Mediation fails, Brach-Brodie toll mounts

Only one word: Duh.

How the heck could that issue have been mediated?

So now, the parties will head off to court and somehow TG/WE will try to get the boundaries changed. I'm not sure what has been done with the land to date, but the chances of a TRO may be fading.

How shocking!!!!!
The school board did not give in to this vigilante group!!!
What will the NSFOC come up with now.
This very SMALL group of people who are only serving their own interests needs to be held accountable. We live in a free and democratic society where questioning authority is not only ok, it is required for the growth of our way of life. What is not ok, is the minority, by virtue of financial ability, trying to override the peoples vote. And vote we did. And what we voted for was a third HS. Not a site, not boundaries, not some idea of entitlement!
If any of us thinks that we are not being lead by elected officials to vote the way they would like us to vote, we are not paying attention. And more importantly, if we tried to reverse voting decisions concerning elected officials who "embellished" specific points to play to their audience, we would do nothing all day accept vote.
So come on NSFOC, you are NOT going to win this. We have become the most divided community in Chicagoland. And that is just wrong! Naperville is a great place to live, and ALL of its schools offer an excellent education for our children.
Lets put an end to these ridiculous lawsuits and move forward for our kids.

I think the mediation meeting was just going through the motions.

NSFOC, you have a choice. Dismiss your complaint now, or have the judge throw it out on May 23rd.

The residents are behind the District, not you.

Is anyone surprised by any of these developments? I think we've collectively predicted all of this over the past few weeks.

I do like the Sun's sensationalistic headline, though. Very National Enquirer-ish. All they're missing is M2's head superimposed on a space alien's body. Come to think of it, let me give the Sun's copy editors a hand here.

Mediation fails, Brach-Brodie toll mounts, Lindsay Lohan to replace Alka Tyle on SB!!!!

Hey, this was actually more fun than commenting on the blog topic! And an upgrade on the SB member.....

toll mounts? come on editor Jim, nothing has mounted yet except your paper's need to fuel the flames. These are numbers being thrown around. These are not jury verdicts. These are not settlement numbers.

Response from Naperville Sun editors:

The headline in this forum is accurate. The toll mounts because for the first time we know specifics about at least PART of what the Brach trust is asking for. Note that in print we played it straight with the headline, "Brach trust wants $2.2M from D204."

Thank goodness the court muzzled Collins. I don't know what the SB could have offered NSFOC that would have been consistent with its obligation to the other 99.99% of the district's residents. I can't imagine they would offer much anyway, because their legal position is pretty strong.

Moderator Jim,

Any chance the Sun will interview City Officials and the City Council to ask them what they thought they approved when the OK'd the referendum?

*Location

*Cost

*Districts

*Litigation as a 204 negotiation strategy?

If City Council is simply a rubber stamp for the school boards, why not eliminate the consent requirement?

* When 203 passed their referendum a few years ago, did the City Council realize it would almost double taxes for the homeowners? Or where they duped like the rest of the residents?

Thanks,

Response from Naperville Sun editors:

The city would have nothing to do with the D204 referendum. The school board would be solely accountable for that, and we have interviewed the board president and superintendent at length about the legal issues surrounding Metea. At most, municipalities sometimes approve symbolic nonbinding resolutions voicing support for another taxing district's referendum, as a way of expressing how an improvement such as a new school would benefit the community in which it would be located.

Taxpaying lawyer, whaat do you mean by "muzzled Collins" is there a gag order now? I have trouble with reading between the lines so I apologize in advance.

Anyone interested in a little light reading . . . the links below take you to the SB motion to dismiss filing and Collins' response respectively . . . Let the games begin.

Kind reagrds,

http://winsome.cnchost.com/204/dismiss_motion/

http://winsome.cnchost.com/204/dismiss_motion/NSFOC-OppToMTD.pdf

Hi Mom

no I think Taxpaying lawyer was just glad mediation failed but I will let him/her reply as to what the meaning of "muzzled collins" meant.

Collins spoke to the media (brief statement) afterwards. I Read it in the sun article. Of course D204 lawyers had no comment.

I have heard Collins filed a response to the D204 dismissal motion. I have not read it, but I heard it was brilliant. I am trying to find out who has it (I will check NSFOC site) and see if we can get a link of both the districts motion to dismiss (that I have read) and the response (I have not yet).

May 23rd; there will be no more mediation prior to the results of that court date and most likely no mediation afterwards once the suit continues on.

---------------------------------------------------
By I am a mom too on May 14, 2008 11:44 AM
Taxpaying lawyer, whaat do you mean by "muzzled Collins" is there a gag order now? I have trouble with reading between the lines so I apologize in advance.

its obvious that both sides agreed to a confidential mediation. The NSFOC donations would have dried up completely if the facts were made public. This is about boundaries and nothing more.

Naperville Buckeye, Stinks,MH, Khazakstan Kid and others...
DITTO!!!!!!!! I am so tired of helicopter parents (nsfoc) thinking they can solve all of their kids problems by pitching a fit and throwing money at somebody! Get a clue, get a life and get a grasp on reality. You are not doing yourselves or your kids any favors.

We are all appalled and disgusted with you and your shenanigans .... at least the volunteer school board has intentions to do what's best for ALL kids, even if they make a mistake along the way. NSFOC just blatantly looks out for their own and couldn't care less about any other kids. Quit making up new "reasons" for your group as each one fails. Everybody knows what your group is all about(BOUNDARIES) and it is NOT about any of our kids safety, or school board accountability, or even fiscal responsibility (you want us to buy land we can't afford and is ridiculously overpriced).It is unfortunate that your kids can't go to the high school of YOUR choice but guess what? THAT'S LIFE! Get over yourselves, teach your children that they can succeed even when they don't get their way, and put your energies and donation solicitations toward something purposeful...for instance, how about the education in District 204 and it's children who deserve uncrowded learning environments?
Remember, that's what the referendum that you and I voted for was all about.

If you're one of Arch's lovebirds, then the Collins response was brilliant. I didn't read anything in either the motions to file or the NSFOC response that I would consider brilliant. Both were exactly what I expected. Both sides expressed the same arguments that we've heard the passed n weeks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Howie Crouse [mailto:howie_crouse@ipsd.org]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Boundaries may not stand?

When people ask us if boundaries could still be changed, we have to
answer
that theoretically they can be. WE also have stated that this is such
a
huge issue that if would be difficult to do. That is all we have said.
Howie Crouse

This was PUBLICLY stated at one of the meetings. I guess not everyone was listening. But then again, OF COURSE boundary changes were always a possibility. WE ALL KNEW WE DIDN'T OWN BRACH BRODIE YET!!! Hence we voted for a third high school, period!!! The only reason the SB agreed to go through the Boundary "song and dance" was because there were a few select groups that DEMANDED it even if it would become moot. Guess who they were?!

I'm saddened by all this litigation and infighting between residents. First of all I don't think this new school was ever needed and won't be for the predictable future. Secondly, the group that hired Collins (Naperville schools for their chirldren not your children or NSFTCNYC) is a small vocal minority that consists mostly of Will county folks. They are a small part of the voters that pushed this referendum through and this tiny group was born in WE. I encourage them to give Collins the heave-ho and get over it. The new location makes more sense than BB ever did anyway.

Hi GF!

I have posted the links to the docs you are looking for. I have read both (Yawn), and I would not characterize either as brilliant.

I have to admit I have a negative bias toward Collins. I was involved in a trail with him a few years ago with Zango (180 solutions and Hotbar) He represented the plaintiff and had filed suit against the above claiming they loaded PCs with spyware and other downloads that the users were unaware of. This should have been a slam dunk for him, unfortunate he got it handed to him by Katten Muchin and the suit was dismissed with prejudice before it made it to trial.

I see a lot of his tactics in this filing as well. While the SB is pointing to the courts jurisdiction and the fact that the case can not be case with certain attributes (i.e., irreparable harm, courts jurisdiction to award the requested relief, etc. ..you can read it), he seems to focus on the “well what they said was. . . .therefore it should be part of the ref. as though it was what the ballot” It reminds me a little bit of the “liar, liar pants on fire defense” line used in the movie “A Few Good Men”. He also does not, probably because he can not, define the class of “swing voters” and quantify the “swing voter” effect on the passing vote )it most certainly can not be all of those who voted no in ’05 and now voted yes in ’06 – there are just too many other causes for the change in vote to be certain.

I think he is playing into Freeborn and Peters strategy. I believe that they want the case dismissed on the grounds that it does not meet the legal and judicial requirement to be a suit. I also think they are setting him up for the ultimate defense if it goes to trial, which will be (IMHO)the SB expended every effort they believed to be in the best interest of the SD et al to obtain and build on the property referred to during the referendum vote. So even if you are correct Mr. Collins that the site was marketed and pertinent to the ref. , the effort to do what they promised was made. Once that did not produce results in the best interest of the SD et al., the SB needed to fulfill their responsibility to the SD by virtue of the legislatively directed "School Code" and find a solution to fulfill the will of the voters to build a third high school per the "clear referendum language".

But, what do I know! Like I said I just have a very negative opinion toward him so I am biased in my thinking.

Kind regards,

Kind of an open question, what would the NSFOC suers have done if the condemnation lawsuit had been denied at BB. My understanding is that could have happened and then we would have had to find a new place to build. Would they still be insisting that we must build on that land and suing the authorities who denied the eminent domain proceedings? That wasn't likely to happen, but could have. Doesn't that just prove that no site was specified?

The ONLY thing Collins has done that is "brilliant" is take all of your money to file useless, wasteful lawsuits. He strokes your ego's to make you beleive that you have a chance and you continue to send him the checks.
I think Collins may be the ONLY person involved in NSFOC who has done ANYTHING that makes sense. He is going to take you all the way to the bank, and your kids will still go to WAUBONSIE VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL!!
Deal with it.
And good luck on trying to load the school board with WE/TG folks in the next election, because the REAL MAJORITY will NOT vote you in.

This was PUBLICLY stated at one of the meetings. I guess not everyone was listening. But then again, OF COURSE boundary changes were always a possibility. WE ALL KNEW WE DIDN'T OWN BRACH BRODIE YET!!! Hence we voted for a third high school, period!!! The only reason the SB agreed to go through the Boundary "song and dance" was because there were a few select groups that DEMANDED it even if it would become moot. Guess who they were?!
____________________________________________________________________

Fair enough but I challenge you to show me where the NSFOC has stated that this suit is based upon boundries.

I do like the Sun's sensationalistic headline, though. Very National Enquirer-ish. All they're missing is M2's head superimposed on a space alien's body. Come to think of it, let me give the Sun's copy editors a hand here.
____________________________________________________________________
Kid K, let's not dismiss the the insightful commentary about the "cost savings" aspect of the Eola purchase. Kind of reminds me of this exchange:

Spouse 1 (to Spouse 2 while walking in the door after a workday): "Look honey, I purchased all of these at 20% off and saved you $300.00"

Spouse 2: "How much money would you have saved if you didn't buy anything?"

By Retired Judge on May 14, 2008 1:37 PM
Naperville Buckeye, Stinks,MH, Khazakstan Kid and others...
DITTO!!!!!!!! I am so tired of helicopter parents (nsfoc) thinking they can solve all of their kids problems by pitching a fit and throwing money at somebody! Get a clue, get a life and get a grasp on reality. You are not doing yourselves or your kids any favors.

We are all appalled and disgusted with you and your shenanigans .... at least the volunteer school board has intentions to do what's best for ALL kids, even if they make a mistake along the way. NSFOC just blatantly looks out for their own and couldn't care less about any other kids. Quit making up new "reasons" for your group as each one fails. Everybody knows what your group is all about(BOUNDARIES) and it is NOT about any of our kids safety, or school board accountability, or even fiscal responsibility (you want us to buy land we can't afford and is ridiculously overpriced).It is unfortunate that your kids can't go to the high school of YOUR choice but guess what? THAT'S LIFE! Get over yourselves, teach your children that they can succeed even when they don't get their way, and put your energies and donation solicitations toward something purposeful...for instance, how about the education in District 204 and it's children who deserve uncrowded learning environments?
Remember, that's what the referendum that you and I voted for was all about.

I couldn't agree with you more. Are these same parents going to sue every university their kids apply to if they don't get in. I can hear it now "Well Susie is a straight A student and the student body president and ......... so she deserves to go to your school".

The sooner we teach our kids that life doesn't always go the way we want to the better off they will be in the long run. With these helicopter parents they are making monsters out of the next generation of the workforce. I can see 10-20 years from now people crying in the conference room because the boss said "no" to them and nobody has ever done that before.

Do your kid a favor, cut the umbilical cord and let them breathe. Quit filling their heads with nonsense.

From the Naperville Sun article:

"$24,750 for the Springfield lobbying firm hired to oppose the district's quick-take bill. That legislation would have allowed the school district to take immediate possession of the 55-acre parcel, at 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora, at a price to be set later by a jury."

Does anybody besides me find it more than a little ironic that the Brach attorneys are including this item in their suit?
After all, had the quick-take bill passed, they would have received the $516K per acre which now, two years after the fact, looks so attractive to them that they are filing suit to get it.

I apologize in advance for my negativity, but as I said before I really do not care for him, but is this the best he can do?

I forgot to include the following line from Collins' reply. This goes hand in hand with the liar liar pants on fire defense of the suit. . .

"the district improperly concocts its own alternate universe . . . . "

Question, is there a proper way to concoct your own alternative universe? I wonder if his premise might be that the NSFOC suit concocts the alternate universe properly and the SB did not, therefore, we need to go to trial . . .

Yes, brilliant :-)

Kind regards,

By I am a mom too on May 14, 2008 2:47 PM
Kind of an open question, what would the NSFOC suers have done if the condemnation lawsuit had been denied at BB. My understanding is that could have happened and then we would have had to find a new place to build. Would they still be insisting that we must build on that land and suing the authorities who denied the eminent domain proceedings? That wasn't likely to happen, but could have. Doesn't that just prove that no site was specified?
__________________________________________

No other takers so far so I'll give it a shot.

I think if the SB had not been able to pursue eminent domain, their choice would have been to simply pay what BB wanted or go elsewhere. But the school board talked of filing eminent domain during the 06 boundary process, which indicated they already knew that BB was asking more than from the previous year, since the settlement agreement for around $250K/acre became void when the 05 ref failed. We could have been in the same place we are now, we just would have gotten here 2 years sooner since the eminent domain proceedings would not have occurred.

Not sure what this does or doesn't prove for specifying a site. The NSFOC is claiming the site was specified not on the referendum, but the year prior to the referendum during the boundary process, and this site was the reason why the ref passed. Walking away from BB for any reason after the ref passed could have resulted in the same lawsuit.

This is just my opinion, tho. Maybe someone else can add to this. Later!

The NSFOC has never said their lawsuit was about the boundries...they are not that stupid. They hid behind all the other reaons (environmental) issues hoping to fool us. I would love to see an address list of all NSFOC members...I'm sure they all live in Naperville. However, due to the recent bomb threats made by Waubonsie students who live in Naperville....maybe we should eliminate the boundry changes...let all Naperville residents go to Neuqua...get those bad Napervillians out of Waubonsie! But wait, White Eagle isn't in Naperville...so I guess they will have to stay at Waubonsie. At least it will get Tall Grass out. Yes, this is all bad humor...but let's face it, this entire saga has been nothing but rubbish. Children should be taught diversity, hard work and acceptance. A person's worth is not based on their home address and bank account.

I've figured out who helicopter parents are, but what are they? I've never heard the term.

By perspective on May 14, 2008 2:16 PM
Hi GF!

I have posted the links to the docs you are looking for. I have read both (Yawn), and I would not characterize either as brilliant.
------------------------------------------------------------------

All right Pperspective!!! THANK YOU

I have only read the SB dismissal case. I havent read collins' response yet. I just heard it was brilliant. I will take a read and judge for myself.

Yeah, you and I have talked about the "factual at the time" defense. However, that would be more for trial and less about dismissal in my option.

The BB suit - asking for $12 which will be added to the cost of your 3rd high school being built on Eola brings the land to being more expensive than the BB property! Hmmmm....and no offense but the NOFSC has nothing to do with this suit - it was pending WAY before they were formed! You people are being swindled and it isn't by other residents of 204 but your leaders. Open your eyes!

Helicopter parents? You've got to be frikkin kiddin me. What a crok of s--t

I can only speak for me, but this is not about solving my kids problems; it is about accountability for ones actions (or in this case SB/admin's actions). If they broke no laws/rules then there is nothing to worry about eh?

30 years from now, I am not worried about my kids crying in the boardroom because of conflict/pressure. Maybe this debate would be good for them (if they were older) to help them learn to manage conflict and not shy away from conflict and learn to control their emotions as to not lose their temper and resort to namecalling etc. I think that would prepare them well for leadership roles versus rolling over and saying well... lifes unfair, people get away with breaking laws all the time...not much I can do about it. I better roll over and close my eyes. Thats exactly the type of milktoast leaders I want to see developed and running the country in 30 years (OMG uggh). I may not agree with M2, and I may think he is arrogant and deceitful, but he has alot of the same traits/qualities that judge and others are espousing.

Nincompoops... opps sorry I guess I am not the best example and I still have a ways to go (as does M2).

----------------------------------------------------------------
By Retired Judge on May 14, 2008 1:37 PM
Naperville Buckeye, Stinks,MH, Khazakstan Kid and others...
DITTO!!!!!!!! I am so tired of helicopter parents (nsfoc) thinking they can solve all of their kids problems by pitching a fit and throwing money at somebody! Get a clue, get a life and get a grasp on reality. You are not doing yourselves or your kids any favors.

By I am a mom too on May 14, 2008 8:40 PM
I've figured out who helicopter parents are, but what are they? I've never heard the term.
__________________________________

Parents who "hover" over their children constantly.

It is faily obscure, but Helicopter parents is a reference to parents who hover (like a helicopter)over their children (i.e., over protective)

kind regards,

I've tried to find out what the district has spent lobbying quick take for BB. I'm fairly confident it was WELL beyond the amount spent by the BB estates.

From what I've heard, the district spent a huge amount on quick take by hiring the most expensive lobbyists they could find. Supposedly 204 hired some seriously expensive guns to fight for quick take.

Can anyone give me a dollar amount on what 204 wasted on lobbyists for quick take? I'd bet the amount is much, much higher than the 25K BB spent. Add a couple more zeros to the amount BB spent on lobbyists. That is what I've heard the district pissed away on quick take.
_____________________________________________________
By Civics on May 14, 2008 5:17 PM
From the Naperville Sun article:

"$24,750 for the Springfield lobbying firm hired to oppose the district's quick-take bill. That legislation would have allowed the school district to take immediate possession of the 55-acre parcel, at 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora, at a price to be set later by a jury."

"Helicopter Parents" are those parents who think that their precious little snowflake is far too special to be troubled with the stresses and demands of everyday life, and constantly intervene to "smooth out" any minor or major difficulty their darling encounters. They "hover", hence the nickname.

I see them at the college all the time, calling and registering their (legal adult) students for classes, sending in their applications that they wrote for them, fretting over their grades, demanding to talk to the professors if they dare give darling snowflake a bad grade or any criticism, nothing is ever their baby's fault, they can fix it, whatver it is, whether they have to scream at it or throw money at it or both.

It's sick. And then you have a whole generation of "adults" (and I use the term loosely) who simply cannot function without Mommy and/or Daddy telling them what they should do, how they should do it, and when; and who go running to them at the first hint of inconvenience or hard work. It's a facilitation of learned helplessness that I find absolutely abhorrent.

But I'm sure no one here is that kind of parent! No one ever is.

Hi Mom

we would be left with the same two choices that we originally had

1. pay BB a price negotiated between SB and BB (in lieu of jury price)
2. Walk Away and find a new spot.

The question is since all the flyers and location was BB and thats why the ref passed (or at least thats what the SB's opinion is of why it passed per their written and incourt statements); What next step would be prudent once it was determined it was necessary to walk away? If you knew it passed because of the location (SB's own opinion) then it would seem prudent/moral to re-engage the voters on the alternate site selected with the same vigor as SB engagued the constituents with BB. Big difference here, is that SB had the ref money in hand from the BB ref so wasting time with constituents was not very high on their priority list. They came in, got the sugar, and disappeared. And we are wondering why they never called again LOL. Problem is this is not a one night stand (it is an intermittent/disfunctional relationship at present). In a few years SB will be back with candy and more sweet talk (looking for a little more sugar....)

---------------------------------------------------------------
By D&S on May 14, 2008 7:51 PM
By I am a mom too on May 14, 2008 2:47 PM
Kind of an open question, what would the NSFOC suers have done if the condemnation lawsuit had been denied at BB. My understanding is that could have happened and then we would have had to find a new place to build. Would they still be insisting that we must build on that land and suing the authorities who denied the eminent domain proceedings? That wasn't likely to happen, but could have. Doesn't that just prove that no site was specified?

By I am a mom too on May 14, 2008 2:47 PM
Kind of an open question, what would the NSFOC suers have done if the condemnation lawsuit had been denied at BB. My understanding is that could have happened and then we would have had to find a new place to build. Would they still be insisting that we must build on that land and suing the authorities who denied the eminent domain proceedings? That wasn't likely to happen, but could have. Doesn't that just prove that no site was specified?

____________________________________________________________________

Here's my take. The SB would have been compelled to propose a new site to the district with an explanation as to why the change had taken place.

What I find odd is that while Metea may ultimately wind up on Eola it is the actions of the NSFOC that has brought many issues to light that will ensure (or at least this is my hope) the site will be safer than it otherwise would have been had the SB proceeded without challenge. I trust that folks like MR, perspective, Civics and others are truly more representative of the pro-Eola class, yet most that have blogged/spoken @ SB meetings/I have encountered fail to acknowledge any environmental/historical site concerns. The irony is that a failed NSFOC efoort may, in fact, be the best thing that could have happened to Metea @ Eola/Molitor.

To Civics
Your point was well taken. Maybe the bb group thought that land prices would go up indefinitely so the longer they could hold out the more costly the property would inevitably become. Hindsight being 20/20 the quick take bill included in the suit seems a bit illogical and kind of comical at this point. But on the other hand if only the idea of greed would not have set in, maybe many in this drama would be in a win-win situation.

By I am a mom too on May 14, 2008 8:40 PM

I've figured out who helicopter parents are, but what are they? I've never heard the term.

Mom, try this out --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent

By Metea Either Way on May 14, 2008 4:12 PM
Fair enough but I challenge you to show me where the NSFOC has stated that this suit is based upon boundries.
------------
if you need proof that it is about boundaries, go to the IPSD website and watch the videao of the boundary meeting. The founders of the NSFOC publicly state they formed the NSFOC for the purpose of fighting the boundaries.

To Anon @ 10:41 PM

I'll check it out, which meeting are you referencing?

By Anonymous on May 14, 2008 10:41 PM
By Metea Either Way on May 14, 2008 4:12 PM
Fair enough but I challenge you to show me where the NSFOC has stated that this suit is based upon boundries.
------------
if you need proof that it is about boundaries, go to the IPSD website and watch the videao of the boundary meeting. The founders of the NSFOC publicly state they formed the NSFOC for the purpose of fighting the boundaries.
=========
As I understand it, those meetings were about boundaries - you said it yourself "boundary meeting". What else would they/could they talk about. How rediculous you are. Also, those who spoke were a small group from one neighborhood, but other representatives from other neighborhoods spoke as well about boundaries - because that was what the meeting was called for. All speakers tried to work within the forum allowed and respected the process. However, the decisions were already made months before, so they wasted their time and might as well have talked to a wall.

NSFOC represents the majority of voters who voted YES for the 2006 Referendum. Of the 15,000 yes votes, about 13,000 came from the south/central part of the district based on the cost of 124.66 M, location at BB, and boundaries promoted for the 2006 Referendum. These people had their money taken and spent elsewhere. They voted for one thing and got another. Their constitutional rights were violated, their money stolen, and the future costs to the district based on the Eola site, will far exceed the referendum cost.

Why is it that we do not discuss the cost more. Now we appear to be headed for the following: $125M 2006 referendum + $20M more build costs + $20M increased transportation costs + $20M damages +$10M in other risks/liabilities taken on via poor decision-making = nearly $200M. Plainfield is building about 9 schools for that amount!

Sun Editors:

1...."The city would have nothing to do with the D204 referendum."

Thanks, I'll review the Sun archives to see how I got the impression that City Council was approving the referendums. The Sun has been my exclusive source for City Government issues.

2...."and we have interviewed the board president and superintendent at length about the legal issues surrounding Metea."

Great, I may have missed a few articles somewhere. What did the President and Board have to say about the following? The definitely went out for a second referendum after having failed on the first shot.

*Location, BB was the stated goal in the communications for the second go around via the vote. A promise in lieu of consideration. Give us the money, we'll give you BB. Did the Board promise BB or did their communications state something different?

*Cost, the seller BB must have told the Board the price before the referendum.

-Why did the Board not advertise the asking price when they went out for the second vote?

-Was it always the Board's intention to negotiate in bad-faith with the sellers of BB and get the legislature or courts to win the battle for them? Who approved the bad-faith-strategy?

-The BB property could have been sold to others at the peak of the market bubble, so the Board's bad-faith (or hubris) did cost the BB sellers millions that the 204 School Board should have to compensate them for after wasting their time and money with a big-government power-play.

*School boundaries, these were massaged in a process known as gerrymandering to yield a yes vote by the board and their consultants. Why did they employ this tactic? Divide and conquer?

*Litigation as a 204 negotiation strategy?

Since the Board must have known the BB asking price and apparently set aside the money for the quick take try:

-Was the Board dealing in bad-faith with: the BB trust, the State Legislature, and the dist. 204 residents who were manipulated into voting yes? Why did the Board members think this kind of strategy was either moral or likely to produce a good outcome?

Conclusion:

The district 204 Board IMHO is a good case study in moral failure at best and highly unethical if not illegal application of government powers. I hope that BB and those fighting the change of location take them to the cleaners in the courts as a lesson to other government bodies that there are in fact limits on government power.

Well, the past 48 hours have been interesting and gave me a whole new perspective regarding this HS issue. Who cares what HS your kids go to as long as they get good grades in HS and do well in college. Heck, I did horrible in college and still make more money then most of my friends in college who had better grades then i did. To me it seems this is all about the parents and not about the kids AT ALL!!! Maybe the label of Helicopter Parents is appropriate for some? We have to let our kids do the best they can and hope we taught them to work hard, do their best and what is right from wrong.

On a personal note I just found out 48 hours ago my daughter needs emergency surgery on Friday that could potentially effect her vision for the rest of her life. She's 10yo!!! As a parent what's more important then something like that? Then I got to thinking what things are important in my life and I made a list. Guess what the HS issue wasn't even in the Top 10, heck it barely made the Top 20.

I guess what I'm saying is we all should just quit being so opinionated and up in arms about this HS issue and think about what is most important in our lives. Sure I still will remain involved with the SB and yes I still have aspirations of possibly running for SB. However, from this point forward I am going to choose to remain a watcher and not someone that tries to fuel the fire on this issue.

I'll still check in once in a while and yes K Kid and GF we do need to have a paint gun duel and a couple of beers!!!

I wish you all the best and do me a favor...hug your kids today!!!

MR

By Anonymous on May 14, 2008 9:56 PM

What I find odd is that while Metea may ultimately wind up on Eola it is the actions of the NSFOC that has brought many issues to light that will ensure (or at least this is my hope) the site will be safer than it otherwise would have been had the SB proceeded without challenge. I trust that folks like MR, perspective, Civics and others are truly more representative of the pro-Eola class, yet most that have blogged/spoken @ SB meetings/I have encountered fail to acknowledge any environmental/historical site concerns. The irony is that a failed NSFOC efoort may, in fact, be the best thing that could have happened to Metea @ Eola/Molitor.
_______________________________________

Thank you! Finally, a glimmer of enlightenment! One does not have to agree with the NSFOC to recognize that so far Metea has only benefitted from their involvement. If the NSFOC had not made such a stink about the MWGen land, Metea would have a campus with a fenced-off, PCB-ladened area and four additional "hot spots" of severe contamination under tennis courts and parking lots. Now the entire campus is located on farm land. Personally, I have felt much better about the Eola site since MWGen pulled out. This may have been an unintended consequence of NSFOC involvement, but a consequence nonetheless, and untimately a very good one for Metea.

What astounded me was that residents in the Metea catchment area didn't care about this more, and still don't in regards to the underground pipes. It seemed some folks were so desperate for Metea that they were willing to accept it on any land, under any circumstances; like they were afraid that if they challenged the SB on the safety issues, the SB might change their minds and move Metea elsewhere.

It's OK to trust your SB, but at least recognize that their judgment is not infallible. Look at BB. That was a colossal error in judgment, but at least that only involved everyone's tax money. The Eola site involves the north's neighborhoods, property values, and most importantly their children. Questioning decisions that impact your kids is not being a helicopter parent, it's being a responsible parent.

I think the best line in the District's Motion to Dismiss is about a prior case where 228 voters said they relied on what the board had said rather than the language of the referendum. To which the court said: "the fact that the voters did not understand does not entitle them to relief on the grounds of fraud." (p. 7)

Kind of says it all right there.

Watching,

Why is it that we do not discuss the cost more. . . .
-----------
The costs have been discussed to death now, but the fact remains that the BB site would have cost twice what Eola did in real, black and white purchase terms. That is most important cost to discuss because it is the main reason why the board walked away.

to: Help

What a number of us (MR, Perspective, Greg Forrest(aka Greggy), D+S(most of the time)have tried to do is create on these boards is a space where we can have legitimate discussion on the merits of various points of view.

This means that we try strenuously to avoid statements which contain clear errors or are obviously unknowable by any of us. Excellent examples of such statements would undoubtedly include:

"NSFOC represents the majority of voters who voted YES for the 2006 Referendum."

"Of the 15,000 yes votes, about 13,000 were based on location at BB, and boundaries promoted for the 2006 Referendum."

"However, the decisions were already made months before, so they wasted their time and might as well have talked to a wall."

"$20M more build costs + $20M increased transportation costs + $20M damages +$10M in other risks/liabilities taken on via poor decision-making"

Furthermore, we try to make clear when statements are our own opinions rather than stating them as accepted fact. Example of statements which violate this practice would be:

"These people had their money taken and spent elsewhere."
"They voted for one thing and got another."
"Their constitutional rights were violated, their money stolen."

We tend to stick to these practices because it would be far to easy to categorize a post such as yours as a 'flame' and therefore disregard all that you have to say. But you may actually have something useful or interesting to add to the discussion so following these 'guidelines' will allow you to be heard. Furthermore, if you do not follow the guidelines, you are very likely to recieve nothing in return for your efforts other than more flames.

If you wish to stomp, kick doors, and pound walls to make a point, then I suggest you confine yourself to attendance at the SB meetings where such actions are frequently displayed by those who disagree with the board. But please leave the blogs to serious people who wish to have a reasonable discussion.

By Help on May 15, 2008 9:13 AM

Help,
You are a COMPLETE IDIOT. I am a southsider, and I can tell you that NSFOC does NOT represent the majority of my neighborhood, or for that matter any of the neighborhoods where our friends live. The VAST MAJORITY of Non WE/TG southsiders know that the NSFOC is completely out of control. Your self interest and lack of common sense, is unbelievable!!
And if you had bothered to read the ballot you voted with, you would have found that you voted for a new HS. Period. I challenge anyone to show me a ballot that specifies location or boundaries. You Can't. Your rights were NOT violated! You are however trying to violate the majorities rights by reversing a legal vote.
Get over it! And you might want to buy some green and gold spirit wear for the WV football games in the fall.

>District 204's legal troubles

The best part of the recent NSFOC court filing was when they said that district 204 had "concocted an alternative universe".

Sort of like the fabricated enrollment numbers the district used to justify the unneeded 3rd high school. They pulled those out of thin air too.

Bottomline?

Your taxes will continue to skyrocket and the value of your home will continued to be diluted as a result.

A false “Bravo!” to “Watching from Afar”. Oh yes, our “highly unethical” and morally corrupt Board should be “taken to the cleaners” in the courts. After all, the “power of the people” devolves directly from judges and lawyers, who are always honest and objective in their application of the laws (which laws are often put in place by the judges and lawyers!).

Does this sound naïve to anybody else?

We have two terrible tendencies in America.

The first is the feeling that nothing “bad” should ever happen to us without someone else paying for it. This feeling can stretch to infinite dimensions, and we see the evidence every day in the staggering number of frivolous lawsuits filed by selfish, weak-minded leeches and their greed-bloated lawyers. “A 9-year-old kid playing baseball for the other team hit a foul ball and cracked my windshield. He should pay for it (so I don’t have to file a claim/pay a deductible), so I’m going to sue his parents.” It’s frightening … and it’s pathetic.

The second is a feeling of invincible entitlement that drives a schizophrenia regarding big government/small government. This second feeling is related to the first feeling in the belief that “government should take care of us.” The problem comes in figuring out what that means. For some it means “I can’t handle the stress of working for a living, but I need to eat and watch TV in hi-def, so the government should pay me.” For others it means “I’m a brilliant entrepreneur – just stay out of my hair so I can make (and keep) a lot of money.” For others it morphs into class-based demands for better public amenities for their own privileged groups.

What is the knot that ties all of it together? Selfishness and pride. People feeling either “victimized” or “entitled” rarely think through the consequences to others of their actions. Even when they do, they find ways to rationalize themselves into ignorance. They often hire silver-tongued lawyers to help them do this.

And the lawyers love it.

To Anonymous at May 14, 9:47pm ...

Your description of helicopter parents and their children was brilliant. The phrasing "a facilitation of learned helplessness" describes the phenomenon perfectly.

I see it, too, even in the Boy Scouts and in church. And I feel bad for the children, because I know they're going to go through some excruciatingly rough times later in life because they haven't learned to cope, adapt, and achieve on their own. They also haven't learned to tolerate.

Thanks for your well-phrased insight!

NSFOC represents the majority of voters who voted YES for the 2006 Referendum....as posted by Help....

Can you say DELUSIONAL:)!!!!!!!

By NapervilleBuckeye on May 15, 2008 12:20 PM
By Help on May 15, 2008 9:13 AM

Help,
You are a COMPLETE IDIOT. I am a southsider, and I can tell you that NSFOC does NOT represent the majority of my neighborhood, or for that matter any of the neighborhoods where our friends live. The VAST MAJORITY of Non WE/TG southsiders know that the NSFOC is completely out of control. Your self interest and lack of common sense, is unbelievable!!
____________________________________________________________________

Pot, meet kettle.

Sorry.......I couldn't resisit.

I can't believe how hard it is for people to believe that this could be more than boundaries. This school board has run ruff shot over this district and I believe they need to be held accountable. What you can't believe a school board can do anything wrong? Get real! At least there is a group willing to challenge this SB.

Also, don't you think something must be wrong with this SB since they now have 4 lawsuits against them?

Here's a hint: Horses wear blinders because they can't see what is happening around them...take your blinders off it is amazing what you will learn.

In many cultures, extended families and life-long caring, support, and involvement are a must. Parents and children "hover" over each other and support each other throughout the life's ups and downs. It only makes families and individuals successful and they know that regardless of what life may deliver they can always rely on their children/parents for support. There is NOTHING wrong with it. It is only a matter of one's perspective and you can describe it in negative or positive terms and give extreme examples. In the end, it is the life-long support among family members that makes the children successful and the parents not be scared of the retirement age. Call it what you want - "hovering" is a good thing!

I think "mediation" could have been " re-vote"

If "so many" people are behind the SB and "the District choices" and that the views of the NSFOC are "so few", then there should no problem with conducting a a new referendum for the third school (at Eola site). Wouldn't that resolve both sides? NFSOC could stop saying what the referendum was or wasn't about, and the North/Safe in the South could prove how much the thinking of NFSOC is the minority viiew point.

Or what are "we" scared of? That it probably wouldn't pass because the School Board has been inept, sneaky, and untrustworthy and that the North site is actually a bad choice economically and socially. And that the views of the NSFOC aren't really a minority and that the hard core push-aheads without reviewing are really only a few neighborhoods in the North who stand to gain with a new closer school and out of Waubonsie.

What is the knot that ties all of it together? Selfishness and pride. People feeling either “victimized” or “entitled” rarely think through the consequences to others of their actions. Even when they do, they find ways to rationalize themselves into ignorance.
____________________________________________________________________

I think this can be applied equally to both sides of this debate.

While all of you wonderful folks continue to bicker amongst yourselves, they are continuing to make great progress on our new school.

To MR, I hope all goes well for you and your family. If it isn't too politically incorrect, I will keep her in my prayers. My guess is a lot of us will on both sides.

Call it what you want - "hovering" is a good thing!by helicopter parent(NOT?).......

Okay helicopter, but I prefer to raise children that know they possess the skills, intelligence, and intuition to handle most situations on their own. It's called independence and it breeds self-esteem and self-worth.

When a parent feels the need to step in and take care of every situation for their kids they are essentially telling their kids that they don't trust their ability to function at a successful level on their own. Call it what you want, justify it how you want but the truth is, you are creating a dependent being. That is not exactly "successful" in my opinion.

By Civics on May 15, 2008 11:32 AM
to: Help

What a number of us (MR, Perspective, Greg Forrest(aka Greggy), D+S(most of the time)have tried to do is create on these boards is a space where we can have legitimate discussion on the merits of various points of view.

This means that we try strenuously to avoid statements which contain clear errors or are obviously unknowable by any of us. Excellent examples of such statements would undoubtedly include:

"NSFOC represents the majority of voters who voted YES for the 2006 Referendum."

"Of the 15,000 yes votes, about 13,000 were based on location at BB, and boundaries promoted for the 2006 Referendum."

"However, the decisions were already made months before, so they wasted their time and might as well have talked to a wall."

"$20M more build costs + $20M increased transportation costs + $20M damages +$10M in other risks/liabilities taken on via poor decision-making"

Furthermore, we try to make clear when statements are our own opinions rather than stating them as accepted fact. Example of statements which violate this practice would be:

"These people had their money taken and spent elsewhere."
"They voted for one thing and got another."
"Their constitutional rights were violated, their money stolen."

We tend to stick to these practices because it would be far to easy to categorize a post such as yours as a 'flame' and therefore disregard all that you have to say. But you may actually have something useful or interesting to add to the discussion so following these 'guidelines' will allow you to be heard. Furthermore, if you do not follow the guidelines, you are very likely to recieve nothing in return for your efforts other than more flames.

If you wish to stomp, kick doors, and pound walls to make a point, then I suggest you confine yourself to attendance at the SB meetings where such actions are frequently displayed by those who disagree with the board. But please leave the blogs to serious people who wish to have a reasonable discussion.
------------
I'm sure those people you mentioned are comfortable you speak for them too. I'm sure you are attempting to make valid statements that you feel are pertinent. But that's your opinion. Let me take these one by one.

"NSFOC represents the majority of voters who voted YES for the 2006 Referendum." I think NSFOC is aligned with the voters that approved the 2006 Referendum, and their views represent the majority of those voters. What on the NSFOC website does not support that view?

"Of the 15,000 yes votes, about 13,000 were based on location at BB, and boundaries promoted for the 2006 Referendum." OK..that's an estimate based on the population and voting ratios (4 to 1 YES in the south/central area, who voted primarily based on the location, cost and boundaries promoted by the district). Suggest if you dont believe this that you support a revote with the new location and costs. OR ask yourself what would of happened if the vote was originally based on Eola and the escalating costs there. I will give some here but agree to disagree here as well.

"However, the decisions were already made months before, so they wasted their time and might as well have talked to a wall." They were, and I will agree to disagree here as well.

"$20M more build costs + $20M increased transportation costs + $20M damages +$10M in other risks/liabilities taken on via poor decision-making" Your think BB condemnation was a good decision? Do you think walking away from BB was a good decision? Do you think planning to build on a contaminated site with no cleanup plans was a good decision? Do you think building on a site with high pressure gas lines running through the middle is a good decision? I strongly disagree here.

"These people had their money taken and spent elsewhere."
"They voted for one thing and got another."
"Their constitutional rights were violated, their money stolen."
I think you would have a hard time finding people who think these statements are untrue. Because that is exactly what happened. The money was approved then taken elsewhere. Again, a re-vote would settle the matter, but you'll never see it.

Finally, I am happy for you folks tackling important issues like air conditioning, etc., but you'll never see the money for A/C with the direction that this district has been set on. Most of the money will go to bricks and mortar, bond interest, lawsuit damages, etc. None will be available for A/C or retaining top teachers I fear. But keep working those issues while this $300+ million project moves ahead with abandon. Tell me in a few years if you are happy then. Good luck!

If "so many" people are behind the SB and "the District choices" and that the views of the NSFOC are "so few", then there should no problem with conducting a a new referendum for the third school (at Eola site).
------------
A new referendum would actually be illegal. Since the referendum passed, it is now the law and the District has no choice but to build a high school somewhere. If they don't, yet another group could sue them to make them do it.

Wouldn't that be fun? They could call themselves the NNSFOC, as in "No, a Neighborhood School for OUR Children."

To Incredulous on May 15, 2008 11:24 AM

Re your post to Watching,

"The costs have been discussed to death now, but the fact remains that the BB site would have cost twice what Eola did in real, black and white purchase terms. That is most important cost to discuss because it is the main reason why the board walked away."

True, the costs have been discussed to death several times over. But the fact still remains that we can't say for certain that Eola will be cheaper than BB until we factor in all the "walk away costs" for BB, which includes the two yet-to-be-determined damage claims filed by the Brodie and Brach estates. Brodie is asking for $20 mil, Brach for $2.2 mil plus damages (the damage amount hasn't been disclosed yet). The worst case scenario for these lawsuits could make Eola MORE expensive than BB in the long run. Was our SB penny wise and pound foolish? We won't know until these lawsuits are resolved.

I live on the southwest side (east of 59). I voted yes for a 3rd HS because I believe it is the best thing for the district. I love that people on this Blog (those who are passionately against the Eola site) actually think they're speaking for the entire district when they state something. This becomes even more ludacris when they think they're speaking for everyone living south of 95th street. Because, they naturally assume that everyone south of 95th would only support the 3rd HS at BB and nowhere else.

Not everyone south of 95th street is against the 3rd HS at Eola. I, for one, am for it. And I will continue to support the SB's decisions as they are tasked with ensuring that all children in the district are given the best opportunities possible. Not just those children whose parents scream the loudest, live in a certain areas of the district, and hire a lawyer to fight their battles for them.

Saw this on NSFOC and agree with most of it. I would prefer to stay at WVHS, especially given the cost and issues around MVHS. For whatever the reasons, the closing could happen and the impacts will be felt by many more people who feel safe today. Given the disruption and costs involved, I would hope WVHS would remain open and better yet ...with my kids in it. A pattern of waste in busing costs and ignoring green initiative looks likely for many years. It is disappointing.
-----------

What Happens If WVHS Closes?May 15, 2008

What happens when and if WVHS closes? You have heard this before in many forms. Whether you believe it or not, it is an issue going forward for various reasons. While we do not support any one reason, we feel obligated to discuss the implications in the event it happens. Have D204 parents really taken the time to think through the implications completely?

NSFOC believes WVHS should never be closed, but become an equally top school via renovations, enhanced teacher quality and focused programs. We believe there are already many quality teachers there - meaning the most experienced, effective educators. Diluting the quality would also hurt WVHS. WVHS is not an old school and is already a top high school in the region when compared to other districts. Let's make it even better.

The reasons are varied for potential closure of WVHS. One explanation deals with a very materialistic desire to have "a new school" better than NVHS. WVHS has always "gotten the short end of the stick" in some people's minds. NVHS was a brand new school at one time, with sleek hallways and a distinctive design. The whole process of building NVHS left many WVHS attendees and parents feeling they got short changed in some way, even though they liked their school. Feelings were hurt.

As NVHS gained momentum the feelings were hurt more. Wrongly perceived maybe, but to some NVHS seemed to have everything and WVHS less than everything. Some parents wanted a new high school of their own, and nearer their homes. They felt they paid for a new high school that they never got to enjoy for themselves. This view remains alive among some parents, even though WVHS is not that old by high school standards. For some reason a 30 plus year old facility is just not good enough for some folks. Naperville Central's school was ancient and they decided to remodel it rather than close it or build new. A very prudent financial decision.

Another reason seems to involve growing "perceived" academic issues in the future related in part to the No Child Left Behind Act, and its regulations. Without going into too much detail, failure to meet the NCLB regulations so many years running, triggers actions that may result in the loss of control and embarassment for the school board, district administration and taxpayers.

Even though the NCLB Act itself may be flawed, the results and potential penalties of the Act force districts to either fix the problem locally with interventions, more focused teaching and other support services, hiding the problem by busing students around the district - burying the problem via mixing up the low performers with high performers by whatever means necessary, or a mix of solutions. We feel our district may use the busing solution - a more expensive route. Recent leadership changes to address the NCLB issues feel more like Public Relations than actually helping the individual students. We hope there is more to the moves, and that low-achievers actually improve.

Some districts are on top of the academics issue. Others are not. Some fix the problem locally by hiring proven successful teachers and staff in this realm. Others ignore that and opt to bus poor students out and good students in. Having NCLB demand that achievement tests must be taken in English recently adds more concerns. Those results hit D204 next fall because For the first time, tests were just taken in English by students whose first language is non-English.

Whatever, the reason or the solution, these "perceived" future academic problems may have led to D204 "killing two birds" with one stone. Generally speaking, D204 was not on top of the matter, may have had some preconceived notions regarding the solutions, and thus, were late to the game in solving the problem effecti