AM

Greg, why the sudden conspiracy theories? The only thing that's "strange" about your perceived lack of geographic representation is that 60% of the population of this district can't seem to get their collective act together to push one or more candidates of their liking onto the SB. I expect that to change in the future, but c'mon, you gotta stop whining about what you folks in the south did or didn't accomplish 2+ years ago. The current makeup is not a travesty nor is it unfair to anyone -- you didn't "get out the vote" and now you're blaming somebody else for the result. That's YOUR fault, not M2's. Don't take this comment to mean the folks in the north did anything differently or that we're somehow smarter on the politics of all this as that's not the point I'm trying to make.

As for the last SB election, you voted. I voted. Many of your friends and neighbors, however, did not. If you have a candidate or a slate of candidates you support for the next election, campaign for them. Get those friends and neighbors who sat on the sidelines involved in the process. Simple as that. I see no need to redistrict our district into sub-districts and I do not support an effort to push this through

To:

The NSFOCers were pretty giddy Friday afternoon, when the news was that Judge Popejoy didn't throw the suit out. They could smell victory. Then, the story was revealed that Popejoy will not and cannot force the SD to buy and build on the BB site. So, what's left? The only thing that NSFOC can get (based on the remedies outlined in their amended suit) are to stop construction on any site (other than BB) and rescind the bonds that were sold. If this happens, the third high school will never be built. Do the NSFOCers want to hurt the whole district? DO the NSFOCers still hold any hope for Popejoy to force the BB site on the district, or through appeal?

Obviously you were not there on Friday. Mr. Collins did not back off or concede when asked what would allow the Court to force the District to purchase BB (Mr. Collins answered "the Constitution"). I think the NSFOCfrauders believe if you say something enough, people will believe it.

That being said, the Judge may not force the District to buy BB (and certainly can not force BB to sell now that 30 days has passed since the condemnation proceeding), but I think his compramise will give the District a choice...buy BB and comply with the referendum OR present a new referendum that will allow construction elsewhere.

And yes...this will result in many of the yes voters from 2006 changing to no votes (and ironically, many of the no votes from the Northern sections in 2006 changing to yes votes).

By Anonymous on May 27, 2008 2:11 PM

These comments are part of a strategy by the school board and district admin, and will not stick. The facts are the NSFOC is much larger than you portray, they present valid concerns and are not entitled elitists from what I have seen. This constant bombardment of lies only makes D204 less of a school district long term, and voters/taxpayers should note the situation and what some residents will do to any opposition. You are ignoring the following:

ETSB, are you back and posting as Anon?

It hasn't been the same without you.....XOXOXOXOXOXO!!!

To: D&S

Yes, we were given the opportunity to vote on the boundary plan we preferred back in 06. Despite the fact that Bruce Glawe (when pressed) stated that 75% of residents preferred Option 2, the school board rammed option 5A through.

Once again a vote that didn't mean a thing.

Hi D&S

I am ashamed to admit it, but I did not go to any boundary meetings or the 1st or 2nd ref meetings in either 2005 or 2006. I just assumed that my elected SB would do what is best for the entire district. I only got involved AFTER i was indunnated with backpack flyers and emails about Option 5A and BB property being what folks were voting on and when the SB decided to go in a different direction after they obtained the money but did not re-engage their constituents. At the point they went on a divergent path...and did not follow their own precident, big red flags went off for me and woke me up to action.

Specific Boundaries do not concern me (they can be changed at any time by the SB). The questionnable process does and thats why I got involved.

I dont doubt that the SB wanted to get feedback on the different options to see which would be the most likely to pass. That's probably why CB voted for 5A (and upset Brookdale in the process) after reviewing the non binding feedback. But thats just my opinion/guess.

--------------------------------------------------
By D&S on May 27, 2008 3:45 PM
To GF, Metea Either Way--

Maybe you guys can help me with this. Didn't we get an opportunity to "vote" on which boundary plan we wanted back in 06? I remember going to the Waubonsie Gold Campus where there were tables and stacks of copies of the various plans under consideration. We checked which plan we wanted on slips of paper that we then slipped into boxes. I remember the purpose of this was to let the SB know what the district preferred; it wasn't an actual binding vote. I do remember the place as packed and there were people there answering questions for folks who needed additional info. If I'm remembering this correctly, this was a far cry from just "implying" boundaries. Thanks!

D&S

I think these discussions are missing something here, and its called the law. This is how the judge will decide whether the lawsuit has merit and if so what the outcome will be.

There is no doubt that the SB, with support of the admin, decided on a site and boundaries prior to the election, and even proclaimed them to the world. It does not matter. They had every right to do this and were well within their rights to to it when they did it. Now whether this was ethical or not is another matter. The fact is the law states that statements made by individuals concerning a referendum are extraneous, and the plain and simple (unambiguous) language on the ballot is all that matters.

Think about it. One board member clearly and publicly said the whole process was essentially ridiculous because there was not a need for the high school. Does this mean that all of the no voters can now sue the district because they were told something prior to the referendum that did not happen after it? Of course not. And that is exactly why the law is written the way it is.

The law does provide a mechanism to redress those that feel they were misled. Its called the next election. I suggest those that are unhappy with the current board's actions put their energy into supporting their new candidates and stop wasting it on these lawsuits.

Hi Mom

Thanks! I stand corrected. JS is 75th east of 59, but you are right; AT (sorry misstyped) is somewhere between 87th and 95th somewhere east of 59.

So, we do have 1 boardmember that is south of 87th. and covers 87th to 111th N/S/E/W and it is AT. I wonder how many people live in that section of the district compared to the overall district POP?

---------------------------------------------------
By I am a mom too on May 27, 2008 4:03 PM
To GF--just a point of info--everyone at Spring Brook is south of 87th except for the PACE kids who are from all over. I'm assuming of course that you wrote AK and meant AT. 75th East of 59 is not Spring Brook. Spring Brook is 87th to approx. 95th (I'm a little confused because they moved 95th a few years ago and now that SB has Kinloch I think we do go south of 95th.) and east of Plainfield-Naperville road (though we picked up part of clow and that may be west of Plainfield-Naperville--not sure). Anyway, we are all solidly in Will county. That would put one if not two board members in the area you claim is not represented.

Hi "The Law"

We will find out if you are correct on Friday. Statements by individuals is one thing (and I agree with you) but using district money to run off written statments for their constituents and factual/under oath statments in court are another matter entirely and IMO, that is the only reason Popejoy is taking a very close look this week at the case law before ruling. If it wasnt for those darn flyers and the yapping in court to anyone that would listen; the SB would be free to do whatever they wished whenever they wished regarding the 3rd HS in the view of the law anyways (ethically, I agree it is another matter alltogether)

--------------------------------------------------
By The Law on May 27, 2008 5:30 PM

Now whether this was ethical or not is another matter. The fact is the law states that statements made by individuals concerning a referendum are extraneous, and the plain and simple (unambiguous) language on the ballot is all that matters.

Greg--I have stood behind some of your posts,against some of your detractors, though I disagreed, but I expect them to be factually accurate. Alka lives south of 87th--she was appointed then elected! Please cut the baloney!
___________________________________________________________________
where in my post are you reading about conspiracy theories? All I said is that when it comes time to appoint folks to open positions NONE have been SOUTH of 75th street. Please point out an appointment that has been south of 75th street. The reasons the board did not look at any candidates from the south is open for debate and maybe that is where you are suggesting I have a theory ready to go (I do).

GF,
Sorry for snarky, your post didn't come up until after I typed the snark

Greg,

"Regarding the districts: no one is saying break the district apart. Just have the SB positions elected just like congress. No one wants to see all 21 ILLinois congresspersons come from the Western suburbs. I think the rest of the state would look at that with some skepticism. Don't you? Or take it to the state level. How about all the state reps to Springfield coming from Naperville/Aurora?"

How about we leave things as they are and we (collective IPSD 204, not you, me, or those active in the goings on in the district) get engaged in what's really happening in our community? I understand your desire for more "equal" representation, but I think you're trying to solve yesterday's problem. As for all 21 congresspersons coming from the western suburbs, if we were more highly motivated to claim representation than the rest of the state, why would this be a bad thing (OK, OK, in this example it would be a very bad thing)? This is supposed to be a participative republic. So....participate. No need to spoon feed people any more than we already are. Rock the vote, baby!

As for the conspiracy theory, I took the tone of your original post as rather conspiratorial from the "south of 87th" comment. My bad if that wasn't your intent.

Many personalities make up this district watch out! Realize that if the board member is not from your area they must not have your interests in mind. Have another vote, heck why not, some voted the ref. down twice already--Third time is a charm. The board could not have possibly really wanted the high school to go at bb, they must have really wanted it to be north-- closer to where the board members live. Oh then there is that pesky devilish Dr.D, you know what the d is really for-- Doom (doesn't he live way up north). Nice thoughts kind of spooky when you put some together. Get out the vote in every subdivision.

By Anonymous on May 27, 2008 6:44 PM

Greg, that post was from me. Brain cramp.

By Greg Forrest on May 27, 2008 4:42 PM
Hello K Kid
where in my post are you reading about conspiracy theories? All I said is that when it comes time to appoint folks to open positions NONE have been SOUTH of 75th street. Please point out an appointment that has been south of 75th street. The reasons the board did not look at any candidates from the south is open for debate and maybe that is where you are suggesting I have a theory ready to go (I do).
----------------------------------
GF,

2 out of 3 recent appointments to the board live south of 75th. Each of these appointed SB members have since been elected.

BG - South of 75th
CB - North of 75th
AT - South of 75th

Sincerely,

Just the facts

To What the.... & Anon @ 4:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------------

If you parcel any statement/argument its easy to pick out snippets and construct a counter argument........so be it. Again you can choose to ignore all things that don't fit your argument but I am one to consider everything before me prior to drawing a conclusion. Keep in mind that all the things you choose to ignore by focusing only on the referendum language discounts everything that got the referendum passed the second time through. I provide that I may be wrong or perhaps I could be right and the court my decide against what I believe to be true or the court and my beliefs may align, we'll just have to see.

I guess if the suits against the district come in a a higher price than the SB is expecting to pay I should feel absolutley comfortable with a 3rd HS that is less than an approximation of WV or NV because, after all and by your logic, the SB didn't promise amenities just a HS.

Hi Mom

No worries...I earned it, (as I forgot about AT and wasnt sure where she actually lived in the springbrook area. Springbrook is mighty wide: from the nature preserve on 75th to just north of 95th?). I think the point I was attempting to make is still valid as AT would "represent" a disproporationate number of constituents compared to the other SB members based on their locations and the pops in each of those locations. South (especially the deep south..past 95th) is very underrepresented on the board. To K Kids point; Deep south has no one to blame but themselves/ourselves and only needs to look into the mirror if "they/we" are unhappy with the current geographic makeup of the SB.

Have a good night mom!! (I think I have used up all my posts for awhile and need to save some for when the verdict comes in on Friday.)

Should be a wild ride the next week and really the next year into the SB elections in April 2009.

-------------------------------------------------
By I am a mom too on May 27, 2008 6:21 PM
GF,
Sorry for snarky, your post didn't come up until after I typed the snark

By Metea Either Way on May 27, 2008 9:31 PM
To What the.... & Anon @ 4:21 pm

". . . Keep in mind that all the things you choose to ignore by focusing only on the referendum language discounts everything that got the referendum passed the second time through."
_____________________________________

Helluva quote! Wished I'd said that.

By Anonymous on May 27, 2008 4:56 PM
To: D&S

Yes, we were given the opportunity to vote on the boundary plan we preferred back in 06. Despite the fact that Bruce Glawe (when pressed) stated that 75% of residents preferred Option 2, the school board rammed option 5A through.

Once again a vote that didn't mean a thing.
__________________________________________

Thanks, Anon. I thought so, but I wanted to be sure this is what occurred and I wasn't fooling "myself" as has been stated here so often.

I went back into my files and pulled out my "Boundaries '06" file where I kept some of the info disseminated by the SB at that time. Found some interesting stuff, including a "March 21 Referendum FAQ #2: January 2006 which states:

The Board of Education is committed to keeping the community informed as it works to solve the district's overcrowding. Community members can find detailed referendum information online at www.ipsd.org/3rdHS.asp.

Q: WHAT IS THE PROPOSED SOLUTION?

A. The March 21 referendum will solve the middle and high school problem by asking voters to approve building a new high school at the SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 75TH STREET AND COMMONS DRIVE and convert the Waubonsie Valley freshman building to a middle school. This proposal is the best solution because it offers the following advantages: avoids having mega-sized high schools with 5,000 students, solves our middle school overcrowding, and continues to provide quality academic and extra-curricular opportunities for our kids.

I copied this from the district website:

THIRD HIGH SCHOOL? SOLVING THE OVERCROWDING

Changes if the Referendum Passes

After the Boundary Open Houses, THE BOARD WILL SELECT ONE OF THE BOUNDARY CHANGES UNDER CONSIDERATION. The changes are necessary to determine who would attend the new school. UPON COMMUNITY APPROVAL OF THE REFERENDUM, THE BOUNDARY CHANGES ARE EXPECTED TO BEGIN IN 2009.

Changes if the Referendum Does Not Pass

Should no new classroom space by available, boundary changes will be required to balance enrollment in 2007. In addition to boundary changes, split shifts will be implemented at both high schools in 2009.

Boundary Open Houses

The community is invited to learn more about the proposed boundary changes during two open houses on January 17 and 19. Board members and administrators will be available to answer questions and the community will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed changes.

Feedback

The Board welcomes your comments on the boundary changes. You can provide feedback to the board and RANK YOUR PREFERENCES at www. surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=42501661099.

(All caps mine for emphasis)

I also have 7 different boundary plans in this file: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5A, 5B, and 6A. I don't remember which one "won" from the SB's survey (so I'll take your word that it was Option 2), but 5A was the one selected by the SB to be represented by the referendum.

This small portion shows the SB explicitly involved the community in the boundary process, offering options and eliciting feedback from us. This is a lot more than merely "implying" boundaries. So to all you folks out there who contend that the voters were "fooling themselves" in thinking that a location and boundaries were only "implied" by the SB, keep in mind that this is but a speck of the onslaught we were subjected to by the SB in 06. If you were not a part of this process or did not attend the boundary meetings, you don't have a clue to the extent to which the SB went or the guarantees they made to get the 06 referendum passed, so you have no direct experience on which to base your presumptions that we were "fooling ourselves" rather than being fooled by our own school board.

To I am a mom too on May 27, 2008 4:35 PM--

Re your post:

What I have been told and read is that the price of the land should have been set as per the price of other parcels as of the date of condemnation, not a year later when the courts finally get around to hearing the case. So by your own words it should have been in the 400K range. This is not what the jury awarded. The jury awarded almost 50% more than this.

That is outrageous and would have been fiscally irresponsible of the board. If it weren't an outrageous amount of money BB should be able to get it from any prudent man (prudent man rule). Since they have not been able to sell it for that amount to anyone else, then clearly no prudent man will buy it for that price and the SB was right to walk away from overpriced land which had even less testing done on it that AME.
____________________________________

As I have recommended to others, go to nsfoc.org, click on "complaint" at the top and select "Brodie Complaint Part I." It explains all of this in the beginning of the complaint.

The price per acre as of the date of condemnation was around $400K/acre, according to competitive offers BB received at the time. This was up from approx. $250K/acre as per the settlement agreement the year before. The school board was trying to get it for $257K/acre. The jury price came in at $518K/acre, NOT 50% MORE THAN MARKET VALUE, BUT 50% MORE THAN THE SB WANTED TO PAY. Market value and what the school board wanted to pay are not the same thing. The SB really thought it would succeed in getting BB at much less than its current market value, hence the problem.

"see you in court"

the district can dish it out but can't take it.

D&S,
257*2=514--The jury came in at over 100% over the price the SB wanted to pay. The jury verdict, by your own numbers, the jury awarded a price 29.5% over market value. For 55 acres that $118K/acre adds up. Personally, I would fire anyone who worked for me that agreed to pay just shy of 30% over market price for any materials, even land.

I will admit that I misstated the percentages, and apologize for that. I thought that the jury verdict had come in closer to $600K--too many numbers too hold in my head. Will you now be honest enough to admit that it is irresponsible to pay more than market value for materials? Ithink we can both agree that the jury awarded more than 25% over the FMV.

By D&S on May 28, 2008 1:23 AM
To I am a mom too on May 27, 2008 4:35 PM--

My post should have read:

The jury price came in at $518K/acre, NOT 50% MORE THAN MARKET VALUE, BUT DOUBLE WHAT THE SB WANTED TO PAY.

Sorry, it was late.

What I have been told and read is that the price of the land should have been set as per the price of other parcels as of the date of condemnation, not a year later when the courts finally get around to hearing the case. So by your own words it should have been in the 400K range. This is not what the jury awarded. The jury awarded almost 50% more than this.

That is outrageous and would have been fiscally irresponsible of the board. If it weren't an outrageous amount of money BB should be able to get it from any prudent man (prudent man rule). Since they have not been able to sell it for that amount to anyone else, then clearly no prudent man will buy it for that price and the SB was right to walk away from overpriced land which had even less testing done on it that AME.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Purchasing BB @ $518K/acre would have been fiscally irresponsible if:

1.) The SB entered into a good faith negotiation with BB to settle on a reduced price. Unfortunately this avenue was not tried.

2.) The SB represented that the 2006 referendum only allowed for it to purchase land @ $257K/acre in order to build a 3rd HS on a par with that of NV & WV. Thier own representations to the voters, courts, general assembly indicated that they are able to pay up to $600K/acre which would not impair, in any way, the construction of the 3rd HS.

3.) The SB represented that the ultimate cost of the land may compel them to reconsider the site. At no point, in any proceeding, did the SB represent that the price of BB would be cost prohibitive rather they reinforced the position that the land would be acquired.

By Anonymous on May 27, 2008 4:23 PM
By Anonymous on May 27, 2008 2:11 PM

"The worst thing about this situation is even the justification for a new school was a trumped up pack of lies (see enrollment study by Ehler's and Associates Bond Brokers and NIU study which claimed 11,200 HS students, when per D204's current projection, it appears to be 8900 or less - an entire HS difference).

Voters, you were taken for a nice ride and will pay for this over the next generation. You deserve it too."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

This is clearly one of those "no 3rd HS PERIOD!" supporters of the NSFOC.

Why should we buy any of what you're selling when you don't even support the primary goal of the NSFOC, which is build the 3rd HS at BB as promised?

Idiot.
----------
Why is someone who has a valid argument for NO school - an idiot. The numbers clearly show there never was a need for a third HS. Look at the numbers my friend. The D204's own numbers point to this problem. And on top of that the crazy approach to keeping ES students moving in lock step to MS and HS, also generates an ill-conceived need for a MS as well..due to the silly approach of not utilizing available ES and MS capacity, but building new schools instead.

The result of such old thinking is about 2000+ surplus of space in the ESs today, enough MS caacity to accomodate all MS students today and in the future (one MS school being crowded while others have plenty of room). And now the revelation that we have (always had) enough HS capacity right now to accomodate the bubble of students passing through in the next 5 years - especially with the Frontier campaus (+600 seats - and never counted in the capacity numbers by the district.

We have the maximum MS students right now, and the number never goes up enough to justify a 7th MS. Look at the numbers - 7000 MS students every year. So MS is handled. Using D204's own figures.

I personally support NSFOC because they are the only opposition to the illogical and financially wasteful Eola site. At least there is a chance of the HS at Eola getting stopped by them. I voted YES because I supported the need for a new HS based on the thousands of communications from the SB. I respected their decision made before the referendum in 2006. The decision was a $ amount, a HS location and boundaries.

No, it is not an NSFOC goal to kill the 3rd HS - I agree. However, they raise many points as to the lack of D204 credibility on many fronts. I am now a NO 3rd HS because I have learned the truth - that we were sold a bill of goods - damaged goods. Fake numbers.

So I am one YES vote in 2006 turning to a NO. And if you think the 15,000 YES votes still support the direction of D204 with the revelations of the numbers, the "switch" to Eola wasting more $ than BB site (all-in cost comparison), the SB's reckless decision to buy an environmentally contaminated site with no cleanup plans (thanks again to the NSFOC for stopping this), their 48 hour miracle (buying rest of AME - oh, and NO TESTING there either plus gas lines running through the land), then you are mistaken.

SO hmmm, if most of 10,000 NO votes are still NO, AND most of the 15,000 YES votes are unhappy with the direction of the school district, having voted for the 3rd HS at BB (after it was defeated when BB was not promoted as the location in 2005) along with their revelations that the enrollment figures were lies -- then WHERE IS YOUR MAJORITY YOU CLAIM? You are the minority, not the majority. In fact, you are a tiny fraction of the voters - aren't you. Trying to protect the goal of having a third HS close by your homes, no matter the cost in $, risk, liabilities, the environment and God help us - potentially more serious accidents I do not wish to even think about. For what? The one remaining school when WVHS - a great school that should never close - gets closed? I do not understand it.

I will not stoop to calling you names like your "idiot" because you have an opinion and you are entitled to it. But that is always your answer isn't it - name calling. So I feel comfortable knowing you really don't have a good argument. The MAJORITY trusted the district's judgment in 2006. However, In my opinion, many of the MAJORITY now realize the figures and D204 direction were never supportable. D204 lost all credibility in the condemnation proceedings, their decision to build on a contaminated site, and the reckless behavior with 3 lawsuits pending.

I suppose, some of those 2006 YES poeple still want a 3rd HS, some dont. I dont speak for all people, but you seem to be trying to speak for them. I am not going to attempt that, but I can have an opinion and am not going away neighbor.

Anyway - look at the district's own numbers. And keep in mind that the drop in enrollment always occurs as students move through the system (for whatever reason - I think tail end of baby boom and the maturing of the district)...so the numbers will go down not up.

School boards own numbers for 1st grade (projections based on growth) -

1st thru 4th grade (= a future HS class)

Year = 1 gr + 2 gr + 3 gr + 4 gr = future HS class size
2011 = 2134 + 2143 + 2070 + 2215 = class of 8562
2012 = 2134 + 2143 + 2135 + 2065 = class of 8577
2013 = 2134 + 2143 + 2135 + 2130 = class of 8642

Take out 600 for Frontier Campus and 1000 for NV fresh center

If you build a 7th MS and leave WVHS freshman center - that leaves 2 3000 student main campus HS's -

And if one doesn't like the numbers - they're not mine, nor just speculation, they are the planning #'s for your SD.

I think it would have been a very hard sell to convince everyone to build a third high school for the current enrollment peak only. The passing of the referendum hinged on convincing everyone that there would be future growth and enrollment would not continue to decline.

$150 M is a lot of money to spend on a bubble. Unless the plan is to close one of the high schools.

You can thank the Ehler's/Northern Illinois forecast for that - their original projection of 11,200 was grossly over the 8800 estimate we had just a few years earlier when we opened the freshman centers. Even the revised number of 10,400 was still out of line with reality. Now the forecast again is 8931 (almost exactly what we had the first time).

Ehler's/NIU also did the St Charles and Oswego projections. Those figures are much lower today. The excuse from the study makers is the drop off in development. However, those communities were not mature communities like Aurora and Naperville, so maybe Ehler's/NIU can get away with those counter-arguments. But not in Naper/Aurora. So what was the real motivation in those studies. Was it to pump up the numbers so bond money can flow? Think about it. What is the least risky debt these days - rich communities required by law to pay off the debt. The financial community thus has a role in the wasteful spending. These practices are illegal in many states, but not Illinois - a state with a history of corruption. The people will not stand for this much longer - I hope anyway.

To: Anonymous on May 27, 2008 6:44 PM

How about we leave things as they are and we (collective IPSD 204, not you, me, or those active in the goings on in the district) get engaged in what's really happening in our community?
___________________________

Great point!! Seems to me that as usual everyone thinks that they can do better job, and our SB is corrupt and they planned on having the HS in the North from the begining....conspiracy theory. They continue to bash the SB and Dr. D and they say they are planning to do this or that when in reality they have no idea what the SB is doing and go by word of mouth or what they read from a web site.

You want to know how many people were at the SB meeting last night? Tuesday, May 27th at 7:15pm? 2!!! Yes, that's 2 people!! Myself and another gentleman I didn't know. Otherwise, it was people that were being recognized by the SB.

THIS MY FRIENDS IS SAD!!!!

It shows me that we as parents are all selfish and only care about the issues that effect us. Can you really say you care about the whole D204 as much as these SB members? No!! You can scream as loud as you want that you don't like something but unless you get involved all your complaining, lawsuits and emails won't make a bit of difference. Yes I have a family as well and a spouse that works but I made the time to attend the SB meeting last night. You want to know who isn't selfish? Those members on the SB that obviously care about D204 and in some cases have been involved with D204 for close to 20 years.

I don't agree with things that our SB has done or said as well and a few of you know my concerns and issues with the SB. Anyone can sling mud at someone for the job their doing but you have no knowledge of what the SB is doing. The 3rd HS is just a portion of the decisions this SB makes on a monthly basis to benefit our great SD. Get involved and attend a meeting that doesn't have to do with the 3rd HS, you might see the job that they do and learn something. Those parents who's kids attend NVHS and Hill Middle Schools you would have had the chance to meet your new Assistant Principles last night as well. What a shame no parents from those schools were there to meet and welcome them, not even the PTA.

By the way part of the meeting last night did involve MVHS. They passed 4 more bids on construction and are well into Phase II for approving bids on a 3 Phase process. Currently the SB is 2.6 million under budget. Well done SB!!

MR

"Yes, we were given the opportunity to vote on the boundary plan we preferred back in 06. Despite the fact that Bruce Glawe (when pressed) stated that 75% of residents preferred Option 2, the school board rammed option 5A through.

Once again a vote that didn't mean a thing."

NO, we were given the opportunity to fill out an anonymous survey. There was no "VOTE" by the residents. Let's be careful with word selection.

By the way part of the meeting last night did involve MVHS. They passed 4 more bids on construction and are well into Phase II for approving bids on a 3 Phase process. Currently the SB is 2.6 million under budget. Well done SB!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Quick question: When providing these budget numbers, what amount did the SB attribute toward the settlement of the Brach Brodie settlements?

By I am a mom too on May 28, 2008 8:14 AM
D&S,
257*2=514--The jury came in at over 100% over the price the SB wanted to pay. The jury verdict, by your own numbers, the jury awarded a price 29.5% over market value. For 55 acres that $118K/acre adds up. Personally, I would fire anyone who worked for me that agreed to pay just shy of 30% over market price for any materials, even land.

I will admit that I misstated the percentages, and apologize for that. I thought that the jury verdict had come in closer to $600K--too many numbers too hold in my head. Will you now be honest enough to admit that it is irresponsible to pay more than market value for materials? Ithink we can both agree that the jury awarded more than 25% over the FMV.
______________________________________

Hi, Mom! See my post at 8:23 this morning. I caught my error after it posted.

The fair market value of the BB land was left to the jury to decide. They decided $518K/acre. That's its FMV, not what other buyers were offering to pay for it. Just because BB was getting offers for around $400K/acre back in 06 doesn't make that price its FMV; it just makes $400K/acre a better offer than what the SB was offering. This offer was brought forward by BB during the proceedings to try to show the SB that what they wanted to pay was unrealistically low. They choose to ignore it.

Sorry should have read:
Quick question: When providing these budget numbers, what amount did the SB attribute toward the Brach Brodie settlements?

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=189769

GF, can't help but wonder about Fasttimes on the Green and Blue boards.

Man, I'm bummin' ... I believed you when you said you were doing all your blogging right here with us ;-)

what is the fair market value of the ame land? did the district overpay or get a bargain? by how much percentage?

whether there are 200 or 2 people at a school board meeting they do not listen to the public. they vote based on their preconceived notions they come out of executive session with. the public vote itself is just formality and everyone except 2 people understands this now.

The referendum did not include a timeframe for the completion of a 3rd HS. Anyone who thinks that their vote is being "taken away" by it not being built according to their own time expectations didn't read their ballot.
-------------
Sorry, but this is just silly. The referendum was not to build a high school someime in our lifetime. It become law right then -- back in 2006. Two years, later, after many delays, we are finally there. Not to mention all the money we already borrowed to do it. Anything that sets all that back will absolutely undo the will of the people who were for it at that time. Who knows how long it would take now, who knows at what cost, who knows what new problems we would have. A "yes" vote now is not at all the same as a "yes" vote back then.

Which is why a new vote is absurd -- and illegal. Like it or not, the 2006 referendum is the law and the SB has to comply. If you feel you got misled, campaign against those that mislead you. But don't pretend that a "do over" to get your own way would be somehow fair to everyone else who voted. Lawsuit or revote, same difference. Nothing could be less fair.

By Metea Either Way on May 28, 2008 1:44 PM

By the way part of the meeting last night did involve MVHS. They passed 4 more bids on construction and are well into Phase II for approving bids on a 3 Phase process. Currently the SB is 2.6 million under budget. Well done SB!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Quick question: When providing these budget numbers, what amount did the SB attribute toward the settlement of the Brach Brodie settlements?

Boo, hiss! Way to spoil MR's post imploring all of us to get involved by going on an uncalled for sniper attack.

To KKid

:) LOL

At the time, the facts were exactly as I stated :). However, something unexpected came up which forced me to go into a different direction and I did not feel it necessary to re-engague the constituents. I am picking up some bad habits :)

Ever since Arch gave me the links to blue and green a few weeks back, I set up accounts, but did not post....until about 10 days ago.

Its real time (so you can have actual conversations and debate back and forth). Plus the big bonus, I can yap away and do as many posts as I want. I have been hanging on the green board the past few days (in the lions den so to speak :). I dont have 1,000's of posts like some of the folks there, (about 20 in since I started). I am getting smited, but a few kind folkks exhaulted me, so now I am back to par. Not bad, they are treating me ok (much better than I expected)

Dont worry, I have not gone anywhere and I will continue to pop in intermittently.

you are 100% correct: FastTimes = Greg Forrest on both Green and Blue.

have a good one!
GF

To I am a mom too on May 28, 2008 8:14 AM--

A P.S. to your previous post:

D&S,
Personally, I would fire anyone who worked for me that agreed to pay just shy of 30% over market price for any materials, even land. . . . Will you now be honest enough to admit that it is irresponsible to pay more than market value for materials?
___________________________________

Sure, let's be honest. If you would fire anyone who worked for you who agreed to pay just shy of 30% over market price for any materials, even land, then you should plan on firing the present SB for what they paid for the AME land. With no appraisal, we'll never know how much they overpaid, but overpay they did, there's just a differing of opinions on how much. There was a debate on this on a previous thread around the time they closed on AME; I didn't pay attention to the estimates and numbers being bantered around. But given that AME paid $35K/acre in 2004 and sold it to the SB for around $225K/acre in 2008, that's about a 680% profit in just 4 years.

I can go back to the previous thread and pull up some of those figures, but does anyone here remember what the FMV of the AME land was estimated to be? Then we can determine what percentage over market price the SB paid for it.

By MR on May 28, 2008 10:57 AM
To: Anonymous on May 27, 2008 6:44 PM

How about we leave things as they are and we (collective IPSD 204, not you, me, or those active in the goings on in the district) get engaged in what's really happening in our community?
___________________________

Great point!! Seems to me that as usual everyone thinks that they can do better job, and our SB is corrupt and they planned on having the HS in the North from the begining....conspiracy theory. They continue to bash the SB and Dr. D and they say they are planning to do this or that when in reality they have no idea what the SB is doing and go by word of mouth or what they read from a web site.

You want to know how many people were at the SB meeting last night? Tuesday, May 27th at 7:15pm? 2!!! Yes, that's 2 people!! Myself and another gentleman I didn't know. Otherwise, it was people that were being recognized by the SB.

THIS MY FRIENDS IS SAD!!!!

-----------------

Yeah. Sad, but the SB loves the turnout. They dont want to answer questions or listen to comments. The taxpayers have given up on the SB and D204 based on the track record of bad decisions and dismissing taxpayer suggestions, comments, and pleas. 2 is a high number in D204 going forward...and is a reflection on the district.

Now, before you say we - the majority of the tax payers are so happy with the SB performance - note that we would love to have a re-vote on Eloa right about now, and would really like the April SB election to be right now. Unfortunately, we have to wait until April 2009. You will see what support the SB has then.

We can have and should have a special election for using the currently approved funds of $124.66 Million for a third HS, for anywhere other than BB site, because the SB promised BB site in thousands of communications - their rightful decision made before the 2006 referendum.

The majority approved the money, location and boundaries promised, and should approve the new higher money amount, new location and new boundaries. Any SB member should want this vote to take place to make sure the voters wishes are met. A vote would confirm if it's all about just a thrid HS somewhere or its about where the HS is located.

The 2005 referendum was voted down due to no location or boundaries being promised, but the 2006 Referendum passed after the amount, location and boundaries were decided in advance - effectively promised and promoted.

As a result we should already know what was approved in 2006. However, let's be sure. Put it up to a vote. A re-vote would be fiscally responsible when contemplating $350 million in total debt, interest and operating costs based on the Eola location. The state can allow a special election within a matter of weeks.

So if the judge rules that the NSFOC case has no merit and there was no illegal act by SB, will the people who have issues with Eola location start supporting it? No ifs or buts. Or are they going to find another issue just like NSFOC?

The same goes for people in support of Eola (which I am) if the judge rules otherwise. I am personally ok with whatever judge decides but just want this idiocracy to end.

By Your Conscience on May 28, 2008 3:10 PM
By Metea Either Way on May 28, 2008 1:44 PM

By the way part of the meeting last night did involve MVHS. They passed 4 more bids on construction and are well into Phase II for approving bids on a 3 Phase process. Currently the SB is 2.6 million under budget. Well done SB!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Quick question: When providing these budget numbers, what amount did the SB attribute toward the settlement of the Brach Brodie settlements?

Boo, hiss! Way to spoil MR's post imploring all of us to get involved by going on an uncalled for sniper attack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider it post traumatic shock syndrome......since I've been told that I made the mistake of fooling myself in only hearing what I wanted to hear when deciding on the 2006 referendum I found it to be a fair question given the claim that the SB is already under budget on the 3rd HS project. Just calling for full disclosure is all.......hell if answere, it'll be the first time.

By Help on May 28, 2008 4:17 PM

The state can not allow a special ref. within weeks. Posting must be made at least 90 days in advance of ref. vote. It is far different from a standard election. Also, IMO, the burden of proof is on the NSFOC to provide actual numbers and material impact that the Ref. vote was biased based on the ref. language (both printed and implied). If they can't provide this material impact criteria the NSFOC is asking the court not only to say that the printed material was indeed part of the ref. as though it was included herein, they are asking the court to negate the results of the affirmed ref in '06. I am not even sure that it is in the jurisdiction of the court to provide such relief. As Popejoy said he can not force the SB to buy the BB land -- that is clearly not in the court’s jurisdiction -- so if the requested relief can not be granted, what is the court to possibly award. If for no other reason, I think that will be Popejoy's rationale to dismiss the suit.

Kind regards,

By Anonymous on May 28, 2008 3:06 PM
The referendum did not include a timeframe for the completion of a 3rd HS. Anyone who thinks that their vote is being "taken away" by it not being built according to their own time expectations didn't read their ballot.
-------------
Sorry, but this is just silly. The referendum was not to build a high school someime in our lifetime. It become law right then -- back in 2006. Two years, later, after many delays, we are finally there. Not to mention all the money we already borrowed to do it. Anything that sets all that back will absolutely undo the will of the people who were for it at that time. Who knows how long it would take now, who knows at what cost, who knows what new problems we would have. A "yes" vote now is not at all the same as a "yes" vote back then.

Which is why a new vote is absurd -- and illegal. Like it or not, the 2006 referendum is the law and the SB has to comply. If you feel you got misled, campaign against those that mislead you. But don't pretend that a "do over" to get your own way would be somehow fair to everyone else who voted. Lawsuit or revote, same difference. Nothing could be less fair.

*************************************************************

Nothing could be less fair? Are you serious? Making thousands of representations that BB was the location, using grossly inflated enrollment numbers, threatening split shifts, splitting middle schools in the name of balancing academic achievement, changing the site to one that increases school commutes for a large number of kids, placing the burden of potentially substantial lawsuit damages on the taxpayers...do I need to continue?

Take away all the inaccuracies, scare tactics and active campaigning done by the SB prior to the last referendum and the results are not the same. The "will of the people" and many "yes" votes in 2006 were the result of a misled public. A new vote based on the facts and without the white noise of the SB would likely have a dramatically different outcome.

To: By A Survey Is NOT A Vote For Peat's Sake... on May 28, 2008 1:39 PM
"Yes, we were given the opportunity to vote on the boundary plan we preferred back in 06. Despite the fact that Bruce Glawe (when pressed) stated that 75% of residents preferred Option 2, the school board rammed option 5A through.

Once again a vote that didn't mean a thing."

NO, we were given the opportunity to fill out an anonymous survey. There was no "VOTE" by the residents. Let's be careful with word selection.

______________________________

Gee Bruce called it a vote in 06. Are you saying the survey meant nothing?

So, neither survey feedback nor votes mean a damn thing to this board. It's even worse than I thought.

Why bother with a survey if you aren't going to pay attention to the 75% approval response you get from residents?

Oh, I forgot, it's not at all about what residents are happy with if the 6 of 7 on the school board feel differently.

greg/KK

I have not been to the blogs you reference (blue and green) except when someone first posted the links here.

As I understood it, one blog was for those who support the SB/Eola and one is for those who dont.

Neither one seemed particularly interesting to me -- reading a bunch of people back-slapping each other about how right they are and trash-talking the other side. Sort of pathetic -- like conservatives only watching Fox and listening to Rush and getting a sense of validation for their own narrow views. Or liberals who limit their news intake to reading the NYT and listening to NPR.

Are you saying that there is actual discussion of opposing points of view? that doesnt devolve immediately into flaming and name-calling?

Dont think I have time to do real-time stuff, but...can you post the links again anyway?

I think SB meetings have poor attendance is the fact they moved Public Comment till after the meeting. I used to go to them all the time but can't sit around til the end (whenever that might be) as I have children that need help with homework or need to get to activities.

Another reason I don't go anymore is I gotten the impression they don't give a damn about a thing I say.

Many of us volunteer, not just school board members. I spend more time volunteering in 204 schools than I spend at work and frequently have to adjust my work schedule to accomodate volunteer commitments.

Also, just because someone is a volunteer they should not be given carte blance on decision making. Many of us are well within our rights to criticize the poor choices this SB has made.

This was my post.

greg/KK

I have not been to the blogs you reference (blue and green) except when someone first posted the links here.

As I understood it, one blog was for those who support the SB/Eola and one is for those who dont.

Neither one seemed particularly interesting to me -- reading a bunch of people back-slapping each other about how right they are and trash-talking the other side. Sort of pathetic -- like conservatives only watching Fox and listening to Rush and getting a sense of validation for their own narrow views. Or liberals who limit their news intake to reading the NYT and listening to NPR.

Are you saying that there is actual discussion of opposing points of view? that doesnt devolve immediately into flaming and name-calling?

By Anonymous on May 28, 2008 3:06 PM

The referendum did not include a timeframe for the completion of a 3rd HS. Anyone who thinks that their vote is being "taken away" by it not being built according to their own time expectations didn't read their ballot.
-------------
"Sorry, but this is just silly. The referendum was not to build a high school someime in our lifetime."
______________________________________

Really? The referendum stated a third HS would be built--it didn't state WHEN. Could take many, many years for all we know. I think you were fooling yourself to think you'd have it by 2009 (or was it the school board who said that?) Doesn't matter, 'cause even if they did, you're still fooling yourself to have believed them. :-)

To Metea Either Way:

When you posted this: "Consider it post traumatic shock syndrome......since I've been told that I made the mistake of fooling myself in only hearing what I wanted to hear when deciding on the 2006 referendum I found it to be a fair question given the claim that the SB is already under budget on the 3rd HS project. Just calling for full disclosure is all.......hell if answere, it'll be the first time."

You were dead on. I'll never believe another word these clowns say. What have they told us so far regarding the third high school that has become reality.

This third high school will be WAY over budget and WILL NOT open in 2009 unless the kids are in teepees.

What a mess they've created. They really (all but C. Vickers) should resign in shame. In the corporate world, they'd have been fired a long time ago.

The fact they volunteer means nothing to me. Bankrupting a large school district is not acceptable just because you volunteer your time.

If the logic applied below that we simply needed more space at the high school level was equally felt throughout the district, and many simply voted for more space, the 2005 referendum would have passed.

The district and school board are on the record many, many times stating they needed to disclose location and boundaries to secure a passage of a referendum.

It's total bull to state the referendum would have passed without location and boundaries.

_____________________________________

By Voted for A Third High School on May 27, 2008 4:09 PM
"Those who believe that only the wording on the referendum should count disagree that any location or boundaries were guaranteed by the SB."

D&S,
You are correct.The school board could not guarantee any location or boundaries applied to it since they didn't own the land for the school yet. That is why many of us did not waste our time going to boundary meetings.
I attended meetings I thought were relevant at the elementary schools where I first became aware of the HUGE graduating classes from our two high schools. All the while, our elementary schools were holding art and music classes on portable carts so they could utilize those rooms for the even larger class sizes coming up.

I absolutely believe only the wording on the referendum counted and I voted for a much needed third high school to relieve the current and future overcrowding mess.

Civics, the green and blue blogs are just as you describe them. I periodically check them out as every once in a while there are tidbits that don't make it here. I've never posted and don't plan to.

LOL on the Fox News/NPR analogy.

Who is the bigger fool? The fool? Or the fool that listens to them?

How is it possible that I read all the same emails, saw all the same flyers in my kids backpacks, read all the same newspaper articles, talked ad nauseum with my neighbors, scout troop families, PTA members, and church families about the referendum, what it was about and whether or not it would pass.....and yet I never thought for a second that purchasing BB was a sure thing or that the boundaries were guaranteed?

Why is it that when I read the referendum in the voting booth that day I was not surprised when there was no mention of location? Why is it that I said to myself in the booth that day -- 'Gee, I sure hope they get BB because I dont know what they will do if they dont.' Why was I waiting and worrying about the outcome of the condemnation suit if it was a matter of record that BB would be bought because the SB promised it?

How is it possible that all of the above is true....and yet so many of you people are certain it was guaranteed?

If you were fooled by the SB it is because you allowed yourself to be fooled.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. And there are a lot folks out there who are refusing to take off their blinders.

Anonymous 6:11 pm,

You couldn't be more correct. For example, the green board is looking to roast anyone connected to NSFOC. If Greg Forrest thinks a reasonable dialouge can be found there, he is kidding himself. I've seen his recent posts in which he put his name out for the green board to see. Not so smart Greg, they are being nice to you now but just wait. Look out!

Both boards are very biased. Greg, don't be so trustful of those on the green board. Trust me, if the motion to dismiss is denied on Friday, you will be sorry you shared your name with those folks as they are out to get you.

I read both blue and green but don't post. Both sites are scary at this point.

The Blue Board is a love fest for Arch. The dissenting viewpoints, and those are rare, are very gentle. It's nice if you want to get a sense of what the NSFOCers are advocating.

The Green Board is more balanced. There, you don't see the wild posts that appear here and at the Blue Board. It's a much better exchange of ideas. The Green Board is the place to go for information.

Correction, this was not posted by MR, it was in response to an earlier post MR made. Sorry for the confusion, I was typing fast. The post should have read like this

To MR on May 28, 2008 6:12 PM
I think SB meetings have poor attendance is the fact they moved Public Comment till after the meeting. I used to go to them all the time but can't sit around til the end (whenever that might be) as I have children that need help with homework or need to get to activities.

Another reason I don't go anymore is I gotten the impression they don't give a damn about a thing I say.

Many of us volunteer, not just school board members. I spend more time volunteering in 204 schools than I spend at work and frequently have to adjust my work schedule to accomodate volunteer commitments.

Also, just because someone is a volunteer they should not be given carte blance on decision making. Many of us are well within our rights to criticize the poor choices this SB has made.

Some people have cried here about Freshmen and Sophomores at MVHS not being able to play varsity sports at MVHS in the 2009-2010 year. Albeit, the number of freshmen and sophomores that play at the varsity level is extremely small. However, the schools are working towards plans that will combine the WVHS and MVHS teams in the minor sports until MVHS is ready to field teams at the varsity level. So, if you think your child can compete at the varsity level as a freshmen at MVHS, they will have that opportunity.

I voted no in 05 because I felt uninformed about why a 3rd HS was needed. I voted yes in 06 because I felt I was better informed. I did not base my decision on boundaries. I thought about my kid’s ability to play sports and participate in extracurricular activates and the impact 4800 students (my estimate) would have on their ability to do so. I fully knew we did not own the property at BB and that boundaries could change based on the disposition of the land and my kids -- being in the middle of the areas -- could be any of the three HS. My question to all becomes -- should my yes vote count less than yours because I voted the way I did based on my interpretations and feelings. Can you say with out a doubt that I am the only one who voted this way? And if so, why are my rights to vote and my yes vote weighed any differently from those who voted on "site/boundary platform"?

By Mislead Voter on May 28, 2008 7:59 PM

RE: "It's total bull to state the referendum would have passed without location and boundaries."

How do you know this? I can't buy the argument that the SB said this so it must be true statements. The point is being made that the SB is completely incompetent -- including statements by me -- in everything they do. But on this particular point they were absolutely perfect in the deductive reasoning. I can not make the logic on the arguments work for me.

To Voted for A Third High School on May 27, 2008 4:09 PM--

Re your statement:

"The school board could not guarantee any location or boundaries applied to it since they didn't own the land for the school yet. That is why many of us did not waste our time going to boundary meetings."
_______________________________

It's because you did not waste your time going to boundary meetings that you don't understand the premise of the NSFOC or their lawsuit. You had already made up your mind to vote yes in 06. The boundary meetings were held for those who were undecided and needed convincing. The people who later became the NSFOC were there. So was I. Maybe the SB should not have guaranteed any location or boundaries, but they did, multiple times (see my boundaries 06 posts above which are taken verbatim from SB handouts and websites). As I've stated over and over, if you weren't at the boundary meetings, you have no idea what was or wasn't "guaranteed" to the voters who were.

blue vs green boards

i've never been banned from blue

Perspective, I think a staff member told me NVHS reaches 4800 next year. In theory Frontier makes that doable, but there is no more room for lunches nor are there any more guidance counselors, etc. Our teachers and school administrators are accomplishing a Herculean task every day. If we don't care enough about the kids to see the need for the third HS, can we at least admit that we are asking our faculty and staff to do the near impossible? There are no more spots on sports teams, or in plays, our kids have fewer opportunities. I for one voted for a third HS. I'd like my vote not negated. Thanks for saying it better than I could.

Regarding the proboards, the green board is where to go for the most factual updates. If you want to read about pipeline explosions in 3rd world countries, or Dr. Evil's repeated rantings, go to the blue proboard. That one is entertaining. But not factual.

Go to green board if you want to see anger and to see how badly they want names behind the NSFOC, probably to make up a hit list if the suit goes forward. Funny how the main poster who wants names will not even have kids in the district. Funny how that poster only want the school at Eola for property values.

green has the facts according to the school board

everyone knows how truthful those have been

if you want to know the party line go there

To Civics.
Regarding your last post "Who is a bigger fool"

Normally I agree with most things you post, but on this subject I have to respectfully disagree.

Many in the district felt correctly on incorrectly that the ref and the bb deal was "in the bank" when voting back in 06. The reasons for this are many. 1) the district already owned 25 acres at bb. 2) there was no info regarding a plan "B" or plan "C' 3) the decision/research on other locations, geographically bb was optimum. 4) large push by many volunteers in-district to get out the vote. 5) literature available thru district channels regarding boundaries as it applies to the third high school.

With all this info. in hand Civics I feel many in the district including myself took ownership of this 3rd high school and its location before we actually owned it. Was that a correct thing to do , probably not. The concern now is that for many hard working volunteers and voters the idea of "leaving bb go" is like the death of a great plan. A plan that many already owned.

Giving up the idea of ownership is not easy and not swift, but eventually it will come. I suspect (don't like to use assume) the idea of ownership for others was never there in the first place. If you consider yourself in that category you are a fortunate person. Please be patient for the ones still holding on to the "ownership idea".

How is it possible that I read all the same emails, saw all the same flyers in my kids backpacks, read all the same newspaper articles, talked ad nauseum with my neighbors, scout troop families, PTA members, and church families about the referendum, what it was about and whether or not it would pass.....and yet I never thought for a second that purchasing BB was a sure thing or that the boundaries were guaranteed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Civics, perhaps you're more cynical than most (in this case it was probably the appropriate position) however everything presented by the SB stated that Metea on BB was fait accompli be it through condemnation proceedings or having the $$$ to purchase the land. You cannot discount the fact that the SB made this a collaborative effort with the community so there was no reason to believe, at any point, that the SB would reverse/alter course, at the very least, without reaching back out to the community.

Perhaps we are both using hindsight to promote our respective positions......... I don't know.

I think that people need to move forward. I was present at ALL the referendum meetings in the past. I sat in the gym at Still when they talked about the teacher referendum 7 or eight years ago. I fully supported that, I just went to find out why air conditioning was not on the ballot. I went to the boundary meetings that everyone is talking about. Yes, we awoke one morning to find boundaries in the newspaper back in 06. Than the board held meetings, they were bullied and treated disrespectfully by who???? Us, the community. They changed the boundaries and gave us different options. Which other communities DO NOT DO, now we know why! I was so embarrassed to see how some of our community members paraded up on the stage of WVHS and said some of the things they said, and the tone they used with the board. And we wonder why we were not asked to be involved! Move two years forward, our site falls apart the board does the responsible thing and gets a new spot because we voted for a third HS and they were going to follow through with the promise to the community. So, once again we are given boundaries, which I do not blame the board for that. Who in the world would put them in the same place they did two years ago. So, we have a HS spot, things changed people need to move forward. It may not be perfect boundaries and bus rides but nothing is. Other districts do the same. If you do not like the way things are going why not just move instead of suing the community and causing so much heartache!

Reposting from yesterday:
"So if the judge rules that the NSFOC case has no merit and there was no illegal act by SB, will the people who have issues with Eola location start supporting it? No ifs or buts. Or are they going to find another issue just like NSFOC?

The same goes for people in support of Eola (which I am) if the judge rules otherwise. I am personally ok with whatever judge decides but just want this idiocracy to end."

No answers so far... I will take that as people on this board are just addicted to blogging and making issues out of anything and everything. Is the thought of resolution so scary to the few inhabitants of this blog??

By I am a mom too on May 29, 2008 7:21 AM
Perspective, I think a staff member told me NVHS reaches 4800 next year. In theory Frontier makes that doable, but there is no more room for lunches nor are there any more guidance counselors, etc. Our teachers and school administrators are accomplishing a Herculean task every day. If we don't care enough about the kids to see the need for the third HS, can we at least admit that we are asking our faculty and staff to do the near impossible? There are no more spots on sports teams, or in plays, our kids have fewer opportunities. I for one voted for a third HS. I'd like my vote not negated. Thanks for saying it better than I could.

Ditto. The school board will not be the losers if the nsfoc lawsuit prevails....the kids will.

By Civics on May 28, 2008 8:39 PM

How is it possible that I read all the same emails, saw all the same flyers in my kids backpacks, read all the same newspaper articles, talked ad nauseum with my neighbors, scout troop families, PTA members, and church families about the referendum, what it was about and whether or not it would pass.....and yet I never thought for a second that purchasing BB was a sure thing or that the boundaries were guaranteed?
_______________________________________

Hey, Civ!

I noticed you left out that you attended any boundary meetings. I think this contributes to why you got a different message.

Also, it's always disconcerting to me to hear folks call our SB a bunch of fools and refer to them in terms suggesting they are on the same footing with disreputable used car dealers or lying politicians, and yet suggest that we continue to support them and their actions until the end of their terms. It's one thing to support our SB when you think they know what they're doing; it's quite another to continue to support them when you admit they're a bunch of fools. Who's the bigger fool for doing that? I think we all have our own set of blinders.

Hi all

Looks like Civ and a few others want to check out the blue/green proboards. Here are the links

http://ipsd204.proboards76.com/
http://ip204.proboards92.com/

Ok, I think from all the posts everyone can see the bias of each board just by the postings above, but here goes.

pro76 is the Blue board and leans toward an anti SB/pro NSFOC (whatever you want to call it)

pro92 is the green board and leans (very heavily in my opinion) towards a pro SB/anti NSFOC (whatever you want to call it)

To Anonomyous:
Thanks for the warning. Yes, I did sign my name to a few of my posts on the green board (obviously you saw them too). Yes, this links my name to my monicker of FastTimes. Noone else can post as fassttimes there as you have to be registered so I am in no danger of being hijacked with errant posts that were not mine (unless a moderator decides to mess around etc.). Your warning seems very ominous.... and I appreciate the warning and the heads up, but whats done is done and if someone is "out to get me", they better be real good and real fast and "get me" the first time or I will "get them". Its a shame people feel that publicly sharing an opinion could potentially put oneself in danger. What have we come too as a community? I heard about the Letter from M---A-- H--- to Popejoy. Not very bright (which is a totally different subject), but as long as vile crap (opps I mean opinions) stay just on paper, we are then at least keeping this somewhat civil.

To MH:
Talk about bias? Saying that the green board is the place for factual updates and the "other" is not factual is truely laughable. Both have a bias to one side or the other and contain alot of opinions and facts. Get a grip MH and please attempt to be at least minimally open minded. The Green board is not the fact superstore on the corner of Eola and Molitor.

Civics; I have posted on both, but since more of my views are closer to what is generally on the Blue, I have spent more time on the Green. Green is almost exclusively pro Eola/SB so it is different than the Sun blogs from that perspective (Sun has viewpoints from A to Z). I guess thats why I like the Sun blog so much (and enjoy the back and forth opinion/viewpoint exchange I have had with you, MR, P, and a few others over these past few months).

Sorry for the long post.
GF

To Mislead Voter on May 28, 2008 7:59 PM--

Regarding your post:

If the logic applied below that we simply needed more space at the high school level was equally felt throughout the district, and many simply voted for more space, the 2005 referendum would have passed.

The district and school board are on the record many, many times stating they needed to disclose location and boundaries to secure a passage of a referendum.

It's total bull to state the referendum would have passed without location and boundaries.
______________________________________

I feel your pain, Mislead, I really do. However, I've got to go with Perspective on this. There were more issues raised in 06 than just the location and boundaries.

Here's a synopsis from a handout I got from the school district at one of the public meetings:

March 21 Referendum FAQ #2: January 2006

Q: WHY IS THE DISTRICT DISCUSSING ANOTHER REFERENDUM?

A. The district currently faces overcrowding in its middle and high schools. We are on pace to have the two largest high schools in the state with approximately 5,000 students each. Today, we already have more students in the elementary grades than we have seats for in middle and high school. . . .

Q: WHAT IS THE PROPOSED SOLUTION?

A. The March 21 referendum will solve the middle and high school problem by asking voters to approve building a new high school at the southeast corner of 75th Street and Commons Drive and convert the Waubonsie Valley freshman building to a middle school. . . .

Q: HOW WILL THE REFERENDUM IMPACT TAXPAYERS?

A. . . . the district plans to restructure its debt. By refinancing the district's current 12-year mortgage to a 20-year mortgage, the district can afford to build a new high school without increasing the Bond and Interest portion of your tax bill. For the first seven years of the mortgage, homeowners will actually see a decrease in the Bond and Interest portion of their taxes.

Q: WILL SCHOOL BOUNDARIES CHANGE?

A. Because of the overcrowding in our middle and high schools, boundaries are going to change with or without passage of the March 21 referendum. The board is expected to decide high school boundaries after the community attends the mid-January boundary open houses.

Q: WHAT IF THE MARCH 21 REFERENDUM DOESN'T PASS?

A: Should no new classroom space be available, boundary changes will be required to balance enrollment beginning in 2007. In addition to boundary changes, split shifts will be implemented at both high schools in 2009. Split shifts will divide the school day into two shifts. . . .

Given all that was going on, we can't say why folks changed their votes from no in 05 to yes in 06, whether it was because they were made aware of overcrowding problems, because the second question specifically states "The March 21 referendum will ask voters to approve building a new high school at the southeast corner of 75th Street and Commons Drive", to get a 7-year decrease in the Bond and Interest portion of their taxes, because they feared split shifts, because of the boundaries chosen by the board after the January meetings, or because they feared how boundaries would change if there was no 3rd school built. It's simply impossible to know.

My question to all becomes -- should my yes vote count less than yours because I voted the way I did based on my interpretations and feelings. Can you say with out a doubt that I am the only one who voted this way? And if so, why are my rights to vote and my yes vote weighed any differently from those who voted on "site/boundary platform"?
------------------------------------------------------------------perspective:

My questions is if we are all allowed to vote based on interpretations and feelings, why should any Yes vote be discounted?

By I am a mom too on May 29, 2008 7:21 AM
Perspective, I think a staff member told me NVHS reaches 4800 next year. In theory Frontier makes that doable, but there is no more room for lunches nor are there any more guidance counselors, etc. Our teachers and school administrators are accomplishing a Herculean task every day. If we don't care enough about the kids to see the need for the third HS, can we at least admit that we are asking our faculty and staff to do the near impossible? There are no more spots on sports teams, or in plays, our kids have fewer opportunities. I for one voted for a third HS. I'd like my vote not negated. Thanks for saying it better than I could.

************************************

Mom Too/Perspective,

What I find troubling about both of your posts is that you are basically saying that you know that the SB used questionable tactics and inaccurate information to get the referendum passed, but because the end result is what you wanted and YOUR vote would not have been impacted, all is well. It doesn't matter to you that it did impact how others voted.

While I can see where you both are coming from, can you honestly say that your opinions would be the same if your vote WAS impacted by the inaccurate information provided prior to the vote, then you learned that you were going to be moved to a HS with a commute 6x farther from your homes, your MS was going to be split and your neighborhood would be insulted and labled when you questioned the decisions?

Mom Too, you mentioned that you are concerned about the accessibility of extra-curricular activities. Here's a thought you should consider. The SB through its actions has lost the trust of the community. This is very bad news considering they only passed a referendum to BUILD a 3rd HS. They don't have an operating budget to staff and run it. That will require an additional referendum. If the community no longer trusts the SB, what do you think the odds are that a future referendum will get passed? No new operating money means that the district will need to make do with the current operating budgets. What do you think will get cut first? My guess is extra-curriculars at all schools.

As for your comment about lunches and guidance counselors, there are two simple solutions. First, allow juniors and seniors to leave campus for lunch. Second, hire additional guidance counselors. It is not an action that is dependent upon a new school. If the district cannot afford a few guidance counselors, how are they going to be able to staff an entire new HS?

SSS Maker
---------
I too felt that BB was by far the most likely outcome. I also took the SB at their word that THEY were very confident it would be the end solution. But I did not bank it. Knowing too well that there always seems to be another 'complication' around the corner, I knew there was always a risk. And I do not understand why others did not. And I DO believe the SB signalled that risk, albeit with less gusto than they did the idea that BB would get done.

And that is the crux of the issue -- Did gusto cross over into illegal?

Metea
-----
Yes, I am among the most cynical people you could ever meet! (Interestingly, someone at work, who I respect a great deal, said he believes it is because I am also an idealist. So to combat constant dissapointment, I get to a place where I assume the 'world' will eventually dissapoint me.) However, to balance that view, I try to act as an 'optimistic cynic.' i.e. Just because the world is an imperfect place does not stop me from trying to do the right thing and improve what I can.

As for hindsight.....well....maybe. But I know my own mind pretty well and try to be precise.

D+S
---
A fair point, and the clear counter to mine. As a counter-counter (!) I offer this: The board is the board. They aren't going anywhere until their terms expire. Lawsuits aside, they are ones making the decisions. I do not consider myself a 'board supporter' or a 'board basher' per se. Rather I gather what information I can and try to make an informed decision. (And fwiw, I wrote the board a letter at the begining of all this in February or March urging them to purchase BB.) But in this case, given where we are, I deem that Eola should be supported because it gets the school built faster and I think is, at this point, the right thing for the community as a whole.

As for attending the meetings -- I did not. But my spouse did go to a couple. And one of the comments I recall her coming home with was something to the effect that much of this angst was unecessary since everything was subject to change between the time of the meetings when the school was finally built.

Greg (and others)

Thanks for the straight dope on the other boards. i will check 'em out again.

Greg, I agree with you on another point: I find it pretty laughable that peoples biases on the fundamental issues even go into their biases when describing the biases of the different boards!

Such a simple question I ask and so much bloviating I get in response!

Civics:

As a self professed crusader, I guess our "plight for right" can be described as a battle of what is vs what should be.

Hi Dem

OK, I will try and offer my viewpoint....both my original (emotional one) and my current (less emotional and somewhat adjusted one).

This whole process that has transpired infuriates me. A large part is due to some decisions by the board that I just cannot understand (I must be missing some key non public info) as well as knowing there was a solution available that would/could "solve" this for most folks without all the ugly divisions etc.

My first reaction was to fight this injustice (my opinion) to the bitter end until Metea's doors open at Eola and welcomes the inagural class.

However, now I feel the need to look at the cost/benefit ratio at some point in the building process.

It really depends on what happens in the case, the timing, and how far along we are in the building process.

If the case is dismissed, an appeal to a higher court (more time) construction would continue (SB is emboldened thinking they are on solid legal ground) which more money is sunk into the site... etc. etc. When we start pouring foundationns and putting up walls... we cant get that materials/labor money back by selling the upgraded/graded property since we should get a premium above the 19 mill since it has been improved and ready for construction...:)

If the dismissal is denied and case moves forward. For me, it depends on if the case is expediated and if construction continues on the site during the trial. In my opinion, this is one of the reasons SB is moving with reckless abandon and continues to build as fast as possible knowing they are doing it at "their/our" own peril... They are hoping it is so far along in the process that either a court or the majority of the opposition cannot justify stopping it (even if what happened was illegal) due to the massive amount of money already sunk into the Eola site. It infuriated me to see the SB bungle away 5 mill in legal fees (more to come I'm afraid) to BB. i think many folks (including me) would have a cornary over 50 mill...75mill etc. etc.

So to make a long story short; its not really about Friday... for me its about the timing and the dollars.

lets see what happens on friday. Can you imagine if the dismissal is denied and either the SB starts to get very very cold feet and halts construction (not likely given their track record) OR Judge TRO's construction until case is heard LOL? I dont expect either to happen, but they are possibilities (so is a dismissal, and that would probably be the death knell as the school would be half built by the time the case sees the next courtroom).

Have a good one. About 24 hours until we hear something.... I'm breakin all the rules Friday afternoon. I am going to post as much as I want on this thread (Im sure there will be a new one...:)

GF

---------------------------------------------------
By Where's Democracy? on May 29, 2008 9:21 AM
Reposting from yesterday:
"So if the judge rules that the NSFOC case has no merit and there was no illegal act by SB, will the people who have issues with Eola location start supporting it? No ifs or buts. Or are they going to find another issue just like NSFOC?

The same goes for people in support of Eola (which I am) if the judge rules otherwise. I am personally ok with whatever judge decides but just want this idiocracy to end."

No answers so far... I will take that as people on this board are just addicted to blogging and making issues out of anything and everything. Is the thought of resolution so scary to the few inhabitants of this blog??

By 16 Years in Naperville on May 29, 2008 9:21 AM ..

You are Right On!!! We moved here the same year!!! Back when WV was the only HS :). I can't believe what has happened to this community and how the volunteer school board members have been treated. After all of the years of service and re-elections. Sad how folks never tout all of the positives they have done over the years.Sad how folks won't use their money to help out their own district for the benefit of all kids.

I also think you are correct about SB decision making. Most school boards don't hold meetings and take input from communities about boundaries. They are decided upon by the elected officials and that's it. Finito. Done deal. Suck it up and move on.Maybe the mistake was trying to cater to high-maintenance folks that just ended up stabbing them in the back anyway.

Metea
"a battle of what is vs what should be"

Hey thats pretty good! I may just use that!

Thanks

By Flip Floppin' on May 29, 2008 10:53 AM

RE:"What I find troubling about both of your posts is that you are basically saying that you know that the SB used questionable tactics and inaccurate information to get the referendum passed, but because the end result is what you wanted and YOUR vote would not have been impacted, all is well. It doesn't matter to you that it did impact how others voted"

I am not sure how you read the above into my posts. I do think that the SB completely fumbled the ball on the BB land acquisition, but please do not imply that to mean I think they used questionable tactics and inaccurate information just to get the referendum passed.

The end result was what I voted for and yes it would matter to me if I thought I was mislead. I would be disingenuous to say otherwise. I would also ask myself the question "Would I have voted 'NO' if the information I assumed was part of the ref. was not there.”? I would throw the question back to you, if you knew upfront and without a doubt, that you had no control over the locations and the boundaries of the new school would you have voted 'NO' on the 06 referendum?

By Metea Ether Way on May 29, 2008 10:41 AM

You are right. All yes votes should count. I am not sure I understand your point. I am questioning what the NSFOC is asking the court to do. IMO, if they are asking for court to negate the previous vote and order a new vote, then they are asking the court to decide which yes votes should count. I am not sure how that can happen.

By Correction to post. NOT FROM MR. From Mislead Voter on May 28, 2008 8:49 PM
Correction, this was not posted by MR, it was in response to an earlier post MR made. Sorry for the confusion, I was typing fast. The post should have read like this

To MR on May 28, 2008 6:12 PM
I think SB meetings have poor attendance is the fact they moved Public Comment till after the meeting. I used to go to them all the time but can't sit around til the end (whenever that might be) as I have children that need help with homework or need to get to activities.

Another reason I don't go anymore is I gotten the impression they don't give a damn about a thing I say.

Many of us volunteer, not just school board members. I spend more time volunteering in 204 schools than I spend at work and frequently have to adjust my work schedule to accomodate volunteer commitments.

Also, just because someone is a volunteer they should not be given carte blance on decision making. Many of us are well within our rights to criticize the poor choices this SB has made.
_______________________________

Regarding your first point, they did not move comment to the end of the meeting. They have public comment at all different times in the meeting. I know this because I have been to every SB meeting this year and have all the agendas.

I to make my kids dinner every night and also help them with their homework as my wife works as well and doesn't usually get home until 7pm. I guess it's all in what you make time for. My kids haven't had any activities on Monday nights to I can be available. I ever had to hire a sitter for a 1/2 hour this past Tuesday when the meeting was.

I understand you volunteer and I applaud you for that. I believe this is what makes our SD so good because of all the invloved parents. However, I will disagree with regarding the SB again. I have NEVER had a problem gettng their ear. I've sent them emails and usually they have responded. I have personally approached them and they have discussed issues with me. At the last meeting I spoke with CB and briefly with MM. Then, get this, I walked out to my car with Dr. D and talked with him.

Here is where my problem is. Everyone is quick to blame the SB for everything and bash them as much as possible. However, let's make a list shall we? I will bet I can name about 25 things alone this year that the SB has done to improve our schools. I'm willing to bet the only things those in opposition of the SB can say is they aren't happy with the 3rd HS issue. To me, these are uninformed people. Like I said earlier I do not agree with a lot of things the SB has done and I'm not always on their side.

IMO the SB could have looked like hero's to those that wanted a HS at BB. But instead to those that wanted a HS at BB they are lower then worm poop. Sad to say people but this could have gone either way last fall. After discussing this with some of the SB members their overall opinion was that it wasn't fiscally responsible to build at BB after the ruling, that all it was. There were no conspiracy theories or no plans to put the school in the North until the ruling came back more the the SB wanted to spend or could spend. I don't care what HC said back a few years ago, the current SB didn't want to spend that much money on the BB land.

As far as those of you who keep calling for a revote it will never happen unless for some reason a court rules as such. You can't prove that the boundaries or land had anything to do with a yes vote. Plus the fact that there were a lot more people that voted in 2006 vs. 2005 because it was a big election year. Did they talk about boundaries and land, sure. Was that their plan and intention, yes. But there was no binding contract that said they had to purchase the land that is why Popejoy can't force them to purchase it. The court ruled on the price and the SB decided not to buy it at that price. I will also add the fact that probably more then 60% of the district doesn't care about the 3rd HS Issue and where it will be. It just isn't on some peoples radar screen even if they are directly effected by it. Others don't care. For example in my neighborhood the majority are happy going to WVHS or MVHS they are happy either way.

By Civics on May 29, 2008 11:28 AM
D+S
---
A fair point, and the clear counter to mine. As a counter-counter (!) I offer this: The board is the board. They aren't going anywhere until their terms expire. Lawsuits aside, they are ones making the decisions. I do not consider myself a 'board supporter' or a 'board basher' per se. Rather I gather what information I can and try to make an informed decision. (And fwiw, I wrote the board a letter at the begining of all this in February or March urging them to purchase BB.) But in this case, given where we are, I deem that Eola should be supported because it gets the school built faster and I think is, at this point, the right thing for the community as a whole.

As for attending the meetings -- I did not. But my spouse did go to a couple. And one of the comments I recall her coming home with was something to the effect that much of this angst was unecessary since everything was subject to change between the time of the meetings when the school was finally built.
________________________________________

True, the board is not going anywhere. But at least the legal action from the NSFOC is attempting to head off some of the damage they're causing by challenging their decisions.

As for the boundary meetings, I heard too that all the bickering about boundaries was really a waste of time because the SB could change them at any time they saw fit, despite all their assurances to the contrary. I understood this could happen; I just took the SB at their word that they would honor the boundaries selected before the ref. The site of the school, however, was never in question. Look at the comment on the FAQ I just posted, taken from a handout on Indian Prairie School District 204 letterhead:

"The March 21 referendum will solve the middle and high school problem by asking voters to approve building a new high school at the southeast corner of 75th Street and Commons Drive . . ."

A direct quote from the district linking the March 21 referendum to the BB site, saying the ref was asking voters to approve a HS specifically at BB, not just a HS. Come on, Civ, can it get any more direct than that? If you didn't attend a good portion of the meetings, you didn't get this message hammered into your head at every opportunity. This was the information from the SB that I and many others gathered and used to make an "informed" decision.

And I can't in good conscience say building on Eola is what is best for the district at this time with three multi-million lawsuits still undecided. I simply can't ignore this threat as easily as those who want Metea built asap. This rush to build which looks so good for the district today could end up putting the district in financial ruin a year from now.

BTW, I agree with your friend at work. Cynics, I believe, are frustrated idealists. I hope for the best while preparing for the worst. I think this is also a form of optimistic cynicism.

By perspective on May 29, 2008 2:02 PM
By Metea Ether Way on May 29, 2008 10:41 AM

You are right. All yes votes should count. I am not sure I understand your point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

My point is simple. You voted Yes in 2006 for a new HS. I voted Yes in 2006 for a new HS on BB based upon the information advertised/provided/promulgated throughout the district.

If the Metea is built on Eola, your Yes vote counts whereas mine does not.

Flip Floppin',
Just a few things:
I resent you saying that I said the school board used questionable tactics. I never said it, nor do I believe it. What I do believe (long opinion alert)is that they should never have backed down two years ago when they districted WE to WVHS and then moved them back to MVHS because they threw a temper tantrum. I really think that was the mistake that set the stage for this year's nastiness--if they hadn't given in to WE two years ago there would be no reason for TG to think they could pull off the same stunt. That was a bad precedent to set. Are they perfect? No! But unethical? Another resounding "No!" You can spin this as you want, but you may not put words in my mouth or apply motivations to me that aren't there! Also, as I have stated before, I actually read my ballot. My ballot asked me if I wanted the SB to raise funds to build a third HS. I did and do.

As to the lunch idea, can you tell me exactly where those jr's and sr's can get to eat and return from near NVHS in 1/2 hour while trying to navigate the parking lot safely and getting back for next class? Remember, you are talking about potentially 2400 cars and young drivers. Add to that the fact that parents have already shown a willingness to sue the District, what happens when one of their precious little darlings has an accident while on school time but not on school property? I know where the smart money is!

About the counselors--where would you like to put those counselors? Maybe in the laps of the students in class? Maybe at the Frontier campus? Wait then where do we put the 600 seats that were supposed to be filled there? And that's just NVHS, it doesn't even start to address the problems at WVHS--I admit to knowing less about what is available there. Maybe those who are already there can fill in more on possible lunch choices and office space there.

As far as extra curriculars, you're right, when we go to split shifts there won't be any for anyone so why should I worry about that? If we vote not to support the operating ref., we are dooming our kids to a lack of extra curriculars. That is each citizen's and parent's choice. If that happens my guess (opinion alert) is that there will be a massive and unprecedented exodus from 204. What exactly happens to your precious home values then? And when the district goes from one of the best and most respected in the state to one of the least, what happens to the home values?

We can threaten, and we can act, but we all then get to live with the consequences. We can hurt our children and our neighbors' children, that is our right. Personally I prefer to be able to look myself in the mirror and say I made a morally sound choice. Denying kids extra curriculars and a variety of classes because i am angry at a decision made by a few adults? Not my personal definition (opinion alert) of a moral act.
____________________________________________________________________
By Flip Floppin' on May 29, 2008 10:53 AM
What I find troubling about both of your posts is that you are basically saying that you know that the SB used questionable tactics and inaccurate information to get the referendum passed, but because the end result is what you wanted and YOUR vote would not have been impacted, all is well. It doesn't matter to you that it did impact how others voted.

MR,

They did move any public comment to items not on the agenda til after the meeting. If an item is not on the agenda, you can wait til the end. For instance, a resident could not have commented on the site of the new school until the night it was presented for a vote. Kinda funny to me. I'm pretty sure the night it's on the agenda, it's set in stone.

Glad to hear you have a flexible enough schedule to be able to go to every meeting and wait til the end. Some of us have spouses that travel (or in my case we both travel) and don't always have someone at home to be with the kids. It's truly not a matter of "what you make time for" in my house.

Here's some information on the change in the public comment for board meetings.

It was reported in the Sun last August. You must have missed it.

204 board meeting format changing

August 12, 2007
BRITT CARSON

Changes in the format of Indian Prairie School District 204 board meetings will go into place Monday.

Instead of the 7:30 p.m. start time, the meeting time for the Board of Education has been moved to 7 p.m. The board also will dissolve their separate committees and have all board members meet during a work session from 5 to 6 p.m. Monday. Some of the changes were recommended by the new superintendent, Stephen Daeschner.

"Anytime there is a change in leaders it is a good time to look at how to do things more efficiently," said Mark Metzger, president of the 204 school board. "The format was mostly his (Daeschner's) suggestions to make things flow more logically."

IF YOU GO
Indian Prairie School District 204 Board of Education Meeting, Monday, Howard Crouse Education Center, 780 Shoreline Drive, Aurora.

5 to 6 p.m.: Work session

6 to 7 p.m.: Executive Session

7 p.m.: Board meeting

Board members used to be divided into various committees to tackle policy, finance and facilities. However, under the new format the entire board will meet as a committee-of-the-whole for work sessions. No action will be taken during work sessions.
Another change was in regards to public comment. Residents may sign up to comment on a specific item on the agenda, but otherwise general public comment will be taken at the end, not beginning of each meeting.

In between the work session and meeting, from 6 to 7 p.m., the board will have a light supper during executive session, Metzger said.

During Monday's meeting, the board is set to discuss a preliminary budget.

The Judge's ruling is out, the district won on all counts. Judge Popejoy was able to see this lawsuit for what it was: a battle about boundaries.

March 21 Referendum FAQ #2: January 2006

Q: WHY IS THE DISTRICT DISCUSSING ANOTHER REFERENDUM?

A. The district currently faces overcrowding in its middle and high schools. We are on pace to have the two largest high schools in the state with approximately 5,000 students each. Today, we already have more students in the elementary grades than we have seats for in middle and high school. . . .\

REALITY ANSWER: the 6 middle school buildings have capacity to handle the maximum MS students in the future, but we need to subtract a MS worth of capacity (about 1200 seats) from the HS numbers to reduce future HS capacity so we can say it will hbe crowded without a new HS. We will not have the two largest HS in the state, because there are already many larger schools with better academics than ours, but you are too busy and trustworthy to bother to look this fact up. We know that 4 grades of ES students never result in a HS projection, because the numbers always decrease over time; however, if you knew this detail, then you might ask for an independent demographic study. Being too honest would hurt our benefit from spending $300++Million of your money. he he.

Q: WHAT IS THE PROPOSED SOLUTION?

A. The March 21 referendum will solve the middle and high school problem by asking voters to approve building a new high school at the southeast corner of 75th Street and Commons Drive and convert the Waubonsie Valley freshman building to a middle school. . . .

REALITY ANSWER: We cannot tell you our Plan A has always been Eola/Molitor as evidenced by our long negotiations with the AME Church at Eola for 40 acres, and our purchase of 25 acres at BB, plus our attempted purchase of another 15 acres at BB to make a neat 40 acres total at BB to trade with AME at Eola, so we can build there. Therefore, you will approve this referendum because you think the third HS will be built near the majority of the population (because we told you that at 50 meetings, we wrote that in letters to the district taxpayers, we said we had the money for up to $600,000 per acre, we promoted that in fliers sent home in backpacks)...not knowing that the referendum is carefully worded not based on law, but guidelines for school boards...who want to get money to spend as we damn well please. ha ha.

Q: HOW WILL THE REFERENDUM IMPACT TAXPAYERS?

A. . . . the district plans to restructure its debt. By refinancing the district's current 12-year mortgage to a 20-year mortgage, the district can afford to build a new high school without increasing the Bond and Interest portion of your tax bill. For the first seven years of the mortgage, homeowners will actually see a decrease in the Bond and Interest portion of their taxes.

REALITY ANSWER: We lie so much, it becomes a habit. Your schools tax bill will actually rise about 10% per year or more.

Q: WILL SCHOOL BOUNDARIES CHANGE?

A. Because of the overcrowding in our middle and high schools, boundaries are going to change with or without passage of the March 21 referendum. The board is expected to decide high school boundaries after the community attends the mid-January boundary open houses.

REALITY ANSWER: We will present you with boundaries before the referendum that will encourage the most people to vote YES, then we will change the location of the 3rd HS and the boundaries to "finally" accomplish what we always wanted: 1) satisfy our neighbors in the north where most of the SB members live because they keep bugging us about how much they hate WVHS, want to close it, and want to get a nice new school of their own - like NVHS was at one time, 2) get more smart, rich minorities into WVHS so we can hide the problem we created in violating the No Child Left Behind Act for many years by not intervening early with low achievers, top teachers and resources...because we wrote them off as low achievers for life since we are racists believing that poor minorities can never improve, 3) have a setup to keep busing the students around to cover-up achievement gaps with sheer numbers - with a 3rd HS far away we can tweak the boundaries continuously to keep the academic mix just right to stay out of trouble with the Feds, 4) keep the bond brokers happy so we can get fringe benefits like money and jobs from the "free money" bond referendum process that allows one building project to continously be used as a source of funds from bond refinance and interest income - so we can implement hundreds of other frivolous projects we think are needed because we are smarter than the taxpayers and know what is best for them - trust us on this one people.

Q: WHAT IF THE MARCH 21 REFERENDUM DOESN'T PASS?

A: Should no new classroom space be available, boundary changes will be required to balance enrollment beginning in 2007. In addition to boundary changes, split shifts will be implemented at both high schools in 2009. Split shifts will divide the school day into two shifts. . . .

REALITY ANSWER: You should be scared into voting YES because your student may immediately be sent to an undersirable school (we did not say it..but), and split shifts scare the hell out of you because you said so to the consultant's survey (that's why we keep saying this to you every chance we get...funny you are so ignorant to not figure out why we do this and tell us to shit up and make it work). SPLIT SHIFTS! SPLIT SHIFTS! DID WE SAY SPLIT SHIFTS?

Now what Greggy! All that talking for nothing.

By Metea Either Way on May 29, 2008 2:47 PM

Yes, I do understand your point. I guess what I do not understand is would you have voted 'NO' if the boundary and locations were not part of the perceived referendum. However, it is my belief that the relief being sought by the NSFOC suit is to either have the school built on BB or rescind the previously approved referendum. So, either your vote counts or mine counts. I realize this is circular logic, but the NSFOC is IMO asking the court to decide whose votes should count and whose should not. I guess what

If it did not work for the "hanging Chads" in FL., I would highly suspect of that happening here.

Hey Dr. Y: I think the English language version of Judge Popejoy's ruling was directed at you: Suck on it.

To Khazakstan Kid--

Oh, no! Christmas came early! Check out the new thread.

Question - would the SB have listed the BB site on the 2006 referendum if they COULD have (i.e, if they had owned all the land at the time) ?

If the answer is "yes" (which I think it is), then it was the intent for the vote to be for a new high school on a certain site with proposed boundaries (they were verbally clear that the boundaries may have to change to accommodate unforseen population growth patterns.)

The fact that they couldn't put it on the ballot, but put it on their website and flyers and verbally stated it, should make it an easy decision for the Judge to not dismiss the lawsuit. However, he could be swayed by the continued spending by the SB on the Eola site. That's a joke.

Nowhere did the SB print nor did they speak of the HS being built potentially at a different site. They only referred to boundary modifications.

Also on another point, does it really make a difference in ability for your kid to participate in activities if your school has 3900 students versus 4600? I think shipping kids up to Waubonsie when they could have walked home from Neuqua after athletics and activities will affect the ability to participate much more negatively in the case of two-working parent homes.

DISMISSED!!!

Now let's hope all those selfish parents who don't want to travel 5 miles and have their kids attend WVHS learn to love WVHS. Sorry NSFOC you looked like a fool from begining to end.

And the verdict is in:

1. NSFOC has no legal injury and no standing
2. So the technical deficiencies don't even matter
3. The board has total discretion to choose school sites period
4. "Extrinsic" evidence outside the referendum is irrelevant
5. NSFOC should not have taken the BB plans as a guarantee to begin with (they should have known better he says)
6. No one's equal protection rights were violated
7. No one violated the Open Meetings Act

School Board 7. NSFOC 0.

See the whole thing at http://www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_18832_1.pdf

Choice quotes:

"taxpayers do not have standing to challenge government spending simply because they do not agree with it."
"It should be noted that there is no evidence that the Distrct ever intended to induce reliance on information that was false."
"Plaintifs canot use their ignorance of the law to justify their reliance on the assumption that Brach-Brodie was 100% guaranteed as that site."
"It appears from the record that defendants had every intention of using Brach-Brodie for the site of the new high school, but ultimately were unable to do so due to facts and circumstances that arose after the referendum vote. There is absolutely no evidence of intent to deceive."

And the kicker:
"Though plaintiffs deny it, each of their arguments is a back door method to obtain discretion over where the site of the new school will be built, or at least where it will not be built."

In other words, it was about the boundaries all along. I hope the plaintiffs feel embarassed now. I think they are supposed to.

I love all of those who are treating the dismissal as a victory by the District.

It is just another sad day in 204. A victory would have been for the District to communicate and treat all of its residents with respect in the first place.

No matter what the outcome here, it is a hige defeat for the Board and administration to leave a legacy of having disenfranchised a large group of residents that it is sworn to represent.

its a great day in D204. Go Mustangs.

To "no class" ONH

Now what? It's a great question: For me personally? Not sure yet. I want to read the opinion and digest what it says before I make any decisions.

However, I must say most people would have a little more class than you. Trying to rub it in; just collects you some very bad karma points AND makes me want to torpedo any/all future referendums that ever come up while any of the existing SB members or Dr. D remain in place. Maybe then that silly little grin will get wiped right off your face. Problem is I know that is absolutelyy the wrong thing to do and it would hurt all D204 kids in the process.

No regards to you
GF

--------------------------------------------------
By ONH on May 29, 2008 4:37 PM
Now what Greggy! All that talking for nothing.

Gosh, if I said this I would be told I didn't understand why people voted or the laws regarding voter rights in IL, or that I was negating people's votes:

b. No. The language in the referendum was "a school site." This is not inherently
ambiguous, and under the plain meaning rule, the court may not consider extrinsic
evidence unless it cannot discern the meanng from the language itself

Anybody going to tell His Honor Kenneth Popejoy that?

Elitist 0 Rationale People 1
OR The Fat Lady Has Sung
I suggest the NSFOC people now throw there weight behing Hillary Clinton.

By Greg Forrest on May 29, 2008 5:49 PM
To "no class" ONH

Now what? It's a great question: For me personally? Not sure yet. I want to read the opinion and digest what it says before I make any decisions.

However, I must say most people would have a little more class than you. Trying to rub it in; just collects you some very bad karma points AND makes me want to torpedo any/all future referendums that ever come up while any of the existing SB members or Dr. D remain in place. Maybe then that silly little grin will get wiped right off your face. Problem is I know that is absolutelyy the wrong thing to do and it would hurt all D204 kids in the process.

No regards to you
GF
_____________________________________

This kind of behavior should not be a surprise. Given what we've seen from some of these folks at SB meetings and what we've heard from them on this blog, I completely expected this if the NSFOC suit was dismissed. Classless is as classless does. Despite the outcome, I'm still proud of how the NSFOC leaders conducted themselves through all this. ONH could learn some lessons from them about dignity under pressure. And the lawsuit did accomplish some good--it got the contaminated MWGen land out from under Metea. It's embarrassing that the very people who will be sending their children to Metea didn't care enough to do this, but it was done, and that's what is important.

And it's far from over. The Big Kahuna BB lawsuits begin on June 10. You know I have always been more worried about these lawsuits than anything else. And I fully expect a lot of the folks who were so rabid about the NSFOC lawsuit to sleep through the BB ones. What can you do? Let's just hope the damage judgments aren't big enough to interfere with the completion of Metea or we'll all be paying big time for years to come.

Stick around. This blog has been somewhat boring since you eased off. I'm jumping to the next thread. See ya there!

D&S

Are you giving refunds? or did Mr. Collins suck you dry. Oh well!!!

Now that you transferred your money to Collins its time to pay the school district. Don't forget to pay your 1st installment real estate taxes on June 2nd (i.e Will County)

side note.. it seems you put in alot of work on your website, keep it up for awhile, remind me of the good times. Whoever kept it up and running should apply at the Enquirer.

...moving on to the real battles.

The judge ruled that the SB can tell its constituents whatever it wants and there are no checks and balances.

Now we better all pray that the SB wins over the Brach and Brodie lawsuits or we are going to have significant financial issues.

And we all better hope that people have short memories and don't hold grudges and are now going to be willing to pass another referendum so we can operate Metea.

We still hava lot of issues.

I hope the NSFOC was wrong rather than just lacking the power to get the SB to listen.

By Hey Dr Y on May 29, 2008 4:41 PM
Hey Dr. Y: I think the English language version of Judge Popejoy's ruling was directed at you: Suck on it.
---
Oh such a comeback...I feel so bad and violated...I want to curl up in the fetal position with my little blankey...NOT. This gross behavior shows the NSFOC's opposition's colors very clearly to all readers of the blogs. Note it people for the future.

The decision appears to be a bit sloppy and shows predisposition of the judge in my view only (more later). He represented his contituents and judicial traditions well. He also showed his weaknesses. Once you rule narrowly as he did on the referendum words, every other argument falls away. One would have hoped that he would not have taken the Mary Hunt email to heart, and that he would have not considered D204's rationale for making the switch as valid based on "facts (?) and circumstances (?)" when it was not (costs the district up to $50M+ more by some estimates), but excluded all facts and circumstances of the plaintiffs.

The decision raises questions for all referendums in the future in Illinois. So thousands of emails, meetings, fliers, etc. mean NOTHING people, so therefore, you must vote NO on any and all future referenda, because you cannot believe what you are told or in what is written. I am sure the SB's and Bond Brokers are celebrating everywhere - not just in D204. How many billions will this cost taxpayers in the ethically challenged State of Illinois?

What's so funny is that even the Eola/Molitor supporters voted NO in the 2006 referendum due to the location (of course, they say there was no location implied or written today - but that just shows hipocracy of people who feel entitled to a HS in their neighborhood in the north - at whatever the costs to the rest D204).

If there is going to be an appeal, (and please note that D204 assured us in advance that they would appeal, so don't blame the NSFOC supporters if they decide to appeal), then I would suggest clarifying the injury a little better, and the judges oversights (if allowed), or bring a new lawsuit.

There are citizens unhappy with the direction of the district and the passiveness of the NSFOC who would like to "bring a hammer" to the matter - in legal terms of course. Let's see if they emerge.

Well stated By Dr Y? who wrote:

The decision raises questions for all referendums in the future in Illinois. So thousands of emails, meetings, fliers, etc. mean NOTHING people, so therefore, you must vote NO on any and all future referenda, because you cannot believe what you are told or in what is written.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I can guarantee I will be voting NO next referendum regardless of how the SB cries for operating dollars. They cannot be trusted on what they say or print.

If Brach or Brodie win anything, we are going to be screwed financially. I wish I would have followed the Brookdale model and voted no for the third high school in 2006.

I can guarantee I will be voting NO next referendum regardless of how the SB cries for operating dollars. They cannot be trusted on what they say or print.

If Brach or Brodie win anything, we are going to be screwed financially. I wish I would have followed the Brookdale model and voted no for the third high school in 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't be so short sighted. The referendum for operating dollars was going to take place regardless of the placement of the 3rd HS, the kids should not be punished.

Secondly, I don't know that the referendum will call specifically for funds toward Metea, rather it should call for funds to be used toward the district as a whole. Again, the kids should not be punished.

By Metea Either Way on May 30, 2008 2:17 PM
I can guarantee I will be voting NO next referendum regardless of how the SB cries for operating dollars. They cannot be trusted on what they say or print.

If Brach or Brodie win anything, we are going to be screwed financially. I wish I would have followed the Brookdale model and voted no for the third high school in 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't be so short sighted. The referendum for operating dollars was going to take place regardless of the placement of the 3rd HS, the kids should not be punished.

Secondly, I don't know that the referendum will call specifically for funds toward Metea, rather it should call for funds to be used toward the district as a whole. Again, the kids should not be punished.

----
D204 wet their bed. Now they will have to sleep in it. The children will have to "get over it" with only $260 million per year in tax money. The poor little darlings. Pray for them.