By Bill Blass on May 23, 2008 7:40 PM

Ms. Vickers did NOT abstain from the 2006 referendum vote. From the Jan. 9 2006 meeting minutes:

I stand/sit corrected.

Transients? Unless you are living in the house you grew up in, you are all transients! I doubt most of you that are calling NSFOC this "moniker" were born in Naperville. I do know one of the Plaintiffs and she has been here at least 8 years, maybe longer since I think this is their second Naperville home.

Anyway, point is irrelevant. Even transients deserve honorable and competent School Boards

To nsfoc still transients and still care less what mess they leave behind... on May 25, 2008 7:42 PM--

Yeah, right. The SB is on the side of the angels, so that makes whatever they do ok not matter how badly they screw it up. Pull your head out.

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.

Chimay,

The only reason to delay a ruling today, but still rush to a ruling on the MTD by the end of the month, suggests that not only does the case have merit, but that both parties (read the SB) will need to understand what the likely outcome of the case will be so that they can switch direction if need be.

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

We can all speculate, but look at what the man said: He didn't have time to deal with it and he would have to work through the weekend to meet the accelerated deadline everyone agreed to. Beyond that, everyone (including your apparently very legally inclined family) is just guessing.

There is more to the MTD than standing. There are several grounds to dismiss, only one of which would have to be upheld to derail the NSFOC lawsuit:

1. They have no standing because we don't vote on school sites or boundaries. They had no right to vote for the site, so their rights weren't violated in the first place.
2. They can't file suit unless they first make a demand and are refused. Since they never made a demand that the SB do anything, they can't sue about it now.
3. The court cannot grant what they want, since the court is not allowed to substitute its discretion for the board's.
4. The board has done only what the School Code and the referendum said. The referendum said build another school and that's exactly what it meant.
5. They were not actually injured, so they have no claim for relief.

All five assume that even if everything the NSFOC says is true, but that there is no law to support the case. So there is no point in going to trial about the facts.

This is oversimplified a bit, but close enough. Of these, number 3 seems the most clear cut. Courts can only order the government to do "ministirial acts" that require no discretion. If there is any discretion in the decision, the court cannot substitute their own judgment. Unless you believe that the board had no discretion whatsoever in selecting a site (which the School Code says in black and white that they do), there is no way to see how the court could intervene here.

The other items have may have more room for interpretation, but are still pretty strong. If you read Collins' response to number 2 it is pretty laughable. "Sure we gave them notice before we sued them! We filed a lawsuit!"

Not sure if your legally inclined family even read the motions, but the rest of us should be highly PO-ed if the motion is not dismissed, because it means that never mind the plain language of the referendum, the court thinks they might know better. That's why the court is not allowed to do that in cases like this. And why the NSFOC should not get their hopes up that the delay means anything more than that the guy has too much work to do.

By Metea Either Way on May 24, 2008 12:48 PM
.....just as people may have fooled themselves into believing that BB was guaranteed......
---------------------------------------------------------------------Color me fooled many times over, the first being the BB site, the second being that all sites were in consideration when clearly they weren't, the third being the IEPA involvement, the fourth being the lack of financial impact caused by the increased busing to Eola,........... shall I go on? Perhaps you are not, but I am extremely concerned about getting fooled again.

Forgive me for saying but I find it hard to reconcile the two positions of allowing Metea on Eola while condemning the actions/behaviors that brought it to this site. If the ends do not justify the means for the NSFOC then they surely can't for the SB
_________________________________________

Right. All the voters who got the same message that BB was guaranteed are all fooling themselves. Had nothing at all to do with the SB. Must be a case of mass delusion! ;-)

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.

.....just as people may have fooled themselves into believing that BB was guaranteed......
---------------------------------------------------------------------Color me fooled many times over, the first being the BB site, the second being that all sites were in consideration when clearly they weren't, the third being the IEPA involvement, the fourth being the lack of financial impact caused by the increased busing to Eola,........... shall I go on? Perhaps you are not, but I am extremely concerned about getting fooled again.

Forgive me for saying but I find it hard to reconcile the two positions of allowing Metea on Eola while condemning the actions/behaviors that brought it to this site. If the ends do not justify the means for the NSFOC then they surely can't for the SB.

The part about nsfoc that frosts me the most is that most of these folks are transcients 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 Civics on May 23, 2008 4:49 PM

I am not even going to TOUCH the subject of 'guarantees' by the SB on BB. I think that is what the court case will boil down to. We have the facts on what was SAID....and I have opinions on what people should have HEARD. But people are people, and the same words can say different things to different people.

Take a look at my post to Metea because I think I have clarified some of my thinking pretty well in there. I do NOT think that boundaries are the only issue. I think that is what got people all riled up initially, and that is what started NSFOC and why it started in TG. But I do not think it is the only issue now. But I do continue to believe that it is AN issue, and a big one. And refusing to acknowledge it is not helpful for the reasons I laid out for Metea.

As for what is going on with the founders of NSFOC we are in the same boat. Dont know what is in their heads (I am tempted to say something snide here ;-) but I will resist temptation). However, I base my BELIEFS on what is going on in there heads by what I read on these blogs. (And of course their website, various legal documents, the papers, etc.) And I think there are some overlapping groups.

1) Boundary people (most of whom will not admit it, or disappeared from the blogs weeks and weeks ago -- lord knows they were here in spades at the beginning).
2) Incompetence/Process people -- who think the board has used poor decision making and taken financial risk with respect to BB lawsuits etc.
3) People who dont want the third school at all.

I think NSFOC mostly started as (1) and morphed into (1+2). And they have been inevitably joined by (3). But I wonder if some of the founders started out as (3) in '06 but then got even MORE pissed off when the boundaries changed.

One big issue for me is that people need to be clear WHAT they believe, WHO they ally themselves with, and what are the likely OUTCOMES of their actions. And I suspect that, just as people may have fooled themselves into believing that BB was guaranteed, they may have fooled themselves into thinking they know what will be the outcomes of their actions. It is pretty clear to me that you do. But folks need to be aware that they will probably like some of the possible outcomes even less than Metea at Eola.

I think we should have built on BB. I dont think the board has shown good judgement. But my proposed remedy is to vote them out when the time comes, and be more involved in the process. Not file a lawsuit.

Because ONE of the likely outcomes -- no high school at all or one severely delayed -- I believe is in NOBODY's best interest.
_______________________________________

OK, I think we're on a lot of the same pages here. I, too, believe it started out as a boundary issue in 06. But once the SB abandoned BB after winning it in court (just not at the price they wanted), that's what ignited the lawsuit. And then when they announced they were negotiating to buy a site that they had previously rejected for health and safety reasons, it was like handing the NSFOC more fuel. Now with MWGen gone, it's just an issue of boundaries and not buying BB again. I think not buying BB trumps the boundary issue at this point.

But as you mentioned, neither of us knows what's in the NSFOC's head (I know where you were going with that--probably some comment about why their eyes are brown!). I have a hunch why the NSFOC avoids using the "B" word. It's become such a loaded word in this debate. It seems like everyone else in the district can use it, but once it's uttered by someone sympathetic with the NSFOC, others react to it like it's a four-letter word. I think the NSFOC intentionally avoids the use of the B word because they don't want the boundary issue used to discount the BB land issue, and you know this has been done by opponents from the start. There's just so much honesty they can afford to show while still protecting their legal interests. The SB has been playing the same game. Neither side is being totally straightforward with the public, they can't when involved in litigation. Nature of the beast, I'm afraid.

One last thought: You said you think the SB made a mistake in not buying BB, but at this point we should allow Metea to be built on Eola and just vote the SB out at the next opportunity. I've considered this, too. But what keeps nagging me is that if building on Eola is a mistake, by the time the SB is voted out the damage has already been done and cannot be reversed, no matter what the consequences for the district. The NSFOC is at least trying to head off the damage. Case in point: you know if the SB had been allowed to proceed without challenge, we'd be building on the MWGen land by now. If the SB is making bad decisions, you believe we should just sit around and let them continue to do so until the end of their terms? I guess I'm not convinced that we need a 3rd HS badly enough to risk losing mega millions to BB in damage judgments. And if we really needed Metea that badly, then for God's sake why didn't they just pony up the difference for the BB land when they won it and start to build? I have a hunch about that, too.

Great talking with you Civics, as always!

D&S

Oh man, I promised BigMike I would try limit my posts; and the way to do that is to not waste posts on non value add stuff.

Sorry BigMike...I just cant resist on just this one!!!!

To Playin with Fire:

Fire, MEET Water!!! I know exactly what I'm doing. Not sure what "furor will be released".. maybe you could expand upon your conjecture a little. Thumb srews and pulling fingernails out? No?? ok public flogging? No? how about Scarlet letter A required for all NSFOC supporters? LOL

------------------------------------------------------------------
By Playing With Fire... on May 23, 2008 8:06 PM
"Because ONE of the likely outcomes -- no high school at all or one severely delayed -- I believe is in NOBODY's best interest." by Civics...

You nailed it! If the nsfoc lawsuit results in no third high school or one that is seriously delayed this district will experience unleashed furor as they have not witnessed before. I cringe to imagine the ramifications! Those folks know not what they do.....

Maybe the judge is afraid a group of citizens will sue him if they dont like his ruling :-)

Hi Everyone!!

I see all the handringing going on regarding Vickers comments about boundries can be changed.

I am not sure if what vickers THINKS is really relevant here. She does not know the law and just assumed that SB had the authority to change location/boundaries at any time. The whole board thinks that. Vickers just used that to drum up addtional support for more folks to vote no on the 2nd ref.

What is relevant (IMO) is if the location/boundraries are part of the ref language defacto due to the written and paid for documentation of the flyers etc.

What vickers THOUGHT/THINKS doesnt PROVE anything (IMO).

Have a good holiday weekend everyone!!
GF

chimay you said three possible outcomes. I count 2 - dismiss or not dismiss. What am I missing?

By Anonymous on May 23, 2008 3:31 PM
Chimay, I think you contradict yourself. If the judge felt it had merit, that is all he had to say. He would not have had to "set a hurried date" for his ruling. You forget that he was not ruling on the case itself, just whether or not it has enough merit to go to trial. That would basically extend the proceedings to whatever period is open on his docket - an no need to hurry since he previously ruled against an expedited trial date. If he ruled that it had no merit, that would dismiss the case immediately.

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

The third outcome is what we saw today...no ruling.

Let's look at what the three outcomes mean...

1. If the judge had dismissed the case today, that would have meant that the NSFOC has no legal standing to 'sue' the SB for building a 3rd HS wherever it wants. The judge would have done that today if there was no legal standing...no need to waste any more time debating a law suit which has no merit.

2. If the judge would have simply rejected the MTD and set a court date in the future, the ultimate verdict of the case wouldn't matter as the SB would have been so invested in building on Eola, that the HS would ultimately be completed on Eola, regardless of the ruling on the lawsuits.

3. If the judge is not ruling at all yet, but is promising a speedy ruling for the MDT prior to heavy contruction starting, it sounds like he is in effect pre-ruling on the trial as a warning to the SB, not just the motion to dismiss. I don't think people realize that the MTD is essentially the case. Either the SB has the right to choose where to put the HS, regardless of what was said previously, or they don't. If they have the right, the case will be dismissed. If they don't have the right, the case will go to trial and the SB will lose to the NSFOC, the question is what the plaintiffs will win/gain as a result.

So....its just my informed opinion based on the comments of my legally-oriented family members that the judge is going to reject the MTD and the case will go to trial. The judge is taking extra time because he doesn't want to simply rule on the MTD and set a court date; he also will want to suggest what the ultimate outcome of the trial might be based on his interpretation of the case, so that the SB has the opportunity to change direction based on the likelihood of losing.

We'll find out in a week, but I think today's events were the worst possible for the SB. The judge could have easily dismissed the case, or rejected the MTD and set a court date. Either of these two quick/easy outcomes would not have deterred the SB from continuing constuction on Eola.

However, the fact that the judge is taking more time (but still wanting to provide a ruling by the end of the month) suggests to me that he is going to attempt to undo the status quo. I don't know if the SB will 'heed the warning', but I think the judge will need to explain his interpretation of the case which would essentially let both parties know what the ultimate outcome of the case will likely be.

Pure speculation on my part, but I think the judge now sees a reason to hurry which he didn't see before. I think the judge originally thought that the case would be dismissed, but my guess is after pouring through the submitted documents, the judge has done a 180 and is perhaps looking at a likely victory for the plaintiffs.

The only reason to delay a ruling today, but still rush to a ruling on the MTD by the end of the month, suggests that not only does the case have merit, but that both parties (read the SB) will need to understand what the likely outcome of the case will be so that they can switch direction if need be.

Bill Blass,

You are correct. Ms. Vickers, Ms. Clark and Mr. Rodman voted against the 5A boundary proposal.

Kudos to Ms. Vickers and Mr. Rodman.

Ms. Clark, take off the orange shirt. You have NEVER done your job of representing the entire district. You, in my opinion are responsible for the divide in the district that occurs today.

Your comments about the "haves and have nots" started it all.

I hope you are proud of yourself. You have taken this district down.

Ms. Clark doesn't understand her responsibility as an elected school board member. She is accountable to the entire district, not just her neck of the woods. Jeannette, climb out of the balcony.

"Because ONE of the likely outcomes -- no high school at all or one severely delayed -- I believe is in NOBODY's best interest." by Civics...

You nailed it! If the nsfoc lawsuit results in no third high school or one that is seriously delayed this district will experience unleashed furor as they have not witnessed before. I cringe to imagine the ramifications! Those folks know not what they do.....

Please check and verify information before you post as you may advertently or inadvertently misinform others.
Ms. Vickers did NOT abstain from the 2006 referendum vote. From the Jan. 9 2006 meeting minutes:
346. Administrative
Reports and
Recommendations –
Resolution – March
2006 – School
Building Bond
Referendum
Howie Crouse introduced Mr. Rick Petesch, from Whitt Law.
Mr. Petesch explained the resolution for the March 2006
School Building Bond Referendum.
The board discussed the resolution.
It was moved by Mr. Metzger and seconded by Mr. Rodman
that the Board of Education adopt the resolution providing for
and requiring the submission of the proposition of issuing
$124,660,000.00 of School Building Bonds to the voters of
Indian Prairie Community Unit School District No. 204,
DuPage and Will Counties, Illinois at the general primary
election to be held on the 21st day of March, 2006, as presented.
The president declared the motion passed on a roll call vote
with the following board members responding aye: Mr.
Metzger, Mr. Rodman, Ms. Clark, Mr. Stephens, Mr.
Bradshaw, and Mr. Glawe. Ms. Vickers voted nay.

http://board.ipsd.org/204boardfiles/boardfiles_view_list.asp?MeetingDate=1/9/2006

As to the final boundary vote, she voted against 5A. She didn't abstain.
Recommendation –
Boundary Option 5A
It was moved by Mr. Glawe and seconded by Mr. Stephens that
the Board of Education adopts Boundary Option 5A as the final
plan for boundary changes.
The president declared the motion passed on a roll call vote, as
follows: Mr. Glawe, aye; Mr. Stephens, aye; Ms. Clark, nay;
Ms. Vickers, nay; Mr. Metzger, aye; Mr. Rodman, nay; and Mr.
Bradshaw, aye.
http://www.ipsd.org/Uploads/Board_brd_min_012306jb.pdf

By Anonymous on May 23, 2008 2:39 PM
I support the eola site and I would have been surprised if it was dismissed today. There are too many issues for the a simple dismissal. I actualy thought he would let it go to trial just to cover his own *ss. I take the delay as a good indication that the Judge will dismiss but in the next week he can dot his I's and cross his T's. If he was going to take it to trial, he could have just ruled as such.
_______________________________

And if he was going to dismiss, he could have just ruled as such. Could be taken either way.

Thanks Big Picture!

K Kid, thought you were going to be my campaign manager in the North?

I'm still trying to get GF to be my campaign manager in the South, lol. :)

Thanks K Kid!!!

MR,

Glad your daughter is home safe and recovering. Continued prayers for her and all of your family.

GF

Keep posting. Your posts may be kind of windy at times, but they are usually fair and pretty consistent.....sometimes to the point of tedium ;-).......but keep 'em coming anyway.

Have a great weekend all.

D+S

D+S thanks for the thoughtful response.

I am not even going to TOUCH the subject of 'guarantees' by the SB on BB. I think that is what the court case will boil down to. We have the facts on what was SAID....and I have opinions on what people should have HEARD. But people are people, and the same words can say different things to different people.

Take a look at my post to Metea because I think I have clarified some of my thinking pretty well in there. I do NOT think that boundaries are the only issue. I think that is what got people all riled up initially, and that is what started NSFOC and why it started in TG. But I do not think it is the only issue now. But I do continue to believe that it is AN issue, and a big one. And refusing to acknowledge it is not helpful for the reasons I laid out for Metea.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
QUOTE from you:
"Are the founders of the NSFOC purely motivated by getting the boundaries changed? Could some be using the BB/Eola site struggle as a vehicle for getting the boundaries changed back to putting them at NV? Hoping to kill Metea altogether to achieve the same end? I have no idea. I don’t know them personally, have never asked any of them directly. If this were the case, I doubt they’d admit it anyway. But I’m sure a lot of them realize, like I do, that if they are successful in stopping Metea....."

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

As for what is going on with the founders of NSFOC we are in the same boat. Dont know what is in their heads (I am tempted to say something snide here ;-) but I will resist temptation). However, I base my BELIEFS on what is going on in there heads by what I read on these blogs. (And of course their website, various legal documents, the papers, etc.) And I think there are some overlapping groups.

1) Boundary people (most of whom will not admit it, or disappeared from the blogs weeks and weeks ago -- lord knows they were here in spades at the beginning).
2) Incompetence/Process people -- who think the board has used poor decision making and taken financial risk with respect to BB lawsuits etc.
3) People who dont want the third school at all.

I think NSFOC mostly started as (1) and morphed into (1+2). And they have been inevitably joined by (3). But I wonder if some of the founders started out as (3) in '06 but then got even MORE pissed off when the boundaries changed.

One big issue for me is that people need to be clear WHAT they believe, WHO they ally themselves with, and what are the likely OUTCOMES of their actions. And I suspect that, just as people may have fooled themselves into believing that BB was guaranteed, they may have fooled themselves into thinking they know what will be the outcomes of their actions. It is pretty clear to me that you do. But folks need to be aware that they will probably like some of the possible outcomes even less than Metea at Eola.

I think we should have built on BB. I dont think the board has shown good judgement. But my proposed remedy is to vote them out when the time comes, and be more involved in the process. Not file a lawsuit.

Because ONE of the likely outcomes -- no high school at all or one severely delayed -- I believe is in NOBODY's best interest.

Who is the resident in district 204 that was reprimanded by Judge Popejoy for sending him and email. Duh! What were they thinking? I heard that email is now a part of the court records.

Well, it was interesting to hear that the judge delayed the verdict for a week. Looks like this got someone's attention. Good job NSFOC!

chimay you said three possible outcomes. I count 2 - dismiss or not dismiss. What am I missing?

To: By lookin over Metea site on May 23, 2008 1:16 PM
Wow will give a verdict a week from today!! Doesn't look good for NSFOC.
_____________________________

Really? If a dismissal was the slam dunk the SB said it would be, you'd think the judge would have been able to determine that by now.

Chimay, I think you contradict yourself. If the judge felt it had merit, that is all he had to say. He would not have had to "set a hurried date" for his ruling. You forget that he was not ruling on the case itself, just whether or not it has enough merit to go to trial. That would basically extend the proceedings to whatever period is open on his docket - an no need to hurry since he previously ruled against an expedited trial date. If he ruled that it had no merit, that would dismiss the case immediately.

By MR on May 23, 2008 1:06 PM
There seems to be a statement that always comes up that I have an issue with. That is:

"the fact that the SB guaranteed BB and did not deliver"
_____________________________________

Hey, MR. Glad you're back! I trust everything went fine with your daughter and she's recovering okay.

I did not hear this said at a SB meeting. I heard it at some of the many boundary meetings I attended in 06. I do remember hearing C. Vickers say on at least two occasions that the boundaries could be changed later even if we voted for a specific plan. But then someone else on the board would counter with the comment that this would not be done, the boundary plan chosen before the ref would be honored after. I do remember the SB being asked on a couple of occasions of what would be done if the SD couldn't acquire BB, if there was a plan B. The SB would always counter with they were certain they would be able to get BB and went on sometimes to talk about the reasons why they believed this to be so. I remember a board member even saying once that juries tended to sympathize with school districts against big land owners in these kind of situations. They said there was no plan B because they didn't need one, they were sure they would prevail, yada yada yada like this at EVERY meeting. They never specifically said "we promise you BB", but they certainly did guarantee they would get it, and they did, didn't they? I remember someone asking the SB if BB would be on the ref., and their answer was no, they could not specify BB on the ref because they didn't own it yet, and they couldn't own it until we passed the ref to give them the money, so this is why the ref did not state a specific location. That's why I didn't hesitate when I didn't see BB on there; I had told the ref would be worded this way. The SB may have been thinking to guarantee this in writing would be suicide, but they obviously never shared that with us. Like I've said before, if you didn't attend some of these meetings, you missed all this good stuff.

As for the votes in 06, bets me. I think all the hype surrounding the referendum in the preceding year--the boundary meetings, the news coverage, the flyers in the kid's backpacks, etc.--had something to do with how the votes changed.

By MR on May 23, 2008 1:37 PM

Hey, quit campaigning for school board on this blog, will ya! ;-)

Clara made her a card ... something to greet her when she gets back to Mrs. P's classroom. We're all glad it's working out.

Wow will give a verdict a week from today!! Doesn't look good for NSFOC. Meanwhile they have 13 heavy graders working OT.

____________________________

I couldn't disagree more that this doesn't look good for the NSFOC...quite the contrary. There were three possible outcomes of the motion to dismiss today and only one (dismissal of the suit) of the three would be positive for the SB.

If the judge didn't think NSFOC had a legal standing, he would have dismissed the suit. I have three lawyers and two judges in my family...it doesn't take a lot of time to dismiss a lawsuit.

The only reason to need more time to make a ruling, but yet set a hurried date for a ruling, can only mean that the lawsuit has merit and the judge wants to make sure that is understood before construction begins.

The lawyers and judges in my family all agree that the more a judge looks at this case, the better it looks for the plaintiffs.

I support the eola site and I would have been surprised if it was dismissed today. There are too many issues for the a simple dismissal. I actualy thought he would let it go to trial just to cover his own *ss. I take the delay as a good indication that the Judge will dismiss but in the next week he can dot his I's and cross his T's. If he was going to take it to trial, he could have just ruled as such.

By Anonymous on May 23, 2008 2:06 PM

"I NEVER heard anyone on the board state BB was no guarantee."

I was there. Vickers did indeed use the words "no guarantee" when she read from her prepared text in opposition to the 06 referendum before our vote. In this same speech she also stated the board could change these boundaries at any time. Clarke was the board president at the time and she and Glawe made it a point to state they wouldn't do that.

Yup, she stated there was no guarantee.

I need no convincing as to what M2 et al told us regarding their opinions on BB, or what propaganda came home in my kids backpacks, but Vickers did state publicly BB was not guaranteed.

I have my issues with Vickers, the main one being that after she read her dissenting opinion she abstained from the vote. Talk about courage of one's convictions. However, I give her a lot of credit for her foresight in predicting this mess lo those many years ago.

MR - Glad to hear everything is working out for your daughter. I hope her recovery continues to go well...........
All the best to you and your family.

**********************
By MR on May 23, 2008 1:37 PM
THANK YOU EVERYONE!!!!

Thanks to all of you that wished my family the best and sent your prayers for my daughter last week.

They decided to just operate on her right eye last Friday which ended up being a 4 hour surgery. She couldn't see out of either of her eyes for 3 days after the surgery. They said it was just in time or she would have had permanent loss of vision. She's home and recovering and getting a nice vacation before the end of school. Hopefully she'll be able to go back next week. We're keeping our fingers crossed that her recovery goes as well as the surgery and there are no complications or loss of vision in her right eye. So far everythin looks good.

You're all great parents no matter where you live or how you feel on this issue. When it comes down to it I judge all of you as a person and parent and not this issue. THANK YOU AGAIN for your well wishes and empathising with my family.

one more week...

From: Beacon news

New: Judge delays ruling in NSFOC lawsuit

May 23, 2008

By Tim Waldorf twaldorf@scn1.com
Indian Prairie School District 204’s motion to dismiss Neighborhood Schools For Our Children’s lawsuit.

"I’m going to destroy my Memorial Day weekend," he said.

Prior to the hearing, Popejoy told those gathered for it that he would not rule on the motion.

"There’s just too much information that I had, too many questions that I had, to issue a ruling today," he said.

Popejoy promised both parties that he would have a written opinion in their hands by noon May 30, and that he would schedule a hearing to discuss that ruling sometime the following week.

The NSFOC parents group is suing, hoping to block construction of Metea Valley High School on land the district purchased off Eola Road. Previously the district sought to build a third high school on the so-called Brach-Brodie property off 75th Street.

MR -
Points well taken. However, I think the problem for many is in the fact that while this was mentioned at a SB meeting (as you report) the amount of "campaigning" done by admin. and the SB made hardly no, if any at all, mention of this potential outcome. Again, for many (not all) the information/documents on the website, sent home, distributed via the listserve, sent personally by SB members (Metzger) and discussed at the face to face meetings held across the district outweighs the passing comments from 2 SB members. The difference: the documents reached and were available to all voters, not just those who happened to attend the board meeting where these comments were made. Maybe people wouldn't be so upsest OR have any legitimate gripe if the SB/admin. had included an asterik on all of their communications to indicate "BB site may change". Seems like that would have been a more fair and balanced representation of the situation, equal to posting BB as "the site" every way possible. But, they probably didn't want to include any asteriks on their communications because it would have clearly jeopardized the "yes" vote. After all, the people said they wanted to know where the school would be and what the boundaries would be before they supported the referendum. So, in my opinion, this shines some light on the strategy deliberately employeed by the SB. They paid consultants to find out what people wanted so they could flip the vote, and they acted accordingly. Publicly and repeatedly stating that the "choice" could change from BB would have flown in the face of what they wanted to achieve - passing the referendum.

Then, of course, there is the issue that they were using district time, money, materials to distribute the BB/referendum litterature in the first place if they couldn't come through on the deal. The courts have not decided on this yet, obviously, but seems like a slippery slope for the SB to have done all of that if they knew BB could change. Just my opinion....

*******************
There seems to be a statement that always comes up that I have an issue with. That is:

"the fact that the SB guaranteed BB and did not deliver"

Well I attended all the SB meetings back in 2005-2006 and still attend them today where maybe 50 people showed up at the last meeting.

I recall clearly back then that both Ms. Clark and Ms. Vickers stated that the BB was no guarantee. They also said that the boundaries were no guarantee. They could not promise the land only the fact that the SB would do everything to aquire the land and deliver on the boundaries that were decided. This was their hope, never a promise.

This is why they worded the referendum the way they did because they could not guarantee the BB land because they didn't own it. The SB knew that to guarantee something would be suicide.

MR

I attending all the SB meetings as well during 2005-2006. I did hear Ms. Vickers state the boundaries were not written in stone and could be changed. I NEVER heard anyone on the board state BB was no guarantee. In fact, at a Scullen meeting, Mark Metzger was asked whether the school would have to be built on another site due to a bad outcome of the condemnation suit. His response was the only questions left regarding the site (BB) were when and how much. He even went as far to state the school might be able to open in 2008 if the condemnation proceedings went quickly. Never did he state or even imply the site could change.

To: By lookin over Metea site on May 23, 2008 1:16 PM
Wow will give a verdict a week from today!! Doesn't look good for NSFOC. Meanwhile they have 13 heavy graders working OT.

____________________________

I have a different opinion on the delay in the verdict. If it was such a frivolous, unworthly case, why wouldn't Judge Popejoy have thrown it out? I'm glad he's taking the time to review all the information.

I also heard Judge Popejoy wanted to know why the SB was working on the site with this lawsuit pending... That's interesting.

Augh! Christmas has been delayed a week!!!

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/967319,na23_nsfocweb_s1.article

THANK YOU EVERYONE!!!!

Thanks to all of you that wished my family the best and sent your prayers for my daughter last week.

They decided to just operate on her right eye last Friday which ended up being a 4 hour surgery. She couldn't see out of either of her eyes for 3 days after the surgery. They said it was just in time or she would have had permanent loss of vision. She's home and recovering and getting a nice vacation before the end of school. Hopefully she'll be able to go back next week. We're keeping our fingers crossed that her recovery goes as well as the surgery and there are no complications or loss of vision in her right eye. So far everythin looks good.

You're all great parents no matter where you live or how you feel on this issue. When it comes down to it I judge all of you as a person and parent and not this issue. THANK YOU AGAIN for your well wishes and empathising with my family.

There is plenty of evidence. And Yes, despicable behavior. See JC on video link above for more of the same. I am being overly kind at this time, and would love to throw the stink bomb in the room, but hands are tied. Sorry.
----------------
What would be despicable is if the SB was paying any attention to this blog at all. We should dearly hope they have more important things to do.

No should we hope the SB is paying any more attention to the NSFOC than needed to get their lawsuit dismissed. And that is not meant to be a cheap shot. Seriously, a vocal minority should not be able to hijack public debate or policy deliberations. They should be heard and given the due weight their issues and numbers deserve. On both counts, this should be a minor issue for the board at best.

So far they seem to be treating it as exactly that. If they are actually engaging in the debate at any level, let us hope it is for the same reason many others here do -- just for fun.

Wow will give a verdict a week from today!! Doesn't look good for NSFOC. Meanwhile they have 13 heavy graders working OT.

There seems to be a statement that always comes up that I have an issue with. That is:

"the fact that the SB guaranteed BB and did not deliver"

Well I attended all the SB meetings back in 2005-2006 and still attend them today where maybe 50 people showed up at the last meeting.

I recall clearly back then that both Ms. Clark and Ms. Vickers stated that the BB was no guarantee. They also said that the boundaries were no guarantee. They could not promise the land only the fact that the SB would do everything to aquire the land and deliver on the boundaries that were decided. This was their hope, never a promise.

This is why they worded the referendum the way they did because they could not guarantee the BB land because they didn't own it. The SB knew that to guarantee something would be suicide.

I also don't believe that just because people believed that MVHS would be at BB swayed the vote 32% in favor of a yes vote. I don't have the numbers but IMO I believe this was due largely to the fact that in 2006 it was a general election and more people voted in general and realized IPSD needed a 3rd HS.

Just my opinions.

To: By Deliberate Strategy on May 22, 2008 6:23 PM

Please note that there is a specific team assigned to this blog by your school board and admin to promote the strategy as follows:

1. Make opposition to Eola look like one or two neighborhoods
2. Bash those neighborhoods as entitled elitists and racists - to make them feel guilty about their reputation in the community
3. Keep financial numbers out of any discussions. Ignore any correct information that's negative to Eola
4. Engage only people who distract the readers from the main issue by there long posts about non-issues

There is plenty of evidence. And Yes, despicable behavior. See JC on video link above for more of the same. I am being overly kind at this time, and would love to throw the stink bomb in the room, but hands are tied. Sorry.
__________________________________

Your conspiracy theories really have to stop. You can say anything you want but unless you have proof no one will believe your statements. This is obviously your idea of what you perceive about the pro-Eola group and thought it would sound good if you had the SB behind us. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Your 4 points above would never be said by anyone in the pro-Eola group core members that drive things or by the school board. Maybe you should join a group or side of the issue so you can get more knowledgable about the issues.

Having said the above, I find it odd that since I have been very involved in the pro-Eola movement since the begining I have not seen anything from any of the SB members. I was part of the small group that organized the petition that went around the IPSD in favor of MVHS at Eola. I know all of the key players in the pro-Eola group and yet I have not seen nor heard of any of the things you claim.

Please if you do have something like this I will give you my personal email to send it to me. Otherwise you're just another person trying to stir the pot and pit the IPSD against each other.

Gf blog as much as you want,good ideas have come from your participation. Note you are an easy target because you don't hold your cards close to your vest. If others would take your lead, the progress in the "communication area" of 204 district would be accelerated.

To BigMike on May 22, 2008 9:04 AM--

Re these two comments:

1) Greg Forrest, we are brothas from anotha motha, but at some point it starts to diminish the credibility of this blog when you own 50% of the posts on here. Diversity of viewpoints is more interesting than GF responds to person X, GF responds to person Y, GF responds to person Z, over and over again.

2) All this bashing of people who post as anon is silly. Is posting as anon really any different than posting as D&S, BigMike, Civics, or anything else? No it is not. And don't give me the counterpoint that posting under a name links your comment to your previous comments and your personality. I could just as easily post as Greg Forrest and you wouldn't know the difference. Greg Forrest can just as easily post as anon and we wouldn't know the difference. The names are irrelevant. It is silly to think otherwise, when we are on a non-membership blog.
_____________________________________

GF responds to a lot of folks on this blog because a lot of those folks communicate with him on a regular basis. They leave posts directed specifically to him which they like him to answer. His participation on this blog accounts for around 10% of the activity here, which is not excessive, and it would be considerably less if there weren't so many bloggers interested in his opinion. If you want more diversity here, then invite more of it. But I don't appreciate you attempting to silence an on-going dialogue that other people obviously enjoy just because you don't find it interesting. If you don't like GF's posts, then don't read them. But don't ruin it for those who do.

Re the anon list: Of course this is silly. That's why we do it. However, I also think there's been a reduction in extremely vicious anonymous posts since it's inception, which is why it was started in the first place. You're missing the point: the names are not important, the quality of the posts are.

To I am a mom too,
s/maker is an abbreviation for sign maker. Thanks for the reply regarding the middle school issue. This seems to get lost with the emotions running so high regarding the high school situation. I am not a huge fan of mobile classrooms and when searching for a new home 8 years ago was looking for a district that did not rely on this mode of educating kids. With the redistricting of some subdivisions much of this overcrowding will be diminished at the middle school level.

By Anonymous on May 22, 2008 5:13 PM

Civics, this is me.

To Anon @ 5:13 pm

Well said.

By I am a mom too on May 22, 2008 5:31 PM
D&S,
Though all ants are insects not all insects are ants, just as all racisms are based on stereotyping, but not all stereotyping is racism. You are usually a lot more intellectually honest than that! Add to that the fact that according to those who live there TG is one of the most racially diverse neighborhoods, so that would make me racist against pluralistic society? I sometimes laugh at Jeff Foxworthy's jokes, Rita Rudner's, Drew Carey's, Robin Williams', Penn and Teller's (though they are a bit blue), David Letterman's, and, very rarely, at Jay Leno's too. Humor is based on exaggerration, not stereotyping, and that is exactly why those comments about TG are funny.
______________________________________

It was your last comment that made me pause:

"If you want an answer as to why you are being painted with a broad stroke, maybe the place to start looking for it is next door."

That sounded to me that you knew you were generalizing, or stereotyping, acknowleged it, but didn't care because you felt it was deserved.

I noted the similarity between Deliberate Strategy's comments and yours. Reading one reminded me of the other. Just something to consider.

Also, humor can be based on exaggeration or stereotyping. The funniest comments seem to include both.

By perspective on May 21, 2008 4:39 PM
By Deliberate Strategy on May 21, 2008 3:59 PM

Sorry - to easy to know who said it then and there is more to come. I am not involved, but I have seen them on paper.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it was written down and sent out then what difference would it make if one was able to figure out who wrote it. I guess my question is did you see the email that directed this team of anti-NSFOC assassins to execute the strategy you espoused or did you see an email saying that there was a team being directed by the SB?

I did not intend for my previous post to in anyway imply that one should not have their own opinions and post them freely. I only intended to point out that there are far too many posting on both sides of this issue that present opinions as fact. I, for one, discount what is said if it can not be identified as one or the other. I am only saying that if you want us to believe the number and cost figures thrown around as fact then it should not be difficult to show your hand. The same goes for the emails or other written “facts” that are used to support your argument.

In other words “I heard from a friend who heard from a friend who heard from another you been messin’ around” may make interesting song lyrics, but they carry little weight with me (and probably others on this blog given some of the follow up posts)

Kind regards,

By get over it already on May 21, 2008 5:12 PM
I've seen a few emails tossed my way from SB members talking about "spies" and organizing against NSFOC.

By Civics on May 21, 2008 5:12 PM
Deliberate Strategy:

"Sorry - to easy to know who said it then and there is more to come. I am not involved, but I have seen them on paper."

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

OK. Thanks. No evidence.

(However, if true -- it is despicable.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is plenty of evidence. And Yes, despicable behavior. See JC on video link above for more of the same. I am being overly kind at this time, and would love to throw the stink bomb in the room, but hands are tied. Sorry.

By Anonymous on May 22, 2008 9:10 AM
Come on D&S, take some of the money the SB is saving you and buy yourself a sense of humor. It is funny hearing the bashing that TG is getting all over town. Laughter is good for the soul.
_________________________________________

Hey! You get a negative score in creativity for plagiarizing my post. Use your own slams.

You are right about the laughter thing, tho. Point made.

South Side,
1) what is s/maker?
2) Thank you for reminding us about the middle school. I always seem to forget that. Eventually I would love to see us go back to K-6, 7-8, and 9-12 schools. I have always felt that this was the grouping that best represented similar maturity and behavioral levels. The fact that 204 usually (maybe always, but I only know about a few of the middle schools) keeps sixth graders in an area by themselves kind of points to this. I like the idea of freshman centers, but am not married to them. Assuming no more kids move into our district in the next few years (a huge assumption as far as I'm concerned, but one used by the no new HS contingent) we might be able to do this with three schools. We could then turn the second gold campus into a specialized school for vo-tech or gifted or maybe move the alternative high kids there and close the oldest of the 4 high schools. Thus keeping three general high schools at an ideal capacity, having enough room to devote to middle school kids and keeping the little ones from having to grow up too fast.

D&S,
Though all ants are insects not all insects are ants, just as all racisms are based on stereotyping, but not all stereotyping is racism. You are usually a lot more intellectually honest than that! Add to that the fact that according to those who live there TG is one of the most racially diverse neighborhoods, so that would make me racist against pluralistic society? I sometimes laugh at Jeff Foxworthy's jokes, Rita Rudner's, Drew Carey's, Robin Williams', Penn and Teller's (though they are a bit blue), David Letterman's, and, very rarely, at Jay Leno's too. Humor is based on exaggerration, not stereotyping, and that is exactly why those comments about TG are funny.

By Civics on May 21, 2008 6:04 PM
D+S
I appreciate the position of you and many others who simply want to go to the closest school. I believe you when you say you think they would have passed the '06 referendum (or even '05) if they could have been assured that would be the case. Even though the new school would have gone elsewhere and not DIRECTLY benefited them per se. But it would have been a net benefit to the district as a whole and TG et al would have supported it with their votes. I think that is a pretty decent summary of your thoughts, yes?
And I don't see it as a problem as such....except....
I guess what I am saying is that taking the next step -- that of filing a lawsuit based on the above -- means that this really is fundamentally about the boundaries for the NSFOC founders. If they had been left alone, there would be no lawsuit. If they had gotten their second-best alternative, BB, there would be no lawsuit. If someone ELSE were moving to WV, there would be no lawsuit. But they got their WORST outcome - which is FURTHEST away (and older to boot.... and whatever other negative stereotypes you choose to attach to WV) And I certainly understand that beef.
Now...if you agree with me thus far...
You cannot say on the one hand that the boundary issue is the initial cause (though perhaps not ultimately the only one) of the NSFOC action and NOT say that it is a wee bit self serving. If you believe that a third high school is needed and will benefit the district, but you are putting a lawsuit in the way of getting built quickly (or built at all) because it will negatively affect your school situation, then what other conclusion can be drawn?
GF and many others will say that THEY are supportive of the suit because of the perversion of the democratic process, the gas lines, etc. And I do not doubt them.....but(and with me there is always a but) I suspect that if you scratch the surface, many of these other concerns were generated after-the-fact. After the fact of the new boundaries.
__________________________________

Hey, Civ. Ok, I had to mull this over a bit.

What bothers people most, I think, is that the NSFOC actually filed a lawsuit, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it. Even if there are some folks who agree we’re getting screwed, they also think we should just bend over and take it for the good of the district. Keep quiet and not make a fuss because everybody else is happy. And there are times I have felt this way, except . . .

Here’s the thing, the one scenario that was left out of your statement:

If the SB had told us in 06 the AME farmland had been selected as the site (not the contaminated MWGen site, as that’s problematic for other reasons) and that TG, WE et al would have to be redistricted to WVHS as a result, many in this area may have voted no, like Brookdale did in 05, but IF IT HAD PASSED ANYWAY, THERE WOULD BE NO LAWSUIT. There still may have been a lot disappointed and angry folks, but there would not have been a lawsuit because there would have been no grounds for one. There would have been congruity between what the SB told the voters they would do and what they actually did. That was Brookdale's position in 05. We may not have liked the outcome, but we would have had to live with it.

But this is obviously not how this referendum was handled, was it? In their determination to get the ref passed, the SB made assurances that we now know they were in no position to make. They stated as fact outcomes that they had no control over and shouldn’t have guaranteed. They kept their fingers crossed (or maybe even sincerely believed) that it would all come to pass. And the fact that it did not come to pass created incongruity between what the SB had said they would do and what they actually did. This incongruity set the premise for the lawsuit.

To say the NSFOC is about nothing but boundaries is oversimplifying the issue and ignoring all the other moving parts. I do think it was all about boundaries back in 06, prior to the vote. But it was all about boundaries for EVERYONE, just not TG. Once the ref passed redistricting TG to Metea on BB, they accepted that. No threat of a lawsuit. When the SB first walked out on the BB land in the fall of 07, they waited to see what would happen. No threat of a lawsuit. When the SB held the public meeting in Feb of 08 to announce they were abandoning BB, pursuing MWGen, and changing the boundaries to accommodate the site change, that’s when there was the first threat of a lawsuit. Focusing on just the boundary change ignores the fact that the SB guaranteed BB and did not deliver, ignores the fact that they had chosen to pursue a plot of land that they had previously deemed unsuitable. Dissatisfaction with the new boundaries is definitely part of it, but it is not the whole of it.

Are the founders of the NSFOC purely motivated by getting the boundaries changed? Could some be using the BB/Eola site struggle as a vehicle for getting the boundaries changed back to putting them at NV? Hoping to kill Metea altogether to achieve the same end? I have no idea. I don’t know them personally, have never asked any of them directly. If this were the case, I doubt they’d admit it anyway. But I’m sure a lot of them realize, like I do, that if they are successful in stopping Metea, that might put them back at NV for a year or two, but once the bubble hits chances are they’d be redistricted to WV anyway. And with split shifts to boot. So it seems filing a lawsuit based just on the boundaries seems like a huge waste of money, time and angst just to end up in the same place eventually. It makes more sense to me that the lawsuit was filed because the NSFOC folks feel they have been used and abused by the SB and they’re really pissed. The boundary issue is just happily going along for the ride.

Anonymous finds it creepy that someone has been actively involved in discussions with other parents from around the district for multiple years?

Metea Either Way:

"So is it fair to say that your position is one that is fighting to make sure that those who oppose the new boundaries don't get their way?"

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

Of course not. But if you dont get the issue on the table, then no solution can be found because this issue will always be the very quiet, very large elephant in the corner of the room.

And personally I think this elephant poisons the rest of the debate when it goes unacknowledged. Example: NSFOC claimed concern about contamination of the site. But based on my experience in these areas, there is very little or no reason for concern in this case. So I dismiss the concern as smokescreen for the issue which they are unwilling to acknowledge or discuss -- boundaries. So even if I am able to provide information which removes reasonable concerns about contamination, I fear that either 1)That information will be rejected no matter how thorough or 2)There will be a new issue which is suddenly of "concern." etc etc ad infinitum.

On the other hand, if all issues are on the table up front, I am much more likely to believe that there may a reason discuss each one reasonably and try to find common ground.

Now.....if 'Boundaries' is a deal-breaker of an issue that neither (or either) side has some 'give' on, then I might as well just let the thing play out in the courts. And I will go hug my kids, as was suggested by some malcontent sniper on this board! ;-)

Civics,

Loved your post at 2:03. I'm still laughing. But I have to correct you. The mothers of people in TG wear "combat" boots, not "army" boots.

Thanks for the laugh. I'm just waiting for the "Your TG mama is so stupid that..." jokes to come out. It's hilarious to me that my neighborhood has become public enemy number one.

Honestly, it doesn't matter to many of us. Bring it on, more money for NSFOC...

Get a life:

I have a better solution. Why dont you quit reading them?

Laughing Stock:

The fact that you think that they think that by saying they aren't bothered when in fact they think that you think that they ARE bothered says to me that you think the fact of their botherment bothers them enough to claim that no bother has been caused. On the other hand, if your botherment in their denial of bother has caused bother on your part, then is anyone really ahead? And the fact that their mothers wear army boots has what relevence to this discussion?

Say what?????????

By Get A Life
Reading this blog is like listening to Charlie Brown's teacher. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo from people who seem to have waaaaaaaaay to much time on their hands. Do your kids a favor, move away from the keyboard for a few days and use those arms/hands to play ball or how a about a hug. Looking at some of these posts, many of you are posting multiple times in day or hell in an hour. GET A LIFE!

I was bored reading these posts after the 5th one or so because it's the same BS since Jan., Feb. Given that anyone can post from anywhere in the world, it makes you wonder if some of these posters are not sitting in a padded room with nothing but a computer in front of them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
There is one member on the ipsd discussion blog that has posted 4,942 comments. To me, that is just plain creepy.

However, to fail to mention or acknowledge one of the fundamental drivers of the disagreement means that no real discussion can take place and therefore no move to any kind of solution.
Civics.--------------------------------------------------------------------
So is it fair to say that your position is one that is fighting to make sure that those who oppose the new boundaries don't get their way?

This hasn't been my take but I feel the need to clarify.

To Laughing Stock: If your comment about Tall Grass is related to my comments from earlier today (9:04am), then let me remind you that there are 1100 homes in Tall Grass with probably around 4 residents per home. Thus I represent around 0.023% of the population of Tall Grass. Collectively maybe there are 10 Tall Grass people, at the most, active on this blog. So that makes 0.23%. Way to make generalizations, dude.

To Greg Forrest: Peace brotha!

Signed,
Elitist Entitled Racist Millionaire FryBaby from Tall Grass
(not really, I drive a Dodge and shop at Wal-Mart)

to: By Get a Life on May 22, 2008 11:41 AM
Reading this blog is like listening to Charlie Brown's teacher. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo from people who seem to have waaaaaaaaay to much time on their hands. Do your kids a favor, move away from the keyboard for a few days and use those arms/hands to play ball or how a about a hug. Looking at some of these posts, many of you are posting multiple times in day or hell in an hour. GET A LIFE!

I was bored reading these posts after the 5th one or so because it's the same BS since Jan., Feb. Given that anyone can post from anywhere in the world, it makes you wonder if some of these posters are not sitting in a padded room with nothing but a computer in front of them.
________________________

Here's some advice for you. If you don't like this blog, don't read it.

TO: By Laughing Stock on May 22, 2008 11:26 AM
The strong statements from residents of TG insisting that they are not bothered, and couldn't care less, about all the TG bashing going on throughout Naperville.... confirms to me that you are very much indeed bothered by it. Thanks for the confirmation.
___________________________________

If you feel that way then bring it on. I for one, feel it's having the exact opposite reaction that it is intended for. Instead of shaming or scaring TG residents away from NSFOC, I believe More people have contributed because of this nasty rhetoric.

By BigMike on May 22, 2008 9:04 AM
Some objective thoughts:

Fair disclosure: I live in Tall Grass. I am unhappy with the SB. I have absolutely nothing to do with NSFOC, although I do agree that the referendum represented a polling of the public's consent to build MV at BB.

1) Greg Forrest, we are brothas from anotha motha, but at some point it starts to diminish the credibility of this blog when you own 50% of the posts on here. Diversity of viewpoints is more interesting than GF responds to person X, GF responds to person Y, GF responds to person Z, over and over again.

2) All this bashing of people who post as anon is silly. Is posting as anon really any different than posting as D&S, BigMike, Civics, or anything else? No it is not. And don't give me the counterpoint that posting under a name links your comment to your previous comments and your personality. I could just as easily post as Greg Forrest and you wouldn't know the difference. Greg Forrest can just as easily post as anon and we wouldn't know the difference. The names are irrelevant. It is silly to think otherwise, when we are on a non-membership blog.

3) Regardless of what happens in court tomorrow, this district is in deep doo doo either way. Poorly located third high school, overbudget third high school, inability to pass future referendums at least until the SB is replaced, deep dislike among people in the district caused largely by a SB which turned up its nose at the sane practice of coddling public opinion when making major decisions like MV (the way normal school districts do it, I should know...my Dad was a school superintendent for 25 years and built two high schools and a middle school), a SB with a history of what will ultimately be proven to be public lies (no addl transportation costs, a gas pipeline "out by the tracks", "no time" to get an appraisal, "willing able and prepared" to pay up to $600k/acre for BB, "will put all the money in escrow" to pay for BB land, "working with IEPA" on the AME/MWGEN site, supposed confirmation from City of Naper/Park District that the ped bridge would not be a snow removal priority, shall I continue???...), plus lingering financial ramifications with BB, enrollment numbers far lower than what was used to sell the referendum, possibility of "unexpectedly" abandoning WVHS if enrollments turn out to be too low to support 3 high schools, and a host of other controversies (special ed, air conditioning, all day K, etc.) generally attributable to the SB flipping the bird at the community at basically every turn.

It is not a good situation.

___________

Good summary, especially #3 - the damage is done. Now is it ever going to be reveresed. It can be, but the SB will need to admit mistakes were made, take time to rework the total cost build-up for both Eola and BB, return to the negotiating table at BB (to see if something can be done), sell Eola site for $22 million (land cost plus improvements), Have an independent transportation consultant review transportation times/cost/safety/environmental impact, have independent demographer review the enrollment figures (in my opinion, the HS numbers will be well below 8900 being used today when you consider household moves have virtually come to a standstill over the past 2 years and will stay as such in the next 2 years - meaning more lost students in the district). THEN if no deal can be done at BB/Macom/Hamman then do an addition to WVHS and NVHS, or build a common AP/Frontier campus at BB, or return the remainder of the funds to the public. All this should be overseen by an independent group of residents/non-residents. Faith would be restored in the SB and all lawsuits would be dropped (esp if BB is the site).

Reading this blog is like listening to Charlie Brown's teacher. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo from people who seem to have waaaaaaaaay to much time on their hands. Do your kids a favor, move away from the keyboard for a few days and use those arms/hands to play ball or how a about a hug. Looking at some of these posts, many of you are posting multiple times in day or hell in an hour. GET A LIFE!

I was bored reading these posts after the 5th one or so because it's the same BS since Jan., Feb. Given that anyone can post from anywhere in the world, it makes you wonder if some of these posters are not sitting in a padded room with nothing but a computer in front of them.

The strong statements from residents of TG insisting that they are not bothered, and couldn't care less, about all the TG bashing going on throughout Naperville.... confirms to me that you are very much indeed bothered by it. Thanks for the confirmation.

hello All

To "Civics" regarding your reply to "Could be true": yes, I guess in a roundabout way the no vote disenfranchisement is what I was talking about (not very eleoquently) but for me all that would be fixed if SB followed through on their promise (hence giving the majority what they wanted) OR re-engauged the constituents on their new site selection with same vigor as they did to get the BB ref passed. If Eola passes, again for me it is fixed.

To Civics: ok ok maybe I Exaggerated a little with SB overtaking GB for top spot on my wall of shame (expecially considering what is at stake for botn, it really cant be an apples to apples comparison ever). McCain vs. Obama? or is Hillary going to pull a School Board manuver and say "hey the Dem party was just teasing, we really didnt mean what we said earlier; any reasonable person shouldnt listen to the Dem party... lol" and get the excluded michigan/florida delegates seated? I look forward to watching the debates. I am totally undecided at this point.

To Big Mike: Great points (on everything!!) I think I need to take your advice to heart and I think execute a few adjustments. I counted up all my posts on this thread 26 out of 259 (10% of the total # of posts and I agree that is way too many). In my defense a handful of those were a direct to reply to another blogger specifically addressing me. Another handful were my responses to indirect references to me in another bloggers post. Finally, a few were not value add at all (just crossing swords with a sniper/stalker). I think if I cut down/eliminate the responses to snipers and if needed consolidate reply posts to one post that covers multiple responses (like this one) I can still reply to bloogers and get visibility to my opinions while reducing my profile on the blogs and jeopardizing the credibility of the blog.

Thanks for the good feedback (one other bloger said the same thing on another thread (but in a more confrontational manner) and my reply to him/her was very similiar except for the last part (my willingness to change/modify)

Metea Either Way.

Dont have time to fully explore this at the moment, but that is not my position. Sorry if I left that impression. Some of the issues raised by people on this board, and even (gasp) NSFOC are good and valid and proper and have been a net addition and improvement to the discussion and we can discuss the merits of them etc.

However, to fail to mention or acknowledge one of the fundamental drivers of the disagreement means that no real discussion can take place and therefore no move to any kind of solution.

And many have posted here that "Boundaries are not even mentioned on the NSFOC website which therefore means it is not one of our issues" is not only disengenous but is not helpful to the discussion.

By BigMike on May 22, 2008 9:04 AM

On your first two points -- thank you for the perspective -- I agree completely.

I do not think we will agree on your 3rd point, but your points have a good degree of validity to them from your vantage point.

To GF

Greg I am going to give you my take on the high school pop. from my view. 1) The total capacity of our current high schools are 8000 based on 1000 ea. for freshman centers 3000 ea. for 10-12 grade buildings. These capacities are not ideal capacities but in a short term pinch will do. 2) with the addition of a third high school building and subtraction of one freshman center we will have the capacity for 10000 high schoolers (3 high schools at 3000 ea. and 1 freshman center at 1000). I purposely left out the office building east of Neaqua that can presently hold 600+/- seniors.

Imho the ideal capacity at the high school main campuses is around 2700+/-. With projected growth slowing it looks like the number of high students will come in between 9200-9500 for the forseeable future. That brings the ideal capacity to 2700x3 h/schools=8100 + (1) freshman center 900-1000 students =9000-9100 students.

With high schools running at ideal capacities as apposed to max. capacities the district will have room to put things like more A P courses for the majority or all of our students as apposed to the limited capacity we currently have. Greg I know you are actively looking into a/c at the primary level,(excellent idea) realize also that with the added sq. footage avail. at the primary level we as a district are finally able to offer all day "K" This option at the grade school level along with the benefits at the high school level can only make us stronger as a district.

One last comment Greg with regards to your boundary area. The district has finally been able to attack the overcrowding issue at your middle school in particular (which is one of the most overcrowded in the district). I am very surprised with all the concern at the high school level that more parents have been quiet at the middle school level. Maybe folks are more patient about changes in this area.

Civics & perspective, another thought.

INTENT: Perhaps the SB did not intend to put the district in this position however they did and at a significantcost (financial, political, social, etc.). While (and only personally) I do do believe that their actions were more intentional and deliberate than they'll readily admit I will discount this from future debate.

INCOMPETENCY: We are on the same page but my feeling is that the courts, BB, the disenfranchised voters of 204, etc. will not give the SB a pass simply because they're in over their heads, especially not when our children and dollars are at risk. Perhaps this is where we differ as I believe that a decision against the SB (and ultimately us) will not differentiate between incompetency and intent.

Again, I thank you for the candor and respect given to this debate.

Civics & perspective, while there was some emotion to my response the intention was not to throw down the gauntlet (my apologies if read that way).

I guess what I interpreted (perhaps incorrectly) from the posts is that the concerns of the anti-Eola faction (from the NSFOC though Greggy) are soley based upon boundaries and any item raised toward this "cause" is considered diversionary rhetoric designed ultimately to keep two specific subdivisions @ NV.

Again, if this is not the case, mea culpa, but if this lands closer to your true position then.............

Come on D&S, take some of the money the SB is saving you and buy yourself a sense of humor. It is funny hearing the bashing that TG is getting all over town. Laughter is good for the soul.

Some objective thoughts:

Fair disclosure: I live in Tall Grass. I am unhappy with the SB. I have absolutely nothing to do with NSFOC, although I do agree that the referendum represented a polling of the public's consent to build MV at BB.

1) Greg Forrest, we are brothas from anotha motha, but at some point it starts to diminish the credibility of this blog when you own 50% of the posts on here. Diversity of viewpoints is more interesting than GF responds to person X, GF responds to person Y, GF responds to person Z, over and over again.

2) All this bashing of people who post as anon is silly. Is posting as anon really any different than posting as D&S, BigMike, Civics, or anything else? No it is not. And don't give me the counterpoint that posting under a name links your comment to your previous comments and your personality. I could just as easily post as Greg Forrest and you wouldn't know the difference. Greg Forrest can just as easily post as anon and we wouldn't know the difference. The names are irrelevant. It is silly to think otherwise, when we are on a non-membership blog.

3) Regardless of what happens in court tomorrow, this district is in deep doo doo either way. Poorly located third high school, overbudget third high school, inability to pass future referendums at least until the SB is replaced, deep dislike among people in the district caused largely by a SB which turned up its nose at the sane practice of coddling public opinion when making major decisions like MV (the way normal school districts do it, I should know...my Dad was a school superintendent for 25 years and built two high schools and a middle school), a SB with a history of what will ultimately be proven to be public lies (no addl transportation costs, a gas pipeline "out by the tracks", "no time" to get an appraisal, "willing able and prepared" to pay up to $600k/acre for BB, "will put all the money in escrow" to pay for BB land, "working with IEPA" on the AME/MWGEN site, supposed confirmation from City of Naper/Park District that the ped bridge would not be a snow removal priority, shall I continue???...), plus lingering financial ramifications with BB, enrollment numbers far lower than what was used to sell the referendum, possibility of "unexpectedly" abandoning WVHS if enrollments turn out to be too low to support 3 high schools, and a host of other controversies (special ed, air conditioning, all day K, etc.) generally attributable to the SB flipping the bird at the community at basically every turn.

It is not a good situation.

D&S,

I do not like the stereotyping that has gone on forever on this and other boards. I feel it is unfair and unjust to do so. However, I felt that the post from deliberate strategy was doing just that -- stereotyping everyone who does not agree with the NSFOC or their cause as just part of the SB team set up to entirely derail the "movement". Again, I felt there were many opinions classified as facts in this post with little to no back up data. If this was just an opinion, then fine and I respect that, but when presented as absolutes then it is a different ball game to me at least.

I do agree with you that the stereotyping serves no purpose in a legitimate discussion -- on either side.

By D&S on May 22, 2008 12:41 AM

D&S,

I do not like the stereotyping that has gone on forever on this and other boards. I feel it is unfair and unjust to do so. However, I felt that the post from deliberate strategy was doing just that -- stereotyping everyone who does not agree with the NSFOC or their cause as just part of the SB team set up to entirely derail the "movement". Again, I felt there were many opinions classified as facts in this post with little to no back up data. If this was just an opinion, then fine and I respect that, but when presented as absolutes then it is a different ball game to me at least.

I do agree with you that the stereotyping serves no purpose in a legitimate discussion -- on either side.

By Metea Either Way on May 21, 2008 9:08 PM

I am sorry you feel that way. I do not consider the post itself to be dismissive because it is an issue that I have carefully thought through. Again, I think there are those with legitimate concerns about the SB and the site. I have made it clear that I am not a fan of the SB -- I do no think they have done anything illegal, but incompetent is another story -- so I am not siding with the SB and their actions (again from a competency standpoint). I have had discussions with many people on both sides of this issue and have formed my own opinion, which admittedly is different from yours, but that does not make my post inconsistent nor unsuitable for this discussion.

To But I'm a mom too:

Regarding the following post by Deliberate Strategy on May 21, 2008 11:48 AM--

"Next, every comment directed at a specific neighborhood as if all people in the neighborhood reflect those views is stereotyping. Stereotyping IS the simplest definition of racism. When anyone tries to paint a larger group with the same brush, they are stereotyping. Such comments should be dismissed for what they are - a strategy that will not work on intelligent human beings."
__________________________________________

Sorry, Mom, but when I read the comment above, I immediately thought of your most recent post to GF in which you said:

"I laugh when someone butts in line at the grocery store and I hear someone say "must be from Tall Grass, they're the only ones important enough to be first in line", or when someone (other than a teenager which is another whole story) runs a red light and someone in the car says, "must be from TG cause the rules don't apply to them". It tickles my funny bone and relieves tension. . . . If you want an answer as to why you are being painted with a broad stroke, maybe the place to start looking for it is next door."

The next time you're getting your funny bone tickled at TG's expense, you might want to think about what this says about you . . .

GF

Here I had gone to bed and couldn't sleep realizing I had not responded to some of what you wrote. (how sad is that?)

FIRST:
204 SB WORSE THAN BUSH and CO? really? Really ? REALLY ? Greg my friend, you MUST take a few days off from the blogs. This is a SURE sign of either overestimating the importance of what is happening here in 204 or grossly underestimating the magnitude of the incompetence, stonewalling, denial and outright deception of the current administration. And lets not even talk about the economic damage done.

SECOND:
Odds-making. Hmmmmm. Tricky. I also read both complaints - the one to dismiss and the rebuttal. I ready them fairly carefully, but I am no lawyer, and it was a week or so ago. So I only have some general thoughts.

I felt the SB case appeared well researched and backed by precedent. But I surely do not know how applicable the precedents were, and some of their logic seemed ....uh....shall we say.....hopeful.

As for the Collins reply, it also seemed pretty well researched. It disagreed with the application of some of the SB precedents and cited some of his own. However, it also seemed unecessarily full of hot air and frilly language. It made me wonder if it was depending more on blather than substance. Some of his logical arguments may have been stronger, but...logic is not the law.

So...odds...hmmmm.

Optimistic Civics? 80/20 for dismissal.
Pesimistic Civics? 60/40 it goes to trial.

And if it goes to trial...then that means there is at least SOME basis in law for the complaint....in which case, I dont like our odds.

Metea Either Way:

"To be fair every objection is after the fact simply because the site was chosen before anyone had the opportunity to react. Remember, and if I recall accurately, MWGen pulled out on a Thursday, the following Friday the SB announced that (paraphrase) all sites will be considered and by Monday they agreed to buy the AME land and closed immediately afterwards. Again, and in the name of fairness, do you believe that the SB gave the voters of 204 an opportunity to do anything before the fact? Do you believe that the SB acted in a manner that even remotely approximates their efforts when trying the get the 2006 referendum passed?

I believe that you and I are both self serving in our efforts, blogs, etc. does it make us both wrong?"

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

The first paragraph -- A fair criticism. And I accept it. I think something odd happened between the time of the verdict of the condemnation case and the early January announcement of the new site. However, I have been a stong advocate of the idea that the SB was trying to act for the greater good as opposed to some of the evil motives various folks here have accused them of harboring.

And as for your second paragraph -- No, acting in a self-serving manner is not necessarily wrong. We all do it. But at the risk of sounding self-righteous, I at least TRY to be open about my biases, my situation, and my motives. I will tell you when something is opinion or conjecture. And one of the things that bothers me most about the NSFOC website and much of their characterization of the current situation is that they try to pretend that they are NOT self serving. But are merely trying to protect our children from a greedy, arrogant, corrupt and foolish school board.

Fine. Go ahead and state your opinions. I may even agree with some of them. (And I am speaking here of NSFOC rather than you as an individual) But at least have the courage to state up front the self-serving nature of what you are up to.

I CANNOT WAIT FOR FRIDAY!!!!!

I remember feeling this way as a kid about 2-3 days before Christmas. No matter what happens in court, these blogs are gonna be en fuego over the weekend! I'm going through some Mavis Beacon typing exercises to get ready.

GF, D&S, Civics, MR, Metea EW, get your hip waders on -- you folks better be ready to rumble....

Could be True:

"but I do not like the gerrymandering that went on to secure the yes vote. It is not fair or just to those who voted no"

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

Hey...a new voice. Welcome to the blogs. Nice post by the way.

Your second sentence in the above quote is something that really caught my eye as a genuinely new thought (for me anyway). I still do not believe there was any attempt to deliberately deceive, but I actually had never considered how the 'no' voters might legitimately feel even MORE agrieved than your average Southwestern 'yes' voter if they felt a 'bait and switch' had occured.

And appologies to GF if this has been your point all along, but I dont think you have ever put quite this spin on things. And I have to admit to a little bit of prejudice when it comes to the NO voters(OK..A lot of prejudice) because I just cannot conceive of voting against a school referendum unless it for something REALLY looney....like a new football stadium (GF -- deliberate jab! ;-))

Hmmmm....unfair to the NO voters.....now that is food for thought.

WOW

thanks for the link! someone should play that for popejoy (let him know the high caliber and impartial SB we have going here in D204 (publically ridiculing/mocking constituents' valid conerns). Even if she is thinking it and wanted to get a jab in, why the hell say it on record (have some level of control geesh)! However, In all fairness to clark, this was before NSFOC filed the lawusit.

------------------------------------------------------------------
By sickofnamecalling on May 21, 2008 9:33 PM
Maybe if more people understood how this SB has conducted itself. Here is a video clip of Jeannette Clark at the Feb. 25, 2008 SB meeting where she is addressing children. Their laughing and joking around and not taking this seriously is why there is a lawsuit.

Feb 25, 2008 @ the 21:10 mark

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

D&S, I like your scoreboard. Keep it coming.

Deliberate Strategy:

"Please note that there is a specific team assigned to this blog by your school board and admin to promote the strategy as follows..."

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

A couple of months back, Christine Vickers posted a response on this blog. Do you consider a real-live board member to be part of this "team?"

Also, Anon posters have identified themselves as being part of the NSFOC leadership when posting their comments on the situation. Why no outrage here? I'm OK with NSFOC people posting as part of the promotion of their strategy. Aren't both sides allowed to spew their propaganda?

Seriously, what's the big deal?

A lot of talk about the school board elections of 2009 which leads me to ask. How does a school boundary get changed after it is in place? I guess what I'm asking is, can a SB elected in 09 change the boundaries again?

I would imagine there are rules in place regarding boundaries, but I haven't seen or heard them discussed before. If it's a simple majority, then a slate of candidates wanting to switch any particular subdivision back to, or into a different high school could run on that platform. We would probably then find out how the entire district thinks / feels about the boundaries. Record voting turnouts, and in essence this would be similar to the "re-do" many are asking for.

Maybe if more people understood how this SB has conducted itself. Here is a video clip of Jeannette Clark at the Feb. 25, 2008 SB meeting where she is addressing children. Their laughing and joking around and not taking this seriously is why there is a lawsuit.

Feb 25, 2008 @ the 21:10 mark

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

By perspective on May 21, 2008 8:47 PM
By Civics on May 21, 2008 6:04 PM

Nicely stated. I do believe that there are those (GF, D&S (Most times :-), and others that do have a greater concern about the SB as well as the site -- I do not believe that their views are without merit, however, you summed well my thoughts -- the root cause of all of this is about boundaries. Yes, maybe some good comes from their fight. I am just not sure the end justifies the means.

Kind regards,
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, and with due respect, I am disappointed by this response as it is both dismissive and incongruous with what I once thought was an open and honest debate.

GF and many others will say that THEY are supportive of the suit because of the perversion of the democratic process, the gas lines, etc. And I do not doubt them.....but(and with me there is always a but) I suspect that if you scratch the surface, many of these other concerns were generated after-the-fact. After the fact of the new boundaries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Civics,

To be fair every objection is after the fact simply because the site was chosen before anyone had the opportunity to react. Remember, and if I recall accurately, MWGen pulled out on a Thursday, the following Friday the SB announced that (paraphrase) all sites will be considered and by Monday they agreed to buy the AME land and closed immediately afterwards. Again, and in the name of fairness, do you believe that the SB gave the voters of 204 an opportunity to do anything before the fact? Do you believe that the SB acted in a manner that even remotely approximates their efforts when trying the get the 2006 referendum passed?

I believe that you and I are both self serving in our efforts, blogs, etc. does it make us both wrong?

I've been reading the blogs regarding the 204 situation for a long time, well before the boundary decision and the lawsuit. From what I've gathered, there are many, many people that have a negative opinion of Tall Grass. It honestly used to bother me but doesn't anymore. How many times have bloggers brought up the 20 or 30 Tall Grass people (I was there, didn't storm out and can count) that stormed out of the boundary meeting in 06 at NVHS? More frustrating is the number of bloggers on this blog and other sites that hold that action (of maybe 20-30 people) against the entire Tall Grass subdivision? How many SB members are holding a grudge and basing decisions on the actions of those 20-30 people that walked out in anger at that boundary meeting. I know of at least one SB member, the current President that has labeled the entire community as "hostiles".

I used to care what people thought of my community. I don't anymore as I have nothing to be ashamed of and truly like my neighbors. I think many of you are making a mistake by labeling the entire TG community as hostile, entitled, racist, prejudiced against WVHS, etc. (I must have missed something). I'm sick of hearing about people at soccer games, the grocery store, NVHS baseball games that think the entire TG community is "tarnished".

Many in TG care deeply about children, education, and community. I myself have taken on major volunteer commitments that not only benefit my children (nor just those in the TG community) but benefit the entire 204 population. Frankly, I'm sick to death of reading blogs trashing me and where I live.

I'm not a member of NSFOC yet understand the level of frustration that brought about the lawsuit.

Keep on bashing TG. I really don't see the point. What difference does it make? Are you going to start tarring and feathering those of us that live in TG? Are you going to be mean to our children?

What are the consequences of the "tarnished reputation" some of you like to continually point out? I really don't care what anyone thinks of my neighborhood, who cares if it's tarnished.

On Friday we will all know whether or not the NSFOC suit has merit. I expect if it is not dismissed, the TG bashing will escalate.

By Civics on May 21, 2008 6:04 PM

Nicely stated. I do believe that there are those (GF, D&S (Most times :-), and others that do have a greater concern about the SB as well as the site -- I do not believe that their views are without merit, however, you summed well my thoughts -- the root cause of all of this is about boundaries. Yes, maybe some good comes from their fight. I am just not sure the end justifies the means.

Kind regards,

Hi Civ
Great Post.

I can only speak for me: yup you mostly nailed it. BAD/flawed process that cannot go unchallenged and I also hate the pipes and the risk to life and subsequent liability (no matter how small a risk...the consequences of it happening is a national game changer. Just like a 1 mile long astroid would be smashing into anywhere the Earth). Also bad location from a Student population density standpoint. I think this will come back to haunt us unless enrollment falls to a point that WV closes and even then, its better to have a centrally located HS for the more sparcely student pop areas to help reduce crazy bus commutes for some areas.

I have also stated many times that I have looked in the mirror (I wish everyone would do this...including the pro Eola folks at Brookdale) and I know my personal reasons for not liking the Eola site is because we go on a bus for an hour a day (30 min each way? your guess is as good as mine and depends on route and # of stops) versus the HS that is 1 mile away. I dont care what folks say about 20% TG walkers etc. I could walk it or bike it either by 95th or using the upcoming ped bridge which would be even quicker and I could do this much faster than Driving to NV and actually parking in the area allotted for students and walking to the school from the parking lot Or driving or bussing to WV.

However that location piece is not in my top 3 reasons for supporting the suit. Also, If you remember I was against the 3rd HS. I thought there were more cost effective means of handling the temporary spike of enrollments (7-9 JR High vs 6-8 MS etc. etc.). Looks like the current enrollment data is supporting my initial read on things, but I could still be wrong.

Why dont we look at it from a manufacturing capacity standpoint? I am certainly not going to build/maintain a 3rd manufacturing plant (3rd HS) unless I am damn sure I can utilize most/all of the new capacity for a very long period of time so I can recoup my investment and generate accretive top/bottom lines by x # of years etc.. if I think we have temporary or seasonal spikes in demand (such as the buldge we currently see in the pipeline), there are ways to handle that such as prebuild inventory, expand current plants (expand NV, WV), add tools to run more product of your hottest sellers (move to 7-9 Jr high from MS) etc. etc.

What you dont do is sacrifice everything including your (SB's) reputation and trust with the constituents to jam through something to meet an artifical (IMO) 2009 deadline and jeopardize future needed referendums in the process.

I was against the 3rd HS no matter the location. The SB (with their consulting firm) sold a bill of goods (IMO) to the D204 constituents and "promised" a set location and boundaries. They set the precident of their own volition. I am asking them to follow through on their "promise" to their constituents and if they can't/won't; they should re-engage the voters with their alternate site selection. I am not asking for the sun/moon and stars here, its pretty simple. Like we talked about before, put both on the ballot (Eola vs BB, have to chose one) this keeps the riff raff (me) from a second bite at the apple and trust is restored in the process the SB chose of their own accord and (somewhat restored) for the SB itself.

I dont think I have ever been this disappointed in a government body or elected officials in my life. Truely laughable; its a circus. I am an independant but trend/tend to vote republican...... and George Bush (it pains me to say, was my #1 disappointment), but now I am happy to say D204 SB has overtaken GB for the #1 walk of shame spot in GF's book)

should be interesting on Friday. Civ, what kind of odds you layin on the dismissal hearing? I read both cases. A few good points in each. Both very boring. I think it does not get dismissed. maybe 60/40 depending if if Popjoy has aspirations of higher courts in future (then maybe odds are much higher it moves on and does not get dismissed)

----------------------------------------------------
By Civics on May 21, 2008 6:04 PM
D+S

I appreciate the position of you and many others who simply want to go to the closest school. I believe you when you say you think they would have passed the '06 referendum (or even '05) if they could have been assured that would be the case. Even though the new school would have gone elsewhere and not DIRECTLY benefited them per se. But it would have been a net benefit to the district as a whole and TG et al would have supported it with their votes. I think that is a pretty decent summary of your thoughts, yes?

And I don't see it as a problem as such....except....

I guess what I am saying is that taking the next step -- that of filing a lawsuit based on the above -- means that this really is fundamentally about the boundaries for the NSFOC founders. If they had been left alone, there would be no lawsuit. If they had gotten their second-best alternative, BB, there would be no lawsuit. If someone ELSE were moving to WV, there would be no lawsuit. But they got their WORST outcome - which is FURTHEST away (and older to boot.... and whatever other negative stereotypes you choose to attach to WV) And I certainly understand that beef.

Now...if you agree with me thus far...

You cannot say on the one hand that the boundary issue is the initial cause (though perhaps not ultimately the only one) of the NSFOC action and NOT say that it is a wee bit self serving. If you believe that a third high school is needed and will benefit the district, but you are putting a lawsuit in the way of getting built quickly (or built at all) because it will negatively affect your school situation, then what other conclusion can be drawn?

GF and many others will say that THEY are supportive of the suit because of the perversion of the democratic process, the gas lines, etc. And I do not doubt them.....but(and with me there is always a but) I suspect that if you scratch the surface, many of these other concerns were generated after-the-fact. After the fact of the new boundaries.

To anon by choice on May 21, 2008 3:03 PM--

And D&S continues to create list/categories for anybody who disagrees with her. Let's start a list of those that think D&S needs to get a life at least a real perspective on reality.

To anon on May 21, 2008 5:56 PM--

D&S thinks this blog belongs to him/her and feels free to label anyone who posts as anonymous as a stalker, sniper, etc., thereby tring to minimize the impact of anyone's opinion except his/hers. I agree, get a life. If I want to post as anonymous it's none of your business and doesn't invalidate my opinion
___________________________________

What a depressing pair. Why don't you both take some of that money the SB is insisting you saved by supporting the Eola site and buy yourselves a sense of humor.

To Anons: the list is not exclusively for ANon's or exclusively for those that disagree with DS or anyone else for that matter. The list is for unreasonable, outlandish, venomous posts coming mostly from Anons such as yourselves.

It is also not just for pro eola folks either (I think ETSB got loaded into one of the categories for a particularly venomous post that may have been banned my moderator Jim. ETSB, dont feel bad, I got deleated for an inapproporate metaphor not too long ago lol)

MR is firmly in the pro eola/anti NSFOC camp and he does not show up on the list. Same for K Kid and many others. They all post cogient thought provokinng posts that do not contain venom.

----------------------------------------------------
By anon by choice on May 21, 2008 3:03 PM
And D&S continues to create list/categories for anybody who disagrees with her. Let's start a list of those that think D&S needs to get a life at least a real perspective on reality.

By anon on May 21, 2008 5:56 PM
D&S thinks this blog belongs to him/her and feels free to label anyone who posts as anonymous as a stalker, sniper, etc., thereby tring to minimize the impact of anyone's opinion except his/hers. I agree, get a life. If I want to post as anonymous it's none of your business and doesn't invalidate my opinion.

By it's almost over on May 21, 2008 3:34 PM
doctorwho is extremely bitter. she immediately rejects anything that the SB does. thankfully, this will be over in two days
-----------------------------------------------------

No it won't. Even if the NSFOC suit is ultimately unsuccessful (either on Friday, or after the full trial/courtcase) the questions will not stop. The probe for information will not stop. The majority of the SB still comes up for relection in 2009 and the balance of the board in 2011. BB cases continue to drag on. Operating referendums will eventually need to be loaded to ballots and actually passed without adheering to anything the SB says since any "reasonable voter" should discount anything they say if its not written down on the ballot (per their own dismissal case information) etc. etc. etc.

I think this HS mess is going to cost our district FAR MORE than anyone is willing to admit and is prepared to pay (and I am not talking about the cost to build it). Maybe "Dr. Who" is on to something (time to grab a lifeboat while everyone is busy re-arranginng deck chairs on the good ship Titanic)

For me, I prefer to wait it out and see what happens with the NSFOC suit and in April 2009 with the SB elections. I can swim...Should be really interesting.

Civics...I concede that for many, the support of NSFOC could be about boundaries (although I do not buy into the elitist/racist angle).

However, it is the District that made the build up to the 2006 referendum about the specific BB location and boundaries (not those who support the NSFOC cause). It did so because by its own admissions and strategy, it felt it needed to declare specific location and boundaries to secure a yes vote. In fact, Bradshaw indicated he voted for option 6a (which angered his fellow Brookdale neighbors) because he felt this was the only option that would pass (in reference to the referendum).

You may not like the rationale/perceieved selfishness, but I do not like the gerrymandering that went on to secure the yes vote. It is not fair or just to those who voted no, or those who voted yes based on specific boundaries and/or land location.

As an aside, there are many reasons that the Ames location does not make sense which have nothing to do with boundaries (nowhere near the population center to growth areas so the location will cause problems for 40-50 years to come).

D+S

Wrote a GREAT response ;-) to you earlier, but my computer ate it before I got it posted....will try to re-create it....
----------------------
BTW -- I already posted a note (as anonymous - got the GF disease) that defended you against Snipe who I think grossly misrepresented your views.....anyway....
--------------------

I appreciate the position of you and many others who simply want to go to the closest school. I believe you when you say you think they would have passed the '06 referendum (or even '05) if they could have been assured that would be the case. Even though the new school would have gone elsewhere and not DIRECTLY benefited them per se. But it would have been a net benefit to the district as a whole and TG et al would have supported it with their votes. I think that is a pretty decent summary of your thoughts, yes?

And I don't see it as a problem as such....except....

I guess what I am saying is that taking the next step -- that of filing a lawsuit based on the above -- means that this really is fundamentally about the boundaries for the NSFOC founders. If they had been left alone, there would be no lawsuit. If they had gotten their second-best alternative, BB, there would be no lawsuit. If someone ELSE were moving to WV, there would be no lawsuit. But they got their WORST outcome - which is FURTHEST away (and older to boot.... and whatever other negative stereotypes you choose to attach to WV) And I certainly understand that beef.

Now...if you agree with me thus far...

You cannot say on the one hand that the boundary issue is the initial cause (though perhaps not ultimately the only one) of the NSFOC action and NOT say that it is a wee bit self serving. If you believe that a third high school is needed and will benefit the district, but you are putting a lawsuit in the way of getting built quickly (or built at all) because it will negatively affect your school situation, then what other conclusion can be drawn?

GF and many others will say that THEY are supportive of the suit because of the perversion of the democratic process, the gas lines, etc. And I do not doubt them.....but(and with me there is always a but) I suspect that if you scratch the surface, many of these other concerns were generated after-the-fact. After the fact of the new boundaries.

Deliberate,

There is at least one school board member who knows I hang out on these blogs. I bet (opoinion alert) everyone can guess which member. She also knows that although I don't blindly follow the SB (still want to know about those vent things that Arch talks about) that my concern is to get the third HS built--somewhere. She also knows what I think of (opinion alert?) the NSFOC and those who insist we don't need the third HS. Now let's assume (hypothetical, like let's pretend) we have a conspiracy. Who would be the first people to be asked to join? Those who have never been seen on the boards before so that their arrival at a given time would be suspect, or someone who has already been open and honest about her feelings?

I would think (opinion alert) that you would look for someone sympathetic to the school board who has already "infiltrated" the boards. Okay school board hacks, hear that? I'm on your side, pick me, pick me.

If someone really has turned, I suggest that person make the e-mail public through the news media who can make sure that all identifying info is removed. That would surely discredit the School Board and might even make the case for some of those suing us. I bet (opinion alert) it would be worth a fortune to whoever turned it over to Shawn Collins and the NSFOC.

My guess (opinion alert) is that you are the hack from the NSFOC sent to build paranoia about the SB and discredit them. Wow, paranoia works in two directions, who would have thunk it?

D&S thinks this blog belongs to him/her and feels free to label anyone who posts as anonymous as a stalker, sniper, etc., thereby tring to minimize the impact of anyone's opinion except his/hers. I agree, get a life. If I want to post as anonymous it's none of your business and doesn't invalidate my opinion.

Deliberate Strategy:

"Sorry - to easy to know who said it then and there is more to come. I am not involved, but I have seen them on paper."

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

OK. Thanks. No evidence.

(However, if true -- it is despicable.)

I've seen a few emails tossed my way from SB members talking about "spies" and organizing against NSFOC.

By Deliberate Strategy on May 21, 2008 3:59 PM

Sorry - to easy to know who said it then and there is more to come. I am not involved, but I have seen them on paper.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it was written down and sent out then what difference would it make if one was able to figure out who wrote it. I guess my question is did you see the email that directed this team of anti-NSFOC assassins to execute the strategy you espoused or did you see an email saying that there was a team being directed by the SB?

I did not intend for my previous post to in anyway imply that one should not have their own opinions and post them freely. I only intended to point out that there are far too many posting on both sides of this issue that present opinions as fact. I, for one, discount what is said if it can not be identified as one or the other. I am only saying that if you want us to believe the number and cost figures thrown around as fact then it should not be difficult to show your hand. The same goes for the emails or other written “facts” that are used to support your argument.

In other words “I heard from a friend who heard from a friend who heard from another you been messin’ around” may make interesting song lyrics, but they carry little weight with me (and probably others on this blog given some of the follow up posts)

Kind regards,

Deliberate strategy.........fair enough.

Sorry, proper sender ID now provided.

By Metea Either Way on May 21, 2008 3:01 PM
By Deliberate Strategy on May 21, 2008 1:25 PM
By Civics on May 21, 2008 12:36 PM
Deliberate Strategy:

"Please note that there is a specific team assigned to this blog by your school board and admin to promote the strategy as follows..."

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

Evidence please?
___________

Have seen the emails. One of your own has already turned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Deliberate Strategy: if you are inclined, please copy & paste said e-mail stripping it of any personal indentifiers.

Thanks in advance.
___________

Sorry - to easy to know who said it then and there is more to come. I am not involved, but I have seen them on paper.

Incredulous - Yes, the new school has to be next to someone. Problem is at Eola, making it much closer for some (Ginger Woods, Stonebride, Cambridge Chase, Harris Farm) makes it seriously farther to get to school for many others - Watts, Cowlishaw, Owen, Gombert, TG, south side of WE...(combined, more students than the north neighborhoods listed who all attend Granger and still need Oakhurst and Oakhurst North to fill it up). Under BB, the former schools remained status quo at WV - no increase. At the same time with BB, the latter schools, with the exception of TG (not sure about Gombert in regard to their hs placement w/ BB? MV?), actually got a decrease in commute. The SB pursued BB in part, by Metzger's own words, because of its proximity to the epicenter of the student population. They, or anyone, could have never believed frontal property on Rt.59 was going to be the least costly piece of land. It was known it wasn't even before the condemnation proceedings. So, the land "cost savings" issue has only recently become a priority and a "selling point" to the constituents. Before that it was, and more legitimately in my opinion, higher priority on what location best served the district now and in the future (knowing growth would continue in the south).

I am one of the people who has asked about seeing the numbers and has questioned why we haven't - not only on the blog - but directly to the SB. I promise, I asked nicely! Still waiting. Brue Glawe supposedly had a spreadsheet of his cost analysis done in 06 when they wanted everyone to believe there was transportation cost savings at BB. I have personally heard Curt Bradshaw reference his spreadsheet about the cost savings he's calculated for Eola.
Yet, we've never seen either of them - or the route/cost numbers from Laidlaw (nothing outside of their bogus time estimates) up there on the Power Point or the district website for the world to see. Why not, if it's all legitimate and substantiated? Can both of them possibly be right? If not, why accuse the NSFOC of creating a ruse? It appears to be the SB who's creating a ruse - either back in 06 or now. I don't think either of them (Glawe/Bradshaw) is an actuary, and a bonafide actuary did speak at the Feb. boundary meeting and had some pretty stinging comments for the SB in regard to their computations. Maybe that still exists somewhere in cyberspace, but I certainly can't quote the guy at this point. Anyway, someone has probably FOIA'd the information by now...maybe someday we'll have the truth. Sad people have to beg or go through legal manuevers to get it, isn't it?
*************
By Incredulous on May 21, 2008 2:47 PM
big picture issues,

This has simply been another conundrum created by the SB raising doubts about the integrity of their information and assessment. Two years ago there was a cost savings for using BB. Now there is cost savings at Eola. With no significant changes in demographics (other than yet more people south of 95th), how can both statements be true?
---------------
It is not that hard to imagine. By definition, a new school is next to someone. With three schools instead of two, a lot of kids will simply be closer to school, be it at Eola or BB.

This is one of my favorite NSFOC ruses -- using the cost savings claimed for BB as a cost increase for Eola. Whoever it was that asked for the students and miles to be posted is right. That is the only way to answer the travel time question. It would still not answer the cost question, though, unless someone here is ready to tell the vendor how they should do their own pricing (which I would not put past some folks here, either).

By Metea Either Way on May 21, 2008 3:01 PM
By Deliberate Strategy on May 21, 2008 1:25 PM
By Civics on May 21, 2008 12:36 PM
Deliberate Strategy:

"Please note that there is a specific team assigned to this blog by your school board and admin to promote the strategy as follows..."

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

Evidence please?
___________

Have seen the emails. One of your own has already turned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Deliberate Strategy: if you are inclined, please copy & paste said e-mail stripping it of any personal indentifiers.

Thanks in advance.
___________

Sorry - to easy to know who said it then and there is more to come. I am not involved, but I have seen them on paper.

What a stupid statement. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Are you sure this will be over in two days? Do you have a magic crystal ball?

_______________________________

By it's almost over on May 21, 2008 3:34 PM
doctorwho is extremely bitter. she immediately rejects anything that the SB does. thankfully, this will be over in two days.

doctorwho is extremely bitter. she immediately rejects anything that the SB does. thankfully, this will be over in two days.

And D&S continues to create list/categories for anybody who disagrees with her. Let's start a list of those that think D&S needs to get a life at least a real perspective on reality.

By Deliberate Strategy on May 21, 2008 1:25 PM
By Civics on May 21, 2008 12:36 PM
Deliberate Strategy:

"Please note that there is a specific team assigned to this blog by your school board and admin to promote the strategy as follows..."

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

Evidence please?
___________

Have seen the emails. One of your own has already turned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Deliberate Strategy: if you are inclined, please copy & paste said e-mail stripping it of any personal indentifiers.

Thanks in advance.

Incredulous, your posts always put a smile on my face. You have a tendancy to be able to verbalize what I don't seem able to express

big picture issues,

This has simply been another conundrum created by the SB raising doubts about the integrity of their information and assessment. Two years ago there was a cost savings for using BB. Now there is cost savings at Eola. With no significant changes in demographics (other than yet more people south of 95th), how can both statements be true?
---------------
It is not that hard to imagine. By definition, a new school is next to someone. With three schools instead of two, a lot of kids will simply be closer to school, be it at Eola or BB.

This is one of my favorite NSFOC ruses -- using the cost savings claimed for BB as a cost increase for Eola. Whoever it was that asked for the students and miles to be posted is right. That is the only way to answer the travel time question. It would still not answer the cost question, though, unless someone here is ready to tell the vendor how they should do their own pricing (which I would not put past some folks here, either).

To Metea Either Way, GF, MR, BPI, Civics, K. Kid. Perspective, et al.--

Due to a recent increase in these type of postings, Metea suggested that I add a new category to my list of noteable bloggers: Strawmen. We therefore acknowlege the following three bloggers for their contributions to this category:

Naperville Buckeye: for his ability to turn ANY comment into a cyberbullying rant against the NSFOC.

Ready, aim, snipe: for posting thoughtful, intelligent-sounding questions and morphing the answers into impressive misrepresentations involving NVHS, WVHS, MVHS, 2006, 2008, the NSFOC, the referendum, voting, suing, boundaries and anything else she could think of. Well done!

Anon on 5/20 at 9:16: for claiming that the NSFOC only cares about boundaries by referencing comments they made at a boundary meeting.

Updated score:

Stalkers: 5
Snipers: 12
Strawmen: 3
Smarta$$es: 1

Thanks to all of you who continue to make this list possible!

Deliberate Strategy,

Please note that there is a specific team assigned to this blog by your school board and admin to promote the strategy as follows
-------------------
Wow. This is one of the most paranoid things I have heard yet. And on this blog, that's saying something.

By any estimate Eola is costing the taxpayers at least $25 million more than Brach-Brodie site, in a est case scenario.
--------------------
Simply untrue. There are plenty of analyses that show that Eola is cheaper if you leave out exaggerated costs and wild assumptions. The reason no one pays attention to the crazy cost numbers out there is that they are crazy.

This leads me to believe there are some other things going on here, such as a deliberate fraud on the taxpayers by the referendum bond community.
--------------------
OK. So now the SB is screwing you, their consultants screwed you, the media is screwing you, and the bond business is screwing you. Something is definitely screwy. It just might not be all of them.

Deliberate Strategy,

Like your comments a lot. Keep the good stuff coming.

Here is another person who turned from a D204 school board supporter to a dissenter. The D204 supporters are down to a trickle. Unfortunately, they have all kinds of time on their hands to launch a steady stream of responses with each opposing comment. Some of these people may be the same person. I wonder when they will be dismissed by the SB and turn like Dr. Who.

From Dr. Who on the blue blog - Proboards 76 talking to a new blue blogger:

Re: Not Back to the Drawing Board
« Reply #53 Today at 9:01am »

Yes, unfortunately today it does:

And since you are new to the board- let me explain my background. In the district almost 20 years and very active for much of it. Worked literally daily for the referendum, including writing press releases and fliers for 204tk, have been involved with everything from PTA's to Booster clubs - and worked for the re-election of SB candidates (now scratching my head on that one) - all based on a few facts. I was also one of 3 finalists to replace a SB seat a few uears ago. So I am not some random nay say'er with no insight into how things have gotten to whee they are - I have a very good grasp on that.

1/ I love ( loved ?) 204 - but not the way it is being run today

2/ I am a very positive person, but once you feel you have been lied to and mislead completely on some issues - trust me that changes

3/ My school of choice was Waubonsie Valley. I am not one of those who doesn't want to go there ( and there are far fewer of those people than the SB would like you to believe) - I am quite the opposite. I have all the respect in the world for Waubsonie ( have a 2003 graduate) - and find the concept of socio-engineering of the school to be the "new Waubonsie' insulting

4/ I absolutely feel that bait and switch was done in this district - and although some will smugly say, can;t we read the ballot' I have explained here before the wording was going to be different, SBmemebrs told people they couldn;t change it for the election ( too close in) and we hired a company tomake sure the site/boundaries were done to achieve a maximum yes vote. Many people voted yes on a centrall located, safe site - that would have voted NO on this site. It also holds true that entire area voted NO because they didn't like the site/boundaries ( Brookdale) that now see a burning need for the 3rd HS ASAP -

5/ The premise of the 3rd HS was built on a population in the near future of 10,400 ( after a 2001 study said 8900 max) -
Well the SB's own March number now confirm 8900 by 2013 is the right number - and declining from there. What changed to cause us to use another service ( NIU - which also recently grossly oversatted St Charles as well) - when we had it right the first time ?

6/ Some of the shenanigans/ role playing by some SB members is insulting -- for JC to pretend that planning to open other parts of MV in late Jan 2010 is new news is disengenuous at best - acting at worst. Hell This was a known fact for most of us months ago - did she just find out ? No...all done for effect.....I truly believe at this stage they believe they are smarter than the general populace here, or that we forget things easily.

So if I appear bitter and angry, it is because I am. I worked very hard for things that turned out to be false. I misled many peoiple in person and in writing as to what the facts were -- and will never , ever do that again.

So as for school choice - yes, I saw this coming late last year when I started getting ambiguous answers to questions. The shift started then. So we were prepared and my daughter did her shadow day, prepped for the entrance exam ( thank God as more than 1/2 the applicants were turned down) - and we are moving forward with that choice.

She will get a school that will be COMPLETE - the day she enters.. she will not have to change schools- and then end up somewhere where there is construction going on, dangerous pipelines underfoot, IMHO EMF concerns from surrounded high tension wires to peaker plants, have NO varsity sports until at least her Junior year, will have all the oppostunities to participate in all clubs - events - sports from day 1 -- and not travel to the furthest school from our house to do so. ( Note: Watts already travels to the 3rd closest MS as well).

While the average time on the SB from Watts to MV is listed as 30 minutes ( what isn't ?)- I have on solid SD admin info from my house that is 42 mins + ( if they keep runnng double busses forever) - basically an hour and 1/2 a day to fill a school placed where approx 15% of the student population lives. It is the furthest distance wise and by dar time wise from my hoe of all 204 HS's and the 6th closest HS periopd from my home. Wheaton Warrenville south is closer. In rush hour I can get to WVHS in 11-12 minutes - it is almost triple that time to get to MV - so for 16-17 year old kids driving this is a hazard, and for parents who want to volunteer - this is crippling.

So for all the reasons above I find it very hard to be positive any more about most of what goes on here. I still love the kids here, I love most of the teachers here, I like at least 1 of our SB admin - but the rest of the leadership team lost their way ( IMHO) and does not today remotely repreent me or my area, nor are they interested to.

I hope that explains my standpoint for you and any other new posters here -- ( probably more info than you wanted - but again, wanted you to know I am not just some complain about everything person - was never the case until recently)-

also btw - belated welcome and don't worry about being crushed by 'the gang' - that card is overplayed by some ( the poor me card) who choose to make blanket statements and then not not be willing to defend them at all- rather rush to where they are 100% supported regardless - then claim brutality.I don't get the sense that is what you are looking for- just more knowledge.

I am not saying no one ever steps out - it happens, but you will usually find people apologize if they overstep - and again it is part of the learning process, to get varying opinions. I hope you choose to stick around and participate - there are some very nice people here also- and many with similar district backgrounds to mine -- and more involvement - so lots of knowledge.

By perspective on May 21, 2008 12:37 PM
By Deliberate Strategy on May 21, 2008 11:48 AM

There are a great number of people on this site that have chosen to be respectful (your post is) and state what they know as fact and can prove same or preface their statements as being their opinion ( as everyone is entitled to have), which your post does not. I find your post interesting on many fronts -- you quote numbers -- votes, supporters, etc. . .where did those numbers come from?, claim that the SB and admin have assigned a team -- really, you think of yourself as so important that the SB and admin would take the time to mount a specific strategic and deliberate program in place just to defeat you. I have heard a number of conspiracy theories on these boards but this may be the best, IMHO, piece of fiction yet. In terms of length and off topic remarks you seem to fit the very profile that you apparently abhore.

If all of this is strictly your opinion, then I respect that, but please say it is. If it is not then prove yourself and I will become a believer.

Kind regards,
_____________

Dear Perspective,

Sorry if I presented anything other than my opinon as facts. However, votes come directly from the election results. Do I have to site the election returns reports? NSFOC supporters numbers comes from previously reported numbers in presentations, from discussions with NSFOC members...from opposition to NSFOC, etc. They seem reasonable to me.

Anyway to assume that 10,000 NO voters are now all supportive of D204's desires woudl be wrong. To assume that 15,000 YES voters are still supporters of the district would also be wrong. Take a percentage of these and you get a higher number of people not supporting the district. Bottom line would be to re-vote.

The assigned team issue. I have seen the emails. Guidance was given to this team just like the YES team in 2006.

Most is my opinion, but based on factual information like vote count, prices quoted in media, D204's own data, etc. To say that anyone on this blog is sharing only hard, stone cold facts, and trying to leave that impression by saying only facts are used by certain groups on this blog (when they are not always sharing facts themselves) is funny at best.

This is not the green blog where you can control what people say. I challenge anyone to come up with a counter to my numbers other than "these are not facts".

I respect others right to opinions and hope others respect my right as well. But if they don't, well I will live another day.

Thanks for the feedback.

By Tarnished Reputation on May 20, 2008 3:31 PM
Whether deserved or not, the reputation of the entire TG community has been tarnished due to the actions of the NSFOC.

"Last Saturday at a youth soccer game, as one team was finishing up their game and another was arriving to the field, one arriving parent was heard saying "oh look, the other Tall Grass team is playing before us".

Once this woman was out of range, a whole group of people around the area started making rude and stereotypical comments about TG. They didn't even seem to know each other, but found common amusement in bashing TG."

Hate to say it, but it's common fodder everywhere (I heard similar comments/jokes at a NV baseball game by some parents).
I doubt if it bothers those folks though. The nsfoc characters are obviously oblivious and/or apathetic to begin with...they had to be to sue their fellow district residents and then actually be surprised at the resulting backlash!

By Not in NSFOC? on May 21, 2008 12:42 PM
Deliberate Strategy on May 21, 2008 11:48 AM

I'll let others dissect your case, but I noticed that after you went on at length regarding your 4 points you said, "I feel like joining the NSFOC for that reason alone".

Reading your blog I could almost sense fire coming off your fingertips. I'm puzzled that with this much passion you haven't even joined NSFOC yet? Perhaps you mis typed, but I'm curious why you haven't joined?

_______

Dont join groups normally. No time or desire generally speaking.

By Civics on May 21, 2008 12:36 PM
Deliberate Strategy:

"Please note that there is a specific team assigned to this blog by your school board and admin to promote the strategy as follows..."

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

Evidence please?
___________

Have seen the emails. One of your own has already turned.

the bus company said they would lower the number of stops for each bus so that the maximun time on a bus for any individual student would be reduced. Hope that helps.

MR - Yes, it's true, that all of TG is not walkers, per your definition. There would be buses.

I (and many) have questioned the bus co. information used to make their determinations of miles, time, and cost - what are the routes, how many buses, what are we increasing, what are we decreasing, etc? I haven't seen anything published on this. The only response has been, as far as I'm aware, is "you have to take our word for it". Sorry, but those days for me are gone.

Anyway, with lack of information provided, it can (and should) only be assumed that the buses are taking the "main routes" from south to north for safety reasons. This would be use of Rt.59, Rt.34, Montgomery Rd., etc. Others have made suggestions and comments on using "alternative" more back road approaches, but living south and using them myself, I don't think they are viable alternatives for buses, especially as safety is concerned - too many poorly kept roads with one lane in each direction and stop signs with sharp lefts following in appx. 200 ft. over grade level tracks.
I'm not sure how you figure in the a.m. south/north commute is going the opposite of the main traffic flow. Just about everyone is going north to Rt.88/Rt.34 and the train station.

If it's true that more buses/more routes will be used to keep travel times down, not only for TG, but Cowlishaw, Watts, Owen that seems to fly in the face of any cost savings. As it stands, right now I don't even think Cambridge Chase can be considered walkers to MV because there are no sidewalks. When will those be put in? What's the "status" of the bridge near Harris Farm? Can any walkers at all use it? I think it ends on the east side of Eola pretty far north of the hs site....currently no sidewalks..not sure.

This has simply been another conundrum created by the SB raising doubts about the integrity of their information and assessment. Two years ago there was a cost savings for using BB. Now there is cost savings at Eola. With no significant changes in demographics (other than yet more people south of 95th), how can both statements be true? Why won't the SB publish/disclose the calculations? While it is true that many in the north will have reduced travel miles/times to MV vs. WV. I think, overall, with Eola vs. BB, MORE kids are affected by longer miles, longer times (TG, some of WE, some of Ashwood, Watts, Owen, Cowlishaw, and parts of Gombert). That is why I think the SB keeps talking about AVERAGE travel times and distances. They are not measuring it in number of kids affected. I have not done hard calculations myself, so it's just an estimate of sorts - hard for anyone to do without all of the info. But under this scenario it seems, at least, more kids are negatively affected. I am NOT saying its better to happen to one neighborhood vs. another - it is simply an argument against a location that does not best serve as many kids as possible, especially in the long term if it is necessary to keep pulling from central/south to fill north. It can only mean more kids on buses at more expense.

The 2 hr. comment, by the way, is not coming from TG. It is coming from "Mom", who lives in Springbook and says it will take 2 hrs. from there to WV, not MV. Don't know at all where that number comes from. The only other thing I can say about travel times, is that people from Owen east, who currently have a relatively long commute to WV now, disputed Laidlaw's published times at one of the SB meetings...saying they seemed to be off by about 10 minutes. So, I think everyone is figuring that while no one knows exactly by how much, the Laidlaw times are not accurate.
####################
To: By Flip Floppin' on May 20, 2008 9:13 PM

If I recall correctly only 10-20% of TG are considered "walkers" at NVHS. Which means that buses would still travel throuh TG if their kids were to still stay at NVHS. Walkers is defined by those that live closer then 1-1 1/2 miles from the school if you take the roads (not the Ped. Bridge). Therefore, buses would still run through the majority of TG regardless if they went to NVHS, WVHS or MVHS at BB.

I also recall the bus company saying that the routes will be shorter and they will have more buses going trough TG to keep those travel times down. This obviously leads to doubt and needs more clarification.

What I don't appreciate is when I keep seeing the times to travel to WVHS going up every month. First it was 23 minutes, then 30, then 35, then 45, then an hour, now some are saying 2 hours? Come on people!!!

I actually did drive from the TG clubhouse to WVHS by taking the back roads and not take RT. 59 to 75th to Ogden. I entered Ogden from Frontenac. I'm sure there are also other ways to drive like Montgomery that might be faster? I drove this during the times that the buses would be traveling in the moring and afternoon. It took me 15 minutes in the moring and between 20-25 minutes in the afternoon. Remember you are traveling the opposite way that the majority of the traffic is going. Most the the traffic and backups travel east in the moring and west in the afternoon.

Now keep in mind this was with no bus stops and a direct drive. However, you'd have to make quite a few stops to get up to an hour or 2 hours.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you believe your kids would have been walkers at NVHS or not the buses would still be running through TG. Just because TG might have a farther commute via the buses doesn't mean the cost are going up across the district. MVHS at Eola will shorten hundreds of kids commutes who have traveled for years a farther distance (more then 5 miles) then TG to WVHS.

I'm not saying either scenario right or justified I'm just trying to be objective and say that the hype isn't as bad as some are making it out to be.

Deliberate Strategy on May 21, 2008 11:48 AM

I'll let others dissect your case, but I noticed that after you went on at length regarding your 4 points you said, "I feel like joining the NSFOC for that reason alone".

Reading your blog I could almost sense fire coming off your fingertips. I'm puzzled that with this much passion you haven't even joined NSFOC yet? Perhaps you mis typed, but I'm curious why you haven't joined?

By Deliberate Strategy on May 21, 2008 11:48 AM

There are a great number of people on this site that have chosen to be respectful (your post is) and state what they know as fact and can prove same or preface their statements as being their opinion ( as everyone is entitled to have), which your post does not. I find your post interesting on many fronts -- you quote numbers -- votes, supporters, etc. . .where did those numbers come from?, claim that the SB and admin have assigned a team -- really, you think of yourself as so important that the SB and admin would take the time to mount a specific strategic and deliberate program in place just to defeat you. I have heard a number of conspiracy theories on these boards but this may be the best, IMHO, piece of fiction yet. In terms of length and off topic remarks you seem to fit the very profile that you apparently abhore.

If all of this is strictly your opinion, then I respect that, but please say it is. If it is not then prove yourself and I will become a believer.

Kind regards,

Deliberate Strategy:

"Please note that there is a specific team assigned to this blog by your school board and admin to promote the strategy as follows..."

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

Evidence please?

MR,

I think you got confused, I am in Spring Brook and to get to WVHS Laidlaw told us it would be one hour each way for our kids--thus two hours per day. The highest number I have heard from anyone at TG is 1/2 hour each way thus 1 hour per day. With a school bus, I find that number to be totally realistic.

TG and WE do not have to cross 59 to get to WVHS and according to Laidlaw (not the school board, the bus company) that crossing adds a lot of time to the commute.

Oh, and just to be clear, the people at the other end of my block are also less than 1.5 miles, and they don't have to cross 59, even on a bridge.

Big Picture,

I will never feel "safely at Neuqua", however I do feel safely in 204. My understanding is that we will need three high schools for at least another 10 years, and that assumes no more building and no more families with children moving into the district, and even having some leave through attrition. I believe some will leave but those who fill the empty houses are just as likely to have kids as the ones who left. And I have a hard time believing there will be no new houses in the south or that all of them will be filled by empty-nesters.

If, however, it closes sooner than that my guess is that we will see a north-south split at either 87th (Will/DuPage) which keeps us at NVHS or at 95th in which case we will go north to the newer MVHS. Still two great schools.

To readers of this blog,

Please note that there is a specific team assigned to this blog by your school board and admin to promote the strategy as follows:

1. Make opposition to Eola look like one or two neighborhoods
2. Bash those neighborhoods as entitled elitists and racists - to make them feel guilty about their reputation in the community
3. Keep financial numbers out of any discussions. Ignore any correct information that's negative to Eola
4. Engage only people who distract the readers from the main issue by there long posts about non-issues

Suggested handling of each above strategy item:

1. In terms of the votes in the 2006 Referendum (10,000 NO votes..probably still NO votes, and 15,000 YES votes...many now anti-Eola today), the money raised by NSFOC(high $ for complex case still active, advertising, operating expenses, etc.), and the registered members of that group plus other supporters who donate but dont join (or are positive to the group that dont join)- approximately 3000+, and finally, those who disagree with NSFOC but are still unhappy with mostly all decisions made by our SB and the direction of the SB - about thousands. If you dont believe this, then why does the NSFOC supporters and others ask fora re-vote, but the Eola supporters do not even want to entertain that option? - Answer: Eola site would fail badly in a re-vote and the Eola supporters and D204 know this. Remember only 25,000 votes were cast in 2006 after a massive campaign to get the YES vote out.

2. This is disgusting from the standpoint that a consulting firm specializing in getting previously defeated referendums later passed (paid for with taxpayer money) actually recommended the strategy of isolation and promoting worst fears of parents. It worked in 2006, so why not continue on promoting it in 2008. Example - the thret of split shifts in 2006 and mentioned again recently. D204 is your employees and you should demand NO SPLIT SHIFTS - tell them to deal with it. Next, every comment directed at a specific neighborhood as if all people in the neighborhood reflect those views is stereotyping. Stereotyping IS the simplest definition of racism. When anyone tries to paint a larger group with the same brush, they are stereotyping. Such comments should be dismissed for what they are - a strategy that will not work on intelligent human beings. The funny thing about this whole situation is that the very neighborhoods called racists are the most diverse neighborhoods attending NVHS. And there is a bonus - they have brains to boost up academics, money to support fundraising/events, and they volunteer a lot - the trifecta. The problem is - when you bash such people - they do not forget the slander attempted. They stop supporting the schools as assertively, some move elsewhere, put kids in private school, and others will not participate in events because the distance does not fit their schedules (the reality of life). They are not going to feel as dedicated to D204. And these are the best frontline people that a district wants in the district. Some will get over it, but most will feel let down -- the result will not be what the district envisioned in their little social engineering experiment. The crazier the decisions, the more damage done by the district. Every action has an equal and offsetting reaction - eventually. And cumulated angst means greater pronounced reaction at some point.

3.The Sun says "Toll mounts for Brach-Brodie" as the headline, when in fact the toll is mounting for Eola because, without the Eola decision, most of the damages go away. By any estimate Eola is costing the taxpayers at least $25 million more than Brach-Brodie site, in a est case scenario. However, only the land cost gets of the two sites gets compared in the media. On top of this the total tab for the new school is well over $325 - 350 million from what I have seen in various articles, media, and blogs. These are all costs over time (years) for bonds, interest on bonds, new school operating costs, higher transportation costs at Eola vs Brach-Brodie, etc. While every business is re-evaluating their spending going forward in a recessionary environment, D204 blindly plows ahead, spending even more for expediting the project to meet an artificial deadline when prudence should be followed. Finally, D204 threatens the media with no future interviews or information if they will not print verbatim what D204 wants to be printed. D204 never retract blatant lies deliberately made to mislead the public. They have even stated that the media never prints their retractions. The shocking thing is that approach works. The investigative reporting is non-existent. And that is a slippery slope, when the majority is not being heard.

4. Such people discuss everything and anything but the main issue of concern to the majority of voters - who voted for one thing and got something entirely different at an now outrageous cost - example D204 is quickly approaching $200M for the school building itself - a figure that Plainfield is using to built 9 schools. Take these distractions for what they are worth - deliberate attempts to bore you to death so you will go away and let the district build it's castle. Finally, keep in mind that just because money has been spent, it is not lost. The Eola land can be sold for a value that covers the original cost plus the work do to date. Especially since our district said they paid market value.

In addition, it is clear to me that a new middle school is no longer needed because we already have 7000 middle school students (and never rise much above that figure..maybe 100 kids), and the high school enrollment projections are now well within capacity (enrollment projections were thus lies in 2006 because all growth figures were known 8 years ago). It makes you wonder if the middle school conversion argument was made to deliberately knock out another 1200 seats of existing high school capacity.

St. Charles has even gone as far as to throw out 2 studies done by Bond Broker Ehlers and Associates and NIU. St Charles D303 will bring in a third party professional demographer/consultant to do the enrollment study the right way. I just learned Ehler's is the D204 referendum bond broker and our study was done by NIU as well. This leads me to believe there are some other things going on here, such as a deliberate fraud on the taxpayers by the referendum bond community.

While the NSFOC does not have a position on this bond issue and primarily asks for the district to return to Brach-Brodie site for financial/constitutional reasons, at least they call for D204 to stop, slow down and re-think their overall situation. I feel like joining the NSFOC for that reason alone. D204 should take that advice seriously or risk permanent damage to the district.

Instead of just guessing that the S->N travel of the new boundaries balances out and cancels the costs of the N->S travels of today to high school why don't you post the students and mileage numbers of both current and proposed. That way no one has to guess and we can all know for a fact.

Stating something as conjecture does not make it fact.

To: By Flip Floppin' on May 20, 2008 9:13 PM

If I recall correctly only 10-20% of TG are considered "walkers" at NVHS. Which means that buses would still travel throuh TG if their kids were to still stay at NVHS. Walkers is defined by those that live closer then 1-1 1/2 miles from the school if you take the roads (not the Ped. Bridge). Therefore, buses would still run through the majority of TG regardless if they went to NVHS, WVHS or MVHS at BB.

I also recall the bus company saying that the routes will be shorter and they will have more buses going trough TG to keep those travel times down. This obviously leads to doubt and needs more clarification.

What I don't appreciate is when I keep seeing the times to travel to WVHS going up every month. First it was 23 minutes, then 30, then 35, then 45, then an hour, now some are saying 2 hours? Come on people!!!

I actually did drive from the TG clubhouse to WVHS by taking the back roads and not take RT. 59 to 75th to Ogden. I entered Ogden from Frontenac. I'm sure there are also other ways to drive like Montgomery that might be faster? I drove this during the times that the buses would be traveling in the moring and afternoon. It took me 15 minutes in the moring and between 20-25 minutes in the afternoon. Remember you are traveling the opposite way that the majority of the traffic is going. Most the the traffic and backups travel east in the moring and west in the afternoon.

Now keep in mind this was with no bus stops and a direct drive. However, you'd have to make quite a few stops to get up to an hour or 2 hours.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you believe your kids would have been walkers at NVHS or not the buses would still be running through TG. Just because TG might have a farther commute via the buses doesn't mean the cost are going up across the district. MVHS at Eola will shorten hundreds of kids commutes who have traveled for years a farther distance (more then 5 miles) then TG to WVHS.

I'm not saying either scenario right or justified I'm just trying to be objective and say that the hype isn't as bad as some are making it out to be.

When The northeners didn't get their way two years ago they grumbled and moved on, what they did not do was sue me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me if I am wrong but after the 2006 referendum passed the northerners' position, attending WVHS, etc. went relatively unchanged so they were, at worst, status quo in this respect.

I am a mom too on May 20, 2008 7:01 PM

Enjoy the laughs and giggles you are having today because someday you might not find yourself "safe at NV". At some point - when the rumored closing of WV takes place or when it stays and MV simply needs more kids to fill it, where do you think the kids are going to come from? The pattern of taking central neighborhoods to fill north and taking south to fill central will continue. This is the problem with the long term viability of the Eola/Molitor site. In the end, it's more commuting and more cost. The SB had Springbook moved out of NV in its scenarios before (at its own volition, not at the hand of TG), so don't think it can't happen again. I'd like to better understand your source of information for the 2 hr commute figures, by the way - probably done by the same people who calculated the one minute time difference in commute from TG to NV vs. TG to WV.

And, you are right, the northerns did not sue - they moved on. They (Brookdale) moved on by using the recourse they had available to them - VOTING NO TO THE REFERENDUM. They are a smaller population base in the big scheme, and the referendum passed (in my opinion) based on BB. The majority spoke via a vote. The majority of Brookdale didn't want it, the rest of the community did. What grounds would they have sued on? Seems like an entirely different scenario to me. If you are going to promote the "well at least they didn't sue me" scenario as a reason to hate TG, please be able to defend on what grounds the northerners would have viably sued.

You are right again that bigger homes with bigger price tags (clearly not ALL in TG and WE) don't run the district, nor should they. But, at the same time, these homes do pay higher taxes that are distributed equally among the district, for the betterment of ALL of the district, as it should be. But, this doesn't seem to be good enough for some, like you, and the SB. The same people who are being admonished for what they have are, at the same time, the ones being tapped, via busing, to socially engineer financial and academic equity within the district. This is not what the SB is calling it, but they have made direct comments about different school communities "fundraising efforts", and related "parental involvement" levels. Creating equity across the board is clearly one of the end game goals. I'm not against this idea, but as a teacher I am not in agreement with the way it has been undertaken. Money is not the answer to everything, but it's a perceived quick fix that the SB is betting on, and on which it is clearly making its decisions. So, like I said, be careful about laughing, because you may be next. We'll see how you feel when you're basically told that your money and your overwhelming willingness to be an involved parent are important and valued, but your opinions and facts surrounding them are not.......and your kids are on that bus for the 2 hr. commute to boot..........and then people laugh and call you a "cry baby" when you protest to protect what you think is in the best interest of your kids and your family.
*********************
I laugh when someone butts in line at the grocery store and I hear someone say "must be from Tall Grass, they're the only ones important enough to be first in line", or when someone (other than a teenager which is another whole story) runs a red light and someone in the car says, "must be from TG cause the rules don't apply to them". It tickles my funny bone and relieves tension.

When The northeners didn't get their way two years ago they grumbled and moved on, what they did not do was sue me. Therein lies a huge difference. Just because a subdivision has larger, higher priced homes does not mean they run the district. Some people from TG seem to believe that the golden rule is "He who has the gold gets to make the rules". Sorry, but a representative democracy is not supposed to work that way.

If you want an answer as to why you are being painted with a broad stroke, maybe the place to start looking for it is next door.

I moved from 203 to 204 about 5 years ago and have been amazed at the difference in culture and the school boards. I never felt in 203 that I was being lied to or manipulated by the board. I can't say the same here in 204.

I have no regrets at all about moving to 204 as the neighborhood, Naperville park district, libraries and community activities are all fantastic. The schools that our children have attended are also fantastic. The parents and teachers are fully engaged and focused on the kids. The issue in 204(IMHO) appears to be how the SB and SD interface with the parents. I've attended many school board meetings over the past 2 years and am amazed at how little conversation and active listening occur at the meetings. The school board appears to make up their minds before the meetings and goes through the motions with the public comment. Mezger and Daschner seem very arrogant and to be turned off when the public comments do not agree with their beliefs.

Perhaps they should read servant leadership and start to focus on engaging the community in open conversation. I do not believe that the root of all evil are 9 people in 2 subdivisions. Lawsuits do not occur when people problem solve together and communicate well. I believe the root cause of the situation in 204 is poor leadership and very poor communication. Perhaps a field trip for our BOD and Super to 203 is in order. Culture does not change over night and so it will take time to change but only if there is a will to change. We have great schools here in 204 in large part due to great teachers and parents. Dr D needs to learn how to partner with these teachers and parents. It appears the only folks he partners with are land owners in his back yard.

Hi Mom

I think flip floppin pretty much covered the bussing side of things.

I have lived here 3 years now. I did not go to the boundary meeting at NV that you are referring too. D&S said she was there, but I cant speak to anything that happened at that meeting. I only began to get involved when it becase clear to me that decisions were being made that have no basis in logic from the public data available.

No one is trying to drown out dissenting voices. Quite the opposite. I have taken more heat for my opinion (dissenting voice?) than I think most folks have with the exception being Todd Andrews and maybe Lisa (cant remember last name) brookdale lady that called everyone racist/predjudist or something to that effect.

No one is insisting your kids ride the bus an hour a day along with the TG kids. Allthough, you and a few other neighborhoods will most likely follow suit as the enrollment numbers drop and more bussing is required to fill the northern HS (if its built there) and in turn more boundry changes.

I send my kids to Fry. I dont cut in line (rather I try to be accomodating where possible) I have run a few yellows (well maybe a red or two) in my day. I am willing to bet that is not confined to TG residents.

Grumbling and move on? Yes, I would have done the same if the ref was for the Eola site minus the pipelines. If it passed, then thats what the district wanted (not what I think is best, but it is what it is). That is not what happened... and no, I don't go down without a fight.

I do look at my neighbors and you know what? some support NSFOC and some dont care as they did not vote.

The golden rule is treat others as you would like to be treated. If there are as many backstabbing comments out there as you say...well I guess I have not heard them yet. But I am perfectly capable of treating others as they treat me.

Mom, I think you are overgeneralizing and sensonalizing the few comments you have hear. Quite frankly, most of the district has only a passing knowledge of what is currently transpiring and hence cannot have the level of venom you seem to be pointing out is everywhere.

----------------------------------------------------
By I am a mom too on May 20, 2008 7:01 PM
Greg,

I'm sure your neighbors are just great as long as they agree with you. The bottom line is that I am still angry at the Fry parents for the stunts they pulled two years ago (walking en masse to school board meeting at NVHS, knowing full well that bcz of 59 their kids were not walkers, loudly storming out of that meeting when it didn't look like things were going their way, booing to drown out anyone who didn't agree with them...). Fast forward two years to the continued attempts to drown out dissenting voices and the fact that the majority of the members of my community who are suing me are also from Fry, and darn right I am going to have strong opinions about the people who send their kids to that school!

Add to that that I have heard parents from TG say that they don't want their kids on a bus an hour a day, but then insist that mine should be on one for two hours a day, and I get my dander up.

I laugh when someone butts in line at the grocery store and I hear someone say "must be from Tall Grass, they're the only ones important enough to be first in line", or when someone (other than a teenager which is another whole story) runs a red light and someone in the car says, "must be from TG cause the rules don't apply to them". It tickles my funny bone and relieves tension.

When The northeners didn't get their way two years ago they grumbled and moved on, what they did not do was sue me. Therein lies a huge difference. Just because a subdivision has larger, higher priced homes does not mean they run the district. Some people from TG seem to believe that the golden rule is "He who has the gold gets to make the rules". Sorry, but a representative democracy is not supposed to work that way.

If you want an answer as to why you are being painted with a broad stroke, maybe the place to start looking for it is next door.

By I am a mom too on May 20, 2008 7:01 PM

Add to that that I have heard parents from TG say that they don't want their kids on a bus an hour a day, but then insist that mine should be on one for two hours a day, and I get my dander up.

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

To I am a Mom too,

First of all, I have not heard people suggesting that your subdivision be switched with TG. But I find your projections that it would take 2 hours per day of travel time to get from SB to WVHS but only 1 hour from TG to WVHS very interesting. Where are you getting your numbers from? Is it the same brilliant folks that have stated that it will only take one additional minute of commute time for Tall Grass students to get to WVHS than it currently does to get to NVHS?

The bus route from TG to WV is approximately 5 miles further from the bus route from TG to NV. (Note to those using Mapquest or Google Maps to check this - Normantown Road is not a viable road for bus travel. Although the SB has not released the bus routes used in their analysis, the most viable route is Rt 59 to 75th Street to Ogden.) Since the buses will hold the same number of kids (after all, nobody is walking to NV, and we aren't going to send half empty buses, right?), it should take the same amount of time to pick everyone up and fill the bus. The bus route is the same until 95th and Rt 59. That's when the extra 5 miles kicks in. To make it to WV in the one additional minute allotted by the travel times released by the SB, the bus will need to travel at 300 miles per hour in that one minute - assuming of course they don't have to stop at the multiple stop lights, wait for a crossing train, or stop to have the flames extinguished created from traveling at 300 mph.

Not realistic, right? Neither is the projection that it will only take 1 hour per day, or 1 additional minute each way, for TG to commute to WV. This greatly increased commute to school is what many of us are so upset about regarding being re-zoned to WV.

You see, we share the same concerns - that the location of the 3rd HS should not create substantially increased commutes for ANYONE, whether it be the current boundaries that impact TG or potential future boundaries that could impact other communities. If properly located, an additional HS should reduce or at least maintain current commuting times, something that the Eola/Molitor site does not provide.

Greg,

I'm sure your neighbors are just great as long as they agree with you. The bottom line is that I am still angry at the Fry parents for the stunts they pulled two years ago (walking en masse to school board meeting at NVHS, knowing full well that bcz of 59 their kids were not walkers, loudly storming out of that meeting when it didn't look like things were going their way, booing to drown out anyone who didn't agree with them...). Fast forward two years to the continued attempts to drown out dissenting voices and the fact that the majority of the members of my community who are suing me are also from Fry, and darn right I am going to have strong opinions about the people who send their kids to that school!

Add to that that I have heard parents from TG say that they don't want their kids on a bus an hour a day, but then insist that mine should be on one for two hours a day, and I get my dander up.

I laugh when someone butts in line at the grocery store and I hear someone say "must be from Tall Grass, they're the only ones important enough to be first in line", or when someone (other than a teenager which is another whole story) runs a red light and someone in the car says, "must be from TG cause the rules don't apply to them". It tickles my funny bone and relieves tension.

When The northeners didn't get their way two years ago they grumbled and moved on, what they did not do was sue me. Therein lies a huge difference. Just because a subdivision has larger, higher priced homes does not mean they run the district. Some people from TG seem to believe that the golden rule is "He who has the gold gets to make the rules". Sorry, but a representative democracy is not supposed to work that way.

If you want an answer as to why you are being painted with a broad stroke, maybe the place to start looking for it is next door.

Am annoyed at the comments that say "Brookdale didn't sue" when they didn't get what they want.

The basis of the NFSOC lawsuit is not the same situation that Brookdale was ever in! What would Brookdale have sued about? BB was a environmentally safe property, and it was the site that the SB "sold" the referendum on.

Also agree with Rogers above - Brookdale retaliated in their own way, by voting no to the referendum.

By Tarnished Reputation on May 20, 2008 3:31 PM
Whether deserved or not, the reputation of the entire TG community has been tarnished due to the actions of the NSFOC.

Last Saturday at a youth soccer game, as one team was finishing up their game and another was arriving to the field, one arriving parent was heard saying "oh look, the other Tall Grass team is playing before us".

Once this woman was out of range, a whole group of people around the area started making rude and stereotypical comments about TG. They didn't even seem to know each other, but found common amusement in bashing TG.
______________________________________

It sounds like this group has a middle school mentality. It does appear TG has become the subdivision everyone loves to hate. Brookdale must be very happy to finally be turning over this distinction to someone else.

TG doesn't appear to be any worse for wear because of it, tho. They seem happy and content. I don't hear any wails of despair or regret coming from that area. In fact, they all seem to be having a pretty good time. Go figure.

By Anonymous on May 20, 2008 4:50 PM
D&S, you might be tired of hearing it but everytime some nsfoc supporter on here tries to say that the NSFOC was not formed because of boundaries, I will post the same information that person obvioulsy missed. At least 2 of the original NSFOC founders have stated publicly that this is about boundaries. You may beg to differ but you would be wrong. It must be tough to sit at your computer all day and tell people how tired you are of them correcting your fellow supporters.
____

Who cares what the last straw was - boundaries were the last thing decided, so that was followed by NSFOC action. I seriously doubt boundaries were ever the only thing for that group. The way I see it, you have 2 years of incredibly bad decision-making. I can see where a group would reach a certain point, then take action when it was clear the votes were ignored. Add to this some financial hits that would make anyone on the outside laugh at how bad this district is now run. Especially the part about some parents (a small group) actually campaigning for a new school, first on a contaminated site with suspect testing and no cleanup plans, then a site sitting on three large diameter gas lines.

By D&S on May 19, 2008 12:39 PM

"I think the main reason the 05 ref failed in this area was because a lot of folks did not want to vote for anything that might take them away from NV. In the absence of any information on how a yes vote would affect them, the only safe thing was to vote no. Once the SB figured this out, they set about to tell these voters how they would be affected and to convince them it was the right thing to do for the district. Many folks did not want to leave NV at all, not even for Metea on BB. I am certain if the SB had chosen the AME farm land initially or anywhere else and told the southern residents that nothing for them would change except having to pay higher taxes for another HS, I have no doubt such a ref would have passed in this area with flying colors. We did not want Metea. We wanted to remain at NV and be left alone. Period."

By ready, aim, snipe on May 19, 2008 1:53 PM

so what you are saying is that it is okay to have a third high school providing that your kids either stay at NV or get the new school but would never accept WVHS. Am I right in my interpretation? The NSFOC is about making sure they are at NVHS or MVHS but will fight going to WVHS via voting in 2006 or suing in 2008. So you are saying the referendum was about boundaries?

By Civics on May 20, 2008 1:20 PM

Aren't you saying here that you believe that the BULK of the support for the NSFOC lawsuit in the southwest part of the district comes from a concern about the boundaries?
____________________________________

Hi Civ!

Ok, I'm willing to take a look at this. One paragraph, two similarly different responses. Snipe sees a statement about WV and boundaries. You see a statement about the NSFOC and boundaries. And really, Civ, I don't see either of these. My statement makes no reference to boundaries, WV or the NSFOC. I see a statement about the southern residents being very happy at NV and not wanting to leave, not even for Metea at BB, which a lot of folks are saying we only voted for because we thought we were getting it. I'm saying on the contrary, we would have gladly supported building Metea anywhere in the district the SB chose to put it as long as it didn't affect us. We didn't want Metea, we wanted things to stay the same in our area. We were happy with what we had. I really don't see why others in the district think this is so horrible.

I do think some folks are so hypercritical of the NSFOC and TG and anything associated with it that they just can't see past these issues to anything else. Which is why I did not plan on responding further to snipe. I thought snipe's second post intentionally misrepresented my position, which is why Metea categorizes snipe as a straw man. But if you see something here, Civics, please try making your point again. Honestly, I'm just not seeing the problem.

By Tarnished Reputation on May 20, 2008 3:31 PM
Whether deserved or not, the reputation of the entire TG community has been tarnished due to the actions of the NSFOC.

Last Saturday at a youth soccer game, as one team was finishing up their game and another was arriving to the field, one arriving parent was heard saying "oh look, the other Tall Grass team is playing before us".

Once this woman was out of range, a whole group of people around the area started making rude and stereotypical comments about TG. They didn't even seem to know each other, but found common amusement in bashing TG.
----
You think TG is going to fall to the level of being upset that this is going on? That ended months ago. How childish. What a teriible lack of understanding of constitutional, fiscal, liabilty and risk issues. The majority voted for x, y and z and got a, b, c at over $35 million higher cost than what we voted for and counting. On top of that, you prefer a school with mainline gas lines over 50 years old running through the middle of the property. These pipelines could destroy all the buildings and the kids at the school.

Secondly, you are supporting an option that wastes fuel - something precious to the long term viability of the USA, hurts the environment by adding about 22% more costs (9% savings promoted by the school board for Brach Brodie plus 13% higher bus miles due to Eola). Finally, what is the defense for the first parent who sues the district for exposure to hazardous chemicals never tested for?

This has gone well beyond a snide comment at a sporting event. You are destroying the long-term viability of the district, by supporting actions never voted for in direct violation of voters rights. No that will nver be forgotten...and you are messing with the wrong people. We like our votes to count, not to be dismissed.

We love WVHS, but we voted for BB location even though it was not NVHS to do our part for the better good of the district. It was not the best solution, but was close enough.

So dont even bother to make comments because we do not function based on the opinions of people who blindly support wasteful, unsafe, and environmentally damaging options.

It is amazing to me how hypocritical people in this district can be. On one hand we keep hearing (even from the district) that NSFOC is only around 200-300 people. On the other hand, people make statements that the "entire" TG community has been tarnished.

Give me a break! Enough of this nonsense. To be quite honest, I'm not really worried about the tarnishment of TG.

Who cares? I live in TG and think I have great neighbors. I could care less what people at soccer games gossip about. It's really very juvenile.

D&S, you might be tired of hearing it but everytime some nsfoc supporter on here tries to say that the NSFOC was not formed because of boundaries, I will post the same information that person obvioulsy missed. At least 2 of the original NSFOC founders have stated publicly that this is about boundaries. You may beg to differ but you would be wrong. It must be tough to sit at your computer all day and tell people how tired you are of them correcting your fellow supporters.

By Tarnished Reputation on May 20, 2008 3:31 PM
Whether deserved or not, the reputation of the entire TG community has been tarnished due to the actions of the NSFOC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Not exactly, if you are so inclined go back and look at some of the previous blogs (January '08 for one) where they first announced the Eola site. There was no NSFOC but plenty of Tall Grass/White Eagle bashing......while some of it may have been earned I believe others saw this as an opportunity to satisfy another agenda.

Its ironic that there are folks who feel "entitled" to bash the NSFOC, TG or anything that is construed as being anti-Eola.

For the record, I still do not believe that the representative majority of 2004 has spoken.

Whether deserved or not, the reputation of the entire TG community has been tarnished due to the actions of the NSFOC.

Last Saturday at a youth soccer game, as one team was finishing up their game and another was arriving to the field, one arriving parent was heard saying "oh look, the other Tall Grass team is playing before us".

Once this woman was out of range, a whole group of people around the area started making rude and stereotypical comments about TG. They didn't even seem to know each other, but found common amusement in bashing TG.

Who cares who did or didn't say it was about boundaries. It doesnt matter any more - the issue is going to be decided in the courts - either my dismissal or trial. NSFOC is not going to withdraw the suit; The SB is not going to negotiate boundaries. The BB suit is going to get settled for legal fees and the court is not going to set a precedence and new case law by awarding damages. If BB appeals, then maybe a higher court will take that risk.

This district is filled with good neighborhoods, good people, good kids, good schools and good educators. NSFOC is not going to agree with those who dont see eye to eye with them on the legal avenue they have taken. The anger and venom on both sides is doing damage to the entire district.

Those here that have shown intelligence and rational thinking should try to build bridges now - the healing needs to begin for the sake of all of the children.

Everyone knows Brookdale did not file a lawsuit in 2006.
They tried to kill the 3rd high school by turning out a majority NO vote from their area and now they call it Karma.

Gotta see for myself....

What is the date of this alleged meeting where folks identified themselves as belonging to/starting up the NSFOC who also admonished that they'd sue if they did not get their way as it related to the boundaries?

Let's assume this is true and these folks voted yes only to be upset today. What has anyone to say about those in these same meetings, along with the other SB meetings, who decried the BB placement, openly stated that they'd be voting no, followed through with this threat only to turn around and celebrate the new placement today?

To MH:
You are right, they are full of nerve. They felt entitled enough to file a lawsuit because they "didn't get their way".
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet there are those who voted no in 2006 that have their way in 2008 who will villify & castigate with impunity.

Kind of funny how things work out.

D+S -- this is from an earlier post of yours....

"I think the main reason the 05 ref failed in this area was because a lot of folks did not want to vote for anything that might take them away from NV. In the absence of any information on how a yes vote would affect them, the only safe thing was to vote no. Once the SB figured this out, they set about to tell these voters how they would be affected and to convince them it was the right thing to do for the district. Many folks did not want to leave NV at all, not even for Metea on BB. I am certain if the SB had chosen the AME farm land initially or anywhere else and told the southern residents that nothing for them would change except having to pay higher taxes for another HS, I have no doubt such a ref would have passed in this area with flying colors. We did not want Metea. We wanted to remain at NV and be left alone. Period."

------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you saying here that you believe that the BULK of the support for the NSFOC lawsuit in the southwest part of the district comes from a concern about the boundaries?

Yes, the NSFOC founders were talking about boundaries at a Boundary meeting. And they also threatened to sue if the SB didn't do what they wanted. And NSFOC was formed and did file suit. So, it is about boundaries.

Brookdale expressed displeasure at Hill being split between WV and MV. But, Brookdale didn't turn around and sue the SB after the referundum didn't go the way they would have liked.

My prediction is that five of the seven counts will be thrown out.

Hey, BPI!

I get a kick out of this comment every time it appears here. Imagine! The NSFOC founders were actually caught talking about boundaries at a BOUNDARY meeting. The nerve of those people! :)

You are right, they are full of nerve. They felt entitled enough to file a lawsuit because they "didn't get their way".

By D&S on May 20, 2008 11:58 AM
Hey D&S -
Yes, it is amusing isn't it? One group being singled out for talking about boundaries at a boundary meeting......I don't get it.
That's why I have to take "days off" from this place - makes me a little crazy: ) I admire your ability to stick with it every day - you and "Greggy". Have fun - keep pushing for above the board comments! I'm sure I've gotten other people's dander up today, but not sure I'll have the time (or the energy) to respond. See you again at some point. Take care!
**********************

By Anonymous on May 20, 2008 9:16 AM
Big Picture...

- the founders of the NSFOC stated in an open meeting that this is about boundaries. Check the IPSD website. Look for the video of the boundaries meeting.
______________________________

Hey, BPI!

I get a kick out of this comment every time it appears here. Imagine! The NSFOC founders were actually caught talking about boundaries at a BOUNDARY meeting. The nerve of those people! :)

By Anonymous on May 20, 2008 9:16 AM
Big Picture...

- the founders of the NSFOC stated in an open meeting that this is about boundaries. Check the IPSD website. Look for the video of the boundaries meeting.
______________________________

Hey, BPI!

I get a kick out of this comment every time it appears here. Imagine! The NSFOC founders were actually caught talking about boundaries at a BOUNDARY meeting. The nerve of those people! :)

Big Picture

People at that meeting, stood up to speak, announce the formation of the NSFOC, and said it was formed to fight the boundaries. They called it the NSFOC and Neighborhood Schools for our Children. It may not have been incorporated but it had been "formed" at the time of the boundary meeting.

I do not beleive adding TG or WE to WVHS is to balance test scores or financial make up of the school. On a map, with the school being built at Eola, it makes geographic sense to send TG and especially WE to WVHS for the purpose of balancing enrollment strictly on a number of students basis. If you have knowledge that the boundaries were set up to create a financial balance at WVHS, I'd like to hear it and the source of it.

I do not beleive every home at Tall Grass is worth a million (I beleive they start around 600k but are dropping). I do not beleive everyone has a mercedes (but wouldn't that be nice). I do beleive that TG has an image of being one of the more expensive and nicer new construction subdivisions in D204. With that, and the lawsuit, people are going to have an opinion. I will say it is unfortunate that 100% of the subdivision is being lumped in with the handful of people willing to hire an attorney and sue the taxpayers (the lawsuit is not suing the members of the school board) of D204.

As a taxpayer, I hope the district wins all lawsuits, including the NSFOC suit. I doubt if the judge will throw it out on Thursday and to a degree I hope he does not. I want to see every last dollar of the NSFOC go to thier attorney and so they would be broke before this every goes to trial.

These are just my opinions peppered with some facts.

To Anon#????

Boundaries, Boundaries, Boundaries. i think you have a fixation on Boundaries. IF YOU are the same anon that posted the SB meeting and time stamp of this meeting, I did just that. Interestingly enough, the ACTUAL MEETING WAS ENTIRELY ABOUT BOUNDARIES. Nobody who spoke commented on anything but boundraries. What would you like them to speak about? AC?, Sports facilities?

If I had my choice, I would rather go to the school I could walk too than sit on a bus for an hour a day. I'm sure most folks on both sides of the issue would make a similiar choice. However we do not have the right to choose in this district so its irrelevant. However, I did not donate 1,000 bucks of my hard earned money over a bus ride for my kids. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, boundaries (for most folks) are not even in the top 5 reasons for the stiff resistence to the SB's questionable actions.

Its also not confined to just tallgrass. I have met many fine folks from all over the district at several of the NSFOC meetings. As for tallgrass's reputation/image; I am very happy to live in TG, great neighbors, active community; quite frankly it is the best sub division I have EVER lived in, I love it!!! Full disclosure I have not lived anywhere else in Chicagoland (Just Portland, Seattle, Cleveland subdivisions) so I am sure I would probably be singing the same praises if I lived in Oakhurst, Brookdale, Stonebridge, Springbrook, etc etc.

I judge folks individually and dont sterotype entire communities. Apparently not everyone does the same. In any case, I really dont care what image you (or others) have in your head of TG. It is of no concern to me. When you choose to verbalize it and perpetuate it; that is where I have a problem with you (and others).

---------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on May 20, 2008 9:16 AM
Big Picture...

- the founders of the NSFOC stated in an open meeting that this is about boundaries. Check the IPSD website. Look for the video of the boundaries meeting.

- The diversity we have referred to is financial diversity and not just minorities in general. There is a big difference between your neighbors in Tall Grass and some of the neighborhoods that feed WVHS. Not a race issue but money issue.

- Your attorney has said the best strategy is throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.

- If Tall Grass is suffering from a bad image these days maybe you need to look at the cause and not attack those with the opinions.

By Anonymous on May 20, 2008 9:16 AM

Anonymous - I was at the meeting. As someone has already stated on this blog (or another) everyone who got up to speak at the meeting spoke about boundaries - that was, for the most part, the agenda of the meeting. NSFOC did not exist at the time of the meeting. People from TG did nothing except state their objections/position just like the folks from Watts, Owens, Ashwood, etc.

I used to live in Aurora, not far from WV. I understand the demographics of the area very well. What I do not understand is why the SB (and apparently many others) thinks the appropriate answer to that is to bus kids across the district (not exclusively TG and WE) to "fix" the problem of test scores vis a vis NCLB and lower fundraising results at some of the feeder schools. It won't -and there are other, in my opinion, constructive and educationally sound ways to address the issues at hand. It's harder, sure, and it requires a little more creativity and leadership than throwing more buses on the road. I have written on this issue before. Fundraising dollars may go up in measurable ways. But it does not solve the many other issues rooted in socio-economic realities. I specifically remember the SB rationale for keeping Brookdale at WV last go around - splitting them from the rest of their middle school - was because of the "great parental and monetary support" they brought with them. The SB did not want to take this "away" from WV. They were, esentially pegged as the "backbone" of the school. Now, that's a compliment in many ways but, given the MAJORITY of Brookdale voters were visibly upset at meetings and ultimately did not support the 06 referendum, you can maybe put into perspective that it is not just TG/WE that resents the SB's assessments and subsequent actions. Across the board, when people perceive they have been negatively impacted they have spoken out/acted out/voted accordingly.

I cannot comment on the NSFOC's attorney's strategy. I believe you if you heard him say this. However, I would think that he was simply putting things into layman's terms and is smart enough not to divulge his entire legal strategy at a public meeting - I think any attorney would have that good sense. The attorney did say that the NSFOC case was not a "slam dunk". Given the lack of legal precedent, among a few other things, I agree with that statement.

So again, my point is that TG should not be ridiculously stereotyped as it has been time and time again. Based on what you read, you'd think every house was a 5,000 sq. ft. mansion, everyone drives a Mercedes, and that only white people live here. It is not true. So, I am simply trying to correct the incorrect image that some on this blog are perpetrating. If people want to be upset because some of the "leaders" of the NSFOC reside in this neighborhood, I understand that. But to say, on the whole, the neighborhood is something other than it REALLY it is and blame everyone across the board, is entirely something else - a stereotype and a lie. Shouldn't we all be against that?
*************************
Big Picture...

- the founders of the NSFOC stated in an open meeting that this is about boundaries. Check the IPSD website. Look for the video of the boundaries meeting.

- The diversity we have referred to is financial diversity and not just minorities in general. There is a big difference between your neighbors in Tall Grass and some of the neighborhoods that feed WVHS. Not a race issue but money issue.

- Your attorney has said the best strategy is throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.

- If Tall Grass is suffering from a bad image these days maybe you need to look at the cause and not attack those with the opinions.

Add another Strawman
- the founders of the NSFOC stated in an open meeting that this is about boundaries. Check the IPSD website. Look for the video of the boundaries meeting
--------------------------------------------------------------------

At these Boundary meetings would you also find folks from the North arguing against the HS @ BB that may have voted no? If so, are these folks now supporters of the HS @ Eola? Remember the Boundary meeting was about.......BOUNDARIES so it is logical that any and all discussion at said meeting would pertain to them.
The folks at said meeting represent both sides of the current debate.

- The diversity we have referred to is financial diversity and not just minorities in general. There is a big difference between your neighbors in Tall Grass and some of the neighborhoods that feed WVHS. Not a race issue but money issue.
- If Tall Grass is suffering from a bad image these days maybe you need to look at the cause and not attack those with the opinions
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet, you stereotype in the same exact fashion

- Your attorney has said the best strategy is throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------Perhaps this is the appropriate strategy against an unchallenged, reckless, suspect entity whose actions may tax the entire district far beyond what they are willing to represent.

For those with the time to drive by, you should check out the progress on the new school. They are tearing down the house today, and have at least 50 different machines cranking away.

Big Picture...

- the founders of the NSFOC stated in an open meeting that this is about boundaries. Check the IPSD website. Look for the video of the boundaries meeting.

- The diversity we have referred to is financial diversity and not just minorities in general. There is a big difference between your neighbors in Tall Grass and some of the neighborhoods that feed WVHS. Not a race issue but money issue.

- Your attorney has said the best strategy is throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.

- If Tall Grass is suffering from a bad image these days maybe you need to look at the cause and not attack those with the opinions.

Buckeye and all Others, I guess, who are making a big deal about boundaries as a motivator for the NSFOC....
First, I will say that I have NEVER heard this issue come up from anyone I personally know who is involved with NSFOC, nor has it been on the website, or discussed at any of the open meetings - by members (or however you choose to identify them), the lawyer, or anyone else who happened to show up - from casual observers, to anti-NSFOC curiosity seekers. But really, let's be honest. Even IF boundaries do play a part, because of the actions of our SB surrounding the '06 referendum, I don't really understand what all of the fuss, and especially the contempt, is about. Did the SB not hire consultants to find out what people 'wanted to know' so they could flip the vote? Did the consultants not find and tell the SB that people wanted more information, specifically location and BOUNDARIES for the new school? Isn't it at least a possibility that the majority of "no" votes from Brookdale were based on displeasure with boundaries? Isn't it at least a possibility that many of those now jumping for joy are doing so because they are happy or happier with the new boundaries? I certainly do not think boundaries are the sole motivator in any of the scenarios I just mentioned, but to imply that boundaries are something that ONLY the selfish, elitist NSFOC supporters care about is absolutely absurd. The SB made this about location, they made this about boundaries, and they made this about pitting subdivision against subdivision. Anyone who was at any of the BOUNDARY meetings before the '06 vote knows this. Like GF has said - a precedent was set by the SB, like it or not. And when the SB says things like "Constituants, we understand what you want, we've listened, and we're going to act on it" and then doesn't deliver, all reasonable people who voted and who are still paying attention today are going to be pi**ed off. If it's not illegal, it's at least pretty insulting.

As for the rest of your post, Buckeye, if you have watched the NSFOC website from its inception, I don't think you would find that it has progressed from being about one thing, then switching to another, and then yet another. It's always all been there, and as the situation has evolved and changed, so has the FOCUS of the website, not the content. If you have noticed, the lawsuits against the SB have been amended, too. Not dropped, not changed, but amended to address the most pertinent issues. That's being on top of things - that's not picking an "issue du jour".

It's sad to think that the best defense for the SB members that you can come up with is to liken them to other candidates and public officials, who you then go on to reduce to liars we should pay no attention to. Yet you then turn around and defend them over people who feel they were conned, treated unfairly, or lied to outright. Interesting. In the referendum vote, or any vote for that matter, I find it hard to believe that you would pay attention to what you see and hear, then not evaluate that information and make a judgment call about it before deciding how to vote. Even if you only thought about the enrollment numbers and the dire NEED for the hs that the SB promoted before the referendum vote, you took that information with you into the voting booth. The enrollment numbers (which also turned out to be grossly overstated) were not on the ballot either, yet that mattered to you and likely affected your vote - so stop insulting people who viewed information the SB repeatedly represented about location by calling them stupid or naive. Their judgment about the validity of it was simply different than yours. You were conned too I'm sorry to say, just on a different issue (enrollment numbers and the threats that came with them, ie. split shifts).

Lastly, I try really hard to stay above the fray of personal insults. But, you have insulted me and my neighborhood, so I am going to fight back. Your comments about million dollar homes, expensive cars and lack of appreciation for diversity show your ignorance. You obviously know nothing about Tall Grass, from the value of the homes, to the types of cars people drive to, and most importantly, the people who live here. Enlighten yourself and invest a day in front of Fry or Scullen when school lets out. You'll see that YOU are the one creating the rift with this garbage, so I will politely suggest that you DO eat your computer instead of using it to spread your ridiculous insults and stereotyping. I'll even take this outside the subdivision for you so you'll see how truly insulting you are. I personally work with minority students, who also happen to be language minority students, every day. I know a thing or two about diversity my friend, so quit insinuating that people who do not currently attend WV are a bunch of elitists who can't co-exist with people of different races or ethnic backgrounds. People in 4 out of the 5 closest houses to mine do not speak English as their first language. Our kids play together and we all get along just fine. And I would not spend my career trying to better the lives of minority children and their families if I was the "hater" you say I am. So, get off your high horse, get a clue, and get off the blog. If you are truly interested in repairing rifts, that's the best place to start.

By NapervilleBuckeye on May 19, 2008 1:39 PM
D&S,
Wah Wah Wah!!!!
I continue to be completely amazed that you can say with a straight face that NSFOC is about anything but Boundaries!
In case you cant recall,
First their website said it was about safety,
Then it was about busing costs,
Then it was about "They lied to us".
PLEASE make up your minds what this is about to you. It changes everytime the SB makes a good counter point. And that really says all you need to know about the NSFOC. They will keep coming up with more and more reasons why they are "entitled" to have the third HS on BB.
Lastly, you feel you were "taken advantage of and conned". You have got to be kidding. When in this lifetime have you EVER taken what an elected official or candidate, who is seeking to get re-elected or get a bill passed, says seriously. Really grow up. Do you remember "No new taxes". Yep we bought it, and what was the recourse, we voted him out. And if you can show me a copy of the ballot that you voted with for the referendum that makes ANY mention of boundaries or sites, I'll eat this computer.
But you cant, can you? So NSFOC, give it up. Get back in your Lexus, and drive to your million dollar home, and enjoy life! And teach your kids that diversity is not a good thing, its a GREAT thing.
And lets hope we can repair the rift that this VERY Small group of residents has caused in our community.

NB & ready, aim, snipe would be the founding members....

By Meatea Either Way on May 19, 2008 11:44 AM
Stalkers, snipers and strawmen, oh my!

D&S, looks like you need to add another category.
______________________________

You've got that right. And I think the Strawmen category need not be anonymous like the other three, since anonymity has nothing to do with it. This category is your brainchild, so it's up to you who gets this honor. Let me know, and I'll print an update!

By Anonymous on May 19, 2008 5:21 PM

Uh Oh....got the Greg Forrest Disease (GFD.....not to be confused with BFD).

This anon posting was mine.

To: Naperville Buckeye

Suggest you read my post below except insert "Naperville Buckeye" where it says "Help" and replace his quotes with your own looney rantings.

Sheesh....

You and Help are on opposite sides of this issue but you are clearly cut from the same cloth.....

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

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

ready, aim, snipe

Though he can surely speak for himself, I DO NOT think you have captured the essence of what D+S said at all.

What I read was:
- NSFOC (at least for founders and initiators of the suit) is in this for boundary reasons. and D+S can sympathise with that.

- NSFOC does not want Metea for themselves. They want NV. Always have. Mostly because it is closest of ANY proposed location. (at least for founders and initiators of the suit)

- D+S is against Eola PRIMARILY because of the potential liability to BB.

I think D+S has put up one of the better summaries I have seen of the issue. Honest. Straightforward. Logical.
------------------------------------------------------

For myself, PRIOR to conclusion of the AME deal, I was FOR BB and AGAINST NSFOC.

FOR BB because
- it was the fastest way to get the damn thing built and
- I believe the extra cost was a drop in the bucket, and
- any savings will likely be eaten up by litigation costs and settlements to BB.

AGAINST NSFOC because
- They have a substantial part of their base that does not want ANY high school built (vote NO crowd)
- i appreciate their pain in moving HS but I do not think it was a case of deliberate bait-and-switch -- simply circumstances combined with the legitimate right of the SB to make another decision they felt was in the best interests of the district.
- If they were smart and cautious, they realized at the time of the vote that BB was not a sure thing and the ballot was consistent with that. I think the individuals in NSFOC ARE smart enough to have realized this (though maybe not cautious) and are being disengnuous to say the least on how they now say they read the ballot.
- their regrets now are unhappiness with the outcome because they get the furthest high school (compared to NV or BB).

----------------------------------------
NOW, however, I am FOR EOLA because:
- The risk / $$ equation has shifted
- We bought AME. it would need selling and we would lose money - if it could be sold at all in this market.
- The 25 BB acres will be far easier to unload. And bring a better price (if not sold back to BB).
- Switching back to BB would cost time. Not a concern for me, but it is for the district as a whole.
- I dont know WHY the district dropped BB (and I dont think it was solely costs) but I suspect it may have had to do with long-term planning for use of our building assets as the district matures and requirements change. However, I DO wish they would be up front about that if it's true.

D&S has paraphrased the referendum process quite well in their explanation earlier today (D&S on May 19, 2008 12:39 PM). As in my previous post to D&S I do believe we agree on more than we disagree.

For example, I think we both can agree that Naperville Buckeye is probably just a begginer (sic) at cogent arguments. Sorry Buckeye fan, but I couldn't help but point out your spelling error and am not meaning to get us off topic, but please show more courtesy in your posts. Maybe you have an axe to grind with D&S, but do it with facts and not 10+ year old movie lines, "You can't handle the truth"!

Everyone has an opinion here, and many of us agree on some things and disagree on others.

I voted for both referendums because I believe we need a 3rd HS. The fact that my boundary scenarios all had NV as the result was always an unknown because of the BB open issue. That being said, I do not like the way the school board went about this process and I can see valid arguments on both sides. Because I have no magic solutions here I'll just say that we can agree to disagree on some things, and let's leave it up to the courts to decide. But please let's get back to civility.

Dear Sun Editors, I hope the story makes the front page! Way to go WVHS!!!!!!

To Flip Floppin: ouch! Nice counter point utilizing "just the facts" own "data assumptions"!! That scored some debate points. The the CNN politico pundits would be doing back flips on Election 2008. 10. 10. 9.5 9.5 2....... (sorry... there is always one napervillebuckeye out there that could care less and is trapped in his own personal defination of reality). :)

-----------------------------------------------------
By Flip Floppin' on May 18, 2008 3:49 PM
By just the facts on May 16, 2008 1:14 PM
The real cost to a referendum "do over" is the increased construction costs. My understanding is that a good rule-of-thumb for increases in construction costs is 1% per month. For a $100 million project, that is a $1 million/month cost. Therefore, a referendum do over could have cost taxpayers (all of us) in excess of $10 million (assuming we had a vote in Nov and couldn't break ground until next spring).

I guess the saying "time is money" is true.

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

Assuming that the above is true, let's do some quick math on the cost of Eola site compared to Brach-Brodie. If the SB had purchased BB after the jury determined the per acre cost, we could have begun building in September, or 8 months ago. At $1 mil per month, that translates to approximately $8 mil dollars in increased building construction costs due to the switch in location sites. Add on rush construction expenses and the legal costs to defend 4 lawsuits resulting from the site switch and you are already at a point where the TOTAL cost of switching the HS location to Eola/Molitor is more expensive than originally building at BB. And this is all before you tack on increased transportation costs and potential damages from the 3 BB lawsuits.

By NapervilleBuckeye on May 19, 2008 3:49 PM
D&S
It seems "You cant handle the Truth". And yes, I for one have NOT changed my argument or my point of view. Both are based on viewing ALL of the factual documents(Not the crap printed by NSFOC or NSFOC Fraud)and coming to my own conclusion. And I am so sorry if you dont understand the comparison of an election and a referendum, which are both political, and require you to vote, Yes or NO. In your case you probably had the begginer ballot which lets you pick a color.
I have a color for you GREEN. It means go, and that is what the construction companies are doing at the Eola site.
Building the 3rd HS that we ALL voted for.
Have great day!
--------------------------------------------------

Your Perception is your reality Buckeye. However, that does not make it true or discount other folks' perceptions of the situation. Your comments about "cant handle the truth" (as if you are the sole steward of Truth for all...lol) is truely laughable.

You are a legend in your own mind.....

D&S
It seems "You cant handle the Truth". And yes, I for one have NOT changed my argument or my point of view. Both are based on viewing ALL of the factual documents(Not the crap printed by NSFOC or NSFOC Fraud)and coming to my own conclusion. And I am so sorry if you dont understand the comparison of an election and a referendum, which are both political, and require you to vote, Yes or NO. In your case you probably had the begginer ballot which lets you pick a color.
I have a color for you GREEN. It means go, and that is what the construction companies are doing at the Eola site.
Building the 3rd HS that we ALL voted for.
Have great day!

By NapervilleBuckeye on May 19, 2008 1:39 PM
D&S,
Wah Wah Wah!!!!
I continue to be completely amazed that you can say with a straight face that NSFOC is about anything but Boundaries!
In case you cant recall,
First their website said it was about safety,
Then it was about busing costs,
Then it was about "They lied to us".
PLEASE make up your minds what this is about to you. It changes everytime the SB makes a good counter point. And that really says all you need to know about the NSFOC. They will keep coming up with more and more reasons why they are "entitled" to have the third HS on BB.
Lastly, you feel you were "taken advantage of and conned". You have got to be kidding. When in this lifetime have you EVER taken what an elected official or candidate, who is seeking to get re-elected or get a bill passed, says seriously. Really grow up. Do you remember "No new taxes". Yep we bought it, and what was the recourse, we voted him out. And if you can show me a copy of the ballot that you voted with for the referendum that makes ANY mention of boundaries or sites, I'll eat this computer.
But you cant, can you? So NSFOC, give it up. Get back in your Lexus, and drive to your million dollar home, and enjoy life! And teach your kids that diversity is not a good thing, its a GREAT thing.
And lets hope we can repair the rift that this VERY Small group of residents has caused in our community.
___________________________________

Same old drivel, Buckeye. I've read this same speech from you so often you could put it to music and have a No. 1 hit.

In 06, we did not vote for a candidate, we passed a referendum. These are not the same things. I don't know what you thought you were doing, but I was not voting for anyone.

Further, I'm not interested in your vicious, raving diatribes. You sound like someone with a serious personality disorder. Do yourself and those around you a favor and get some help. Until then, don't bother directing any more posts to me. I won't dignify your histrionics with a reply.

We should ALL be proud! Congrats WVHS!

New: Survey: Waubonsie one of nation's top schools

May 19, 2008Recommend (4)

Sun staff
Waubonsie Valley High School has made a list of Newsweek’s top 1,300 high schools in the nation.

The Indian Prairie School District 204 school is No. 1,079 on the 2008 list, up from 1,252 last year.

Neuqua Valley High School, which ranked No. 607 on the 2007 list, does not appear on this year’s list. Neither high school in Naperville School District 203 has made the Newsweek list in recent years, and 2008 is no exception.

According to Newsweek, public schools were ranked according to a ratio devised by Jay Matthews: the number of Advanced Placement, Intl. Baccalaureate and/or Cambridge tests taken by all students at a school in 2007 divided by the number of graduating seniors. All of the schools on the list are in the top 5 percent of public schools measured this way.

The searchable database of rankings may be viewed online at http://www.newsweek.com/id/39380.

Read Tuesday’s Naperville Sun and Beacon News for additional details.

Many thanks to our alert D204 commenters for alerting us to the Newsweek report. Note we have a news story on our Web site, with more details to come in our print edition Tuesday, and we have created a new thread about the Waubonsie ranking and invite you to continue discussion about that the topic there.

By D&S on May 19, 2008 12:39 PM
I think the main reason the 05 ref failed in this area was because a lot of folks did not want to vote for anything that might take them away from NV. In the absence of any information on how a yes vote would affect them, the only safe thing was to vote no. Once the SB figured this out, they set about to tell these voters how they would be affected and to convince them it was the right thing to do for the district. Many folks did not want to leave NV at all, not even for Metea on BB. I am certain if the SB had chosen the AME farm land initially or anywhere else and told the southern residents that nothing for them would change except having to pay higher taxes for another HS, I have no doubt such a ref would have passed in this area with flying colors. We did not want Metea. We wanted to remain at NV and be left alone. Period.
------
so what you are saying is that it is okay to have a third high school providing that your kids either stay at NV or get the new school but would never accept WVHS. Am I right in my interpretation? The NSFOC is about making sure they are at NVHS or MVHS but will fight going to WVHS via voting in 2006 or suing in 2008. So you are saying the referendum was about boundaries?

Well, duh. The point of the third high school all along was to preserve the reputation and performance of Neuqua, which was/is overcrowded. And the rush to build the third high school is explained by the fact that without a third high school, Neuqua no longer would be overcrowded when enrollments decline in three years. So the third high school is really only needed for three years, and 2009-10 is one of them. Must open by then AT ALL COSTS.

D&S,
Wah Wah Wah!!!!
I continue to be completely amazed that you can say with a straight face that NSFOC is about anything but Boundaries!
In case you cant recall,
First their website said it was about safety,
Then it was about busing costs,
Then it was about "They lied to us".
PLEASE make up your minds what this is about to you. It changes everytime the SB makes a good counter point. And that really says all you need to know about the NSFOC. They will keep coming up with more and more reasons why they are "entitled" to have the third HS on BB.
Lastly, you feel you were "taken advantage of and conned". You have got to be kidding. When in this lifetime have you EVER taken what an elected official or candidate, who is seeking to get re-elected or get a bill passed, says seriously. Really grow up. Do you remember "No new taxes". Yep we bought it, and what was the recourse, we voted him out. And if you can show me a copy of the ballot that you voted with for the referendum that makes ANY mention of boundaries or sites, I'll eat this computer.
But you cant, can you? So NSFOC, give it up. Get back in your Lexus, and drive to your million dollar home, and enjoy life! And teach your kids that diversity is not a good thing, its a GREAT thing.
And lets hope we can repair the rift that this VERY Small group of residents has caused in our community.

The Newsweek article also states that smaller schools produce better results - http://www.newsweek.com/id/137547

Hence the desire for all of us in D204 to have a 3rd HS with smaller class sizes.

For those that think NVHS is better than WVHS. They are both great schools with great programs and great teachers. It is horrible that I must tell people that WVHS made the top 1300 schools and NVHS didn't. I can't wait for a day when all three schools are on the list. Maybe this says something for the great things they are doing at WVHS--it isn't about where you live in 204. It is about the community.

Here is the link http://www.newsweek.com/id/39380

By ready, aim, snipe on May 19, 2008 10:47 AM--

D&S, Please allow me to add to Phil Collin's post. While fighting the NSFOC suit, the district attorney's have to be careful what they say/submit to the courts. The best defense against the NSFOC might hurt their case with BB trusts.

On a separate note, you say that the NSFOC is not suing for cash damages but they are still costing the district money in order to defend the suit. What is troubling to many outside of Tall Grass is that the essence of the suit is the swing class of voters. The NSFOC is trying to lump the entire district into saying that they would not have voted the way they did unless Tall Grass and White Eagle were a part of the Metea boundaries at BB. The suit does not take into account the swing voters who wanted the short term property tax reduction. Furthermore, the "swing voters" are saying that the only reason they voted yes is because it directly benefited thier kids and property values and would have voted no even though a third high school benefits the entire district regardless of where it is built.

You have previously said that you are against Eola because of the boundary issue (attacked someone east of 59 becuase thier kids are "safely" at NVHS). Based on this position of yours, do you want to see the district lose the BB trust lawsuits?
____________________________________

Welcome! Regarding your first statement, I have heard it said that the best defense against the NSFOC could hurt the district's defense against BB, so they will have to tread carefully. A tough position to be in, no doubt. And yes, the NSFOC's suit is costing the district money in terms of having to defend against it. Unfortunately, this is an unavoidable consequence of filing the lawsuit. The NSFOC is paying for this as well, aren't they? In the long run, tho, I think the money spent fighting the NSFOC suit will be miniscule when compared to what will be spent fighting the three BB suits, all of which could have been avoided if the SB had not abandoned BB in the first place, which is what the NSFOC is protesting.

In regards to the swing votes, I try to avoid legal debates about these things because I have zip training in this area. My judgments are purely from a layperson's perspective.

I think the NSFOC lumped the entire distict together because it was impossible to separate those who voted yes based on boundaries from those who voted for a short term tax reduction. There is simply no way to know this. I'm sure this argument will be presented in court, if it gets that far.

A common misconception by the rest of the district was that the only reason the "swing voters" approved Metea was because their children and their property values would benefit from the BB location. I have lived in this area for 9 years, and was very involved in 06. I have never believed this to be the case.

I think the main reason the 05 ref failed in this area was because a lot of folks did not want to vote for anything that might take them away from NV. In the absence of any information on how a yes vote would affect them, the only safe thing was to vote no. Once the SB figured this out, they set about to tell these voters how they would be affected and to convince them it was the right thing to do for the district. Many folks did not want to leave NV at all, not even for Metea on BB. I am certain if the SB had chosen the AME farm land initially or anywhere else and told the southern residents that nothing for them would change except having to pay higher taxes for another HS, I have no doubt such a ref would have passed in this area with flying colors. We did not want Metea. We wanted to remain at NV and be left alone. Period.

So the prevailing belief that the southern residents would not have voted for a 3rd HS anywhere is incorrect. I'm sure this belief is a direct result of the NSFOC lawsuit, but it is not a factual representation of what occurred in this area during the 06 referendum, and still isn't.

And no, I am not against Eola simply because of the boundary issue. Like the NSFOC, I did not appreciate the SB getting my yes vote based on marketing one set of circumstances and then delivering something else. I do feel I was taken advantage of and conned, so to speak, by my own SB, so I understand why the NSFOC is pursuing this. I opposed Eola initially for two reasons: the MWGen land, which is thankfully no longer an issue, but most importantly, the Brach and Brodie lawsuits. I think the SB is being irresponsible by putting the district in this position. Based on past misjudgments, I don't trust their current judgment that BB will inflict no harm on our district. I most definitely do not want to see the district lose to BB, but I very much fear it will.

I am a mom too--

Incredulous--ever notice how many years it will take for the diesel costs to equal the increased cost of the land? It is always over a period of years, and never takes into account the time value of money. Know anybody good at doing present value tables to find out how long in real dollars it will take for the costs to become equal?
-----------
The net present value of the $20 million is about $7.5 million. Which would leave them about $12.5 million in Eola's favor. Which is why they don't do it that way.

But remember their latest calculation was *61* million. Or enough to buy the BB site twice over. No reason to think that number is ridiculous, right?

Some of you may find this interesting. Newsweek has just come out with their top 1,300 high schools in the US for 2008. WV is the only naperville area school on the list. NN, NC, and NV are not even rated. WV came in at 1,079. For those who think that NV is so much better, this might give you some pause. An independant news group has said that WV is the best high school in the are. The newsweek article is currently linked through MSN. Very interesing......

Stalkers, snipers and strawmen, oh my!

D&S, looks like you need to add another category.

Just an FYI for everyone. Newsweek just listed the top 1,300 high schools in the US for 2008 (the link is currently on MSN.) WV is the only naperville area school on the list coming in at 1,079. NC, NN, and NV are not even rated. An independant news source is rating WV as the best school in the are. Just something to think about............

To Phil Colins on May 19, 2008 7:09 AM--

In response to your post:

Yes, I get it, but the idea that there is no linkage between the Brach Brodie and NSFOC initiatives is not realistic. The BB legal team has to be thrilled with the actions / legal manuverings of NSFOC b/c it is essentially a "second front" that the SB has to fight. If / when the NSFOC goes away, there will certainly still be the BB issues and they will be expensive. If you think about it, however, you wonder where the NSFOC legal team can find a pot of gold in all this other than relying on their standard billings to NSFOC. The only way would be to share in any sort of damages / settlement that ends up coming out of all the BB litigation. Cutting a slice off for the NSFOC team would be an easy quid pro quo. Of course, it could be that the motives of NSFOC and their legal team have nothing to do with WVHS / Boundaries, etc., and that they truly have the interests of the entire district at their core.....sure.
___________________________________

Morning, Phil!

I'm not surprised the conspiracy theories would be the next to pop up. I've seen all varieties on this blog, but your theory of profit sharing between BB and the NSFOC is by far the most common. I guess it's to be expected. Most folks in 204 don't understand the premise or the purpose of the NSFOC, so the only thing that makes sense are sinister motives.

I tried to get into Brodie Complaint Part I to confirm this before stating it here, but my computer had a seizure and wouldn't let me into the document, so I'm working from memory. I think I do remember the Brodie complaint mentioning the NSFOC lawsuit, as it was filed first. I don't know if this has any legal significance or gives the Brodie complaint any kind of edge, as I thought each lawsuit had to be judged on its own merits. I thought this was just part of the customary practice of throwing in anything you can find that supports your argument. If there's anyone with legal expertise out there who thinks differently, please weigh in.

Aside from that, I don't think the BB Trusts in any way need the NSFOC to make their cases. There are currently three multi-million suits pending between these two parties. These are very wealthy and powerful trust groups. I can definitely see BB exploiting the NSFOC lawsuit and whatever else they can get their hands on to help their case, but I don't see them "cutting a slice off" for ANYONE, much less a small, independently funded group whose stated goals are very different from theirs. My opinion is the Brach Brodie Trusts do not need the NSFOC, therefore they have no incentive to cut any deals or share anything with them. Once the BB Trusts are through raiding our district coffers, I think they'll be more than content to keep it all for themselves.

D&S, Please allow me to add to Phil Collin's post. While fighting the NSFOC suit, the district attorney's have to be careful what they say/submit to the courts. The best defense against the NSFOC might hurt their case with BB trusts.

On a separate note, you say that the NSFOC is not suing for cash damages but they are still costing the district money in order to defend the suit. What is troubling to many outside of Tall Grass is that the essence of the suit is the swing class of voters. The NSFOC is trying to lump the entire district into saying that they would not have voted the way they did unless Tall Grass and White Eagle were a part of the Metea boundaries at BB. The suit does not take into account the swing voters who wanted the short term property tax reduction. Furthermore, the "swing voters" are saying that the only reason they voted yes is because it directly benefited thier kids and property values and would have voted no even though a third high school benefits the entire district regardless of where it is built.

You have previously said that you are against Eola because of the boundary issue (attacked someone east of 59 becuase thier kids are "safely" at NVHS). Based on this position of yours, do you want to see the district lose the BB trust lawsuits?

D&S. Yes, I get it, but the idea that there is no linkage between the Brach Brodie and NSFOC initiatives is not realistic. The BB legal team has to be thrilled with the actions / legal manuverings of NSFOC b/c it is essentially a "second front" that the SB has to fight. If / when the NSFOC goes away, there will certainly still be the BB issues and they will be expensive. If you think about it, however, you wonder where the NSFOC legal team can find a pot of gold in all this other than relying on their standard billings to NSFOC. The only way would be to share in any sort of damages / settlement that ends up coming out of all the BB litigation. Cutting a slice off for the NSFOC team would be an easy quid pro quo. Of course, it could be that the motives of NSFOC and their legal team have nothing to do with WVHS / Boundaries, etc., and that they truly have the interests of the entire district at their core.....sure.

To Khazakstan Kid on May 17, 2008 1:34 PM--

I appreciate it. This goes both ways. Your post about the shifting BB plans was a big lightbulb moment for me. Thanks!

More cost effective would be to axe this overpriced 'fix' for needed middle school space and build the space actually needed for 1/3 the price on the 25 acres we own.

To Phil Colins on May 18, 2008 9:34 PM--

Re your post:

Adding the cost of lawsuits in to your "industry standard" calculations and making them out to be a standard cost of doing business is funny. Tell you what, add an extra billion on to the cost of BB b/c there would undoubtedly be multiple lawsuites filed against everyone involved were that to some how become viable again. That makes the Eola site a much more cost effective location, so let's build there. Wait, they are building there so no one has to do ANYTHING but wait out the NSFOC.
_________________________________

This is the kind of overly simplistic, erroneous tunnel vision that drives me nuts. Phil, the NSFOC is NOT suing the school district for cash damages. The Brach and Brodie Trust groups are, three separate multi-million dollar lawsuits. These three lawsuits are a direct result of the SB abandoning the BB land. They have absolutely nothing to do with the NSFOC. These lawsuits would have occurred even if the NSFOC had never existed. The Brach and Brodie lawsuits are the ones that are a financial threat to 204. These are the lawsuits whose costs are being factored into the cost of the Eola site, not the NSFOC one. Got it?

Adding the cost of lawsuits in to your "industry standard" calculations and making them out to be a standard cost of doing business is funny. Tell you what, add an extra billion on to the cost of BB b/c there would undoubtedly be multiple lawsuites filed against everyone involved were that to some how become viable again. That makes the Eola site a much more cost effective location, so let's build there. Wait, they are building there so no one has to do ANYTHING but wait out the NSFOC.

To MR: I hope all is well.
To GF: Sorry I have not received more info regarding the testing at each of the high schools from 06 to present. I can only say that when comparing other high performing districts most have had similar experiences with declining test scores. As for the discussion between staff and the board regarding the pilot program for the special needs area, it was refreshing and educational from my seat to see strong questioning in this area. Gf as for your opinion that our supt. has can sway the board, I would beg to differ. Imho our supt. has been given adequate lee-way to get the job at hand done. The supt. patience and body language may not be what all of us like, but I feel his results will be excellent in the long run.

WE can all agree that the participation at the last school board meeting was dismal at best. Hope to see a better turnout at next weeks meeting especially in light of the failed mediation attempt.

By just the facts on May 16, 2008 1:14 PM
The real cost to a referendum "do over" is the increased construction costs. My understanding is that a good rule-of-thumb for increases in construction costs is 1% per month. For a $100 million project, that is a $1 million/month cost. Therefore, a referendum do over could have cost taxpayers (all of us) in excess of $10 million (assuming we had a vote in Nov and couldn't break ground until next spring).

I guess the saying "time is money" is true.

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

Assuming that the above is true, let's do some quick math on the cost of Eola site compared to Brach-Brodie. If the SB had purchased BB after the jury determined the per acre cost, we could have begun building in September, or 8 months ago. At $1 mil per month, that translates to approximately $8 mil dollars in increased building construction costs due to the switch in location sites. Add on rush construction expenses and the legal costs to defend 4 lawsuits resulting from the site switch and you are already at a point where the TOTAL cost of switching the HS location to Eola/Molitor is more expensive than originally building at BB. And this is all before you tack on increased transportation costs and potential damages from the 3 BB lawsuits.

Hello there!!

THe NCLB seems to be very complicated and is having some unintended consequences (not just in D204). I know very little about how it works other than what "Big picture issues" communicated in one of her posts (she is also an Educator) seems like Mustang and Big Picture both have major reservations on it due to the unintended consequences and horrible stringent requirements (come on, cant have tests in multiple languages? Thats insane) Go to LA and the louspeaker recordings communicating information or cautions etc are repeated in about 5 or 6 languages including (but not limited to) Farsi, Spanish, Mandrin Chinese. And I'm not just talking at LAX... in Santa Monica, Brentwood, Beverly Hills,etc. etc.

MR and I were at both meetings that touched these 2 topics (MR please jump in if I missed anything or it appears I am not being objective)

From what I understand WVHS has missed AYP for multiple years in multiple categories including special needs. NVHS has missed AYP for the special needs category. MR, I am not trying to toss either HS under the bus here, just trying to get the full facts out as they currently sit and those facts are WV has missed in more categories than NV has.

The NCLB AYP plans were discussed at the 4/14 land purchase meeting in case anyone missed it (more specific to WVHS from what I could gather. While the redistributing of students accross the three HS's MAY have some impact on WVHS AYP progress, no one really knows for sure AND THE SB HAS NEVER discussed this as a possible solution that I am aware of. Quick Question: Does anyone know if the AYP is reset (clean slate) with the addition of the new high schools and different students accross the schools with the boundry change? If so, then it would be one more reason as Big D inferred driving the 2009 or bust time drivers (and not the lower enrollment numbers versus the inflated projections).

In any event; even if this is part of their "plan" (behind the scenes and not for general publication) they are not putting all their eggs in this basket (kudos to SB on that one). At the 4/14 meeting there was about a 30 minute discussion on programs and prepatory tests designed to help specific categories make the needed progress. These additional classes/resources are not exclusive (meaning anyone can take them if they request it; which is AWESOME!!)

Now, to the Special needs program: MR, JJ and myself were all at this meeting (and maybe about 10 other people...very disappointing you could hear crickets in Crousse center)

Both NV and WV need help in this NCLB area. It is just a pilot program at this point. However, I think this is a great idea and (IMO) we have to make some risk adjusted choices if we are going to leap ahead. Why not give it a try at the 4 schools? If it kicks A**, then lets roll it out to the rest of the district. If it doesnt make an impact, then we try again. This is what we should be demanding of our Admin/SB; A stretch for excellence and dont be afraid to test new concepts.

As for the debate that transpired, I think MR and I have slightly different viewpoints as we wear slightly different glasses on how we view the SB and admin (specifically Dash). MR is always willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (Kudos to MR). Unfortunatly, I do not and they have to prove to me they are on the "up and up" on all things from here on out.

The head of special needs was getting grilled by Clark and I think Stevenson and she was faltering a bit. Dr. Dash steped in to help and said something like this is not as drastic as it sounds and its only a test etc. etc. and then Curt also steped in and said, this is more about the authority to reallocate resources locally with top SN teachers and less Aids. Stevenson backed off as soon as Dash weighed in (said something like well you would obviously know more than me, yada yada yada). Clark stayed on the attack and said a very reluctant yes to the test but she would be keeping her eagle eye on this project... It was interesting M2 did not utter one word during this entire 30 minutes other than to vote yes on the test. Also apparent (to me anyways) that Dr. Dash has significant sway on the board (can bend it to his will) especialy when M2 is ambivelant on the topic at hand.

OK, think my report is finished from those two topics from the 2 different SB meetings.

MR, how did it go on Friday? Hope it went GOOD!!

Best
GF

------------------------------------------------------
By MR on May 17, 2008 5:48 PM

I'm not even going to touch on your comment regarding the NCLB issue other then to say NV and WV both don't score very well in regards to NCLB. I have my own opinions about NCLB but I won't get into this now. NV and WV scores across all academic area are pretty close so to me it just seems as if you are trying to get people worked up. Considering WV has what is it 6 Title I schools feeding into it, I'd say that's pretty good. Nice try at taking a shot at WVHS but I'm damn proud of that HS and the work the teachers and administrators do there.

Regarding your comment about Dr. D changing the way we educate our Special Needs kis you are wrong again. D204 is piloting a program for Special Needs Kids that is being done across the US. This program from what I can see puts more power in experienced teachers hands who know how to deal with Special Needs Kids and less hands in the teacher aides and therefore reduces the aides. This was discussed at length at the last school board meeting but I'm guessing by your assumptions you were not at the last school board meeting or you would be more informed.

Again, this is a "pilot program" that will be tried at Cowlishaw, McCarty, Steck and Welch Elementay Schools. In addition, Granger and Hill Middle Schools. Maybe those teachers have not been informed because they are not at one of these schools? The Director of Special Needs Kids at IPSD spoke at the the SB Meeting and had nothing but positive things to say about this program. The teachers have been told about this because ultimately they will have more control then they have in the past. To also assume that Dr. D is forcing this is not truthful. As evidenced at the SB Meeting the Special Needs Department was trying to convince the SB that this was a great program more so then the SB or Dr. D was trying to push it on the IPSD.

Remember it is a "pilot program" and the results will be recorded and evaluated very intensely as the SB has already warned during the meeting. If thing don't go the way as planned I'm sure they won't go forward with the program. Remember IPSD has always been known as an amazing SD for special needs kids. My kids benefited from speech at IPSD since they were both in preschool. I doubt IPSD would do anything to put these programs in jepordy.

Please Big D next time you raise an issue don't assume or point fingers when you obviously don't have any of the facts. Instead you assume and point fingers at Dr. D when this is a Special Needs Program decision as well as a SB decision for a pilot program. Without change as a school District how to we improve? I am also interested in this program to see how it does and hope it works out for our kids and teachers. That's why it is a pilot program.

Thanks Big D for showing us all once again what happens when you "assume".

Have a wonderful weekend.

MR

MR, are you there? Is everything OK?

By Go Mustangs on May 16, 2008 5:00 PM--

Thank you for your complement in regards to my post. In response to your question, "Where was I during the MWGen dispute?" Well, where do I begin? A husband with a very important job (hence the reason for our relocation to the area), 3 teenage children, 2 dogs, teaching 5 AP and/or Honors classes to high school students,... shall I go on? Unfortunately, there are just so many hours in the day, so I simply read the reports, studied the results, and made what I perceived to be my own informed decisions. I believe that one has to let go sometime, and I was ready to move on after the 2005 referendum.
__________________________________

Hi, Mustang!

It was not my intent to put you on the spot. I didn't mean the question in a literal sense (by the way, you do have a lot on your plate, don't you?). I think you have given enough of your time to 204 by being a part of the original referendum committee in 05. That's more than I have done.

When I said "your voice", I meant in any way you could squeeze it in there. You have a more knowledgable background than most. You're an educator, and a good one, judging from your posts. You know from being on the referendum committee that a lot happens that never makes it to the newspapers, so the general public doesn't know about it. Same with SB meetings. And the nuances gleaned at these meetings can add a lot to understanding the dynamics of an issue, like it did with my understanding of the Eola site controversy.

All I'm saying is things got really funky after you left in 05. My impression of the situation is probably a lot different from those who didn't attend the boundary meetings in 06 or the SB meetings that related to this issue in 08. Your voice would have been a welcome addition.

By anonymous on May 16, 2008 6:18 PM

Still enjoying yourself GF? The tolerance only lasts a short time before they turn on you like hyenas. Have fun! Good Night!
_______________________________________

The first sentence alone did it for me.

Stalkers: 5

To: By BIG D on May 17, 2008 12:13 AM
Moderator Jim,
This thread about the NCLB law and the suspicion that the SB is driving the 09 date to avoid losing control of the district because Waubonsie has not met the required milestones for years seems very interesting. Have you considered doing an article on this topic, interviewing some objective sources (ie outside the district) and talking to our school admin/board?

Since many of us have lost trust in the administration and Metzger it would be good to see if there is any substance to this issue.

I heard today that Daschner is planning to announce his new plan for changing the way we educate our special needs kids. I also heard that the teachers who perform this critical service to the districts special needs kids have not been involved nor have they had any preview of his plan. We have great teachers in 204 and I find it insulting that Daschner thinks he's smarter than all of them. When he was fired from his last job the local papers commented that although he had many accomplishments listening to the teachers and parents was a major problem for him. This latest brainstorm by Daschner may also make for an interesting investigative story.

Just a couple of suggestions from a loyal reader.
_____________________________________________________

I'm not even going to touch on your comment regarding the NCLB issue other then to say NV and WV both don't score very well in regards to NCLB. I have my own opinions about NCLB but I won't get into this now. NV and WV scores across all academic area are pretty close so to me it just seems as if you are trying to get people worked up. Considering WV has what is it 6 Title I schools feeding into it, I'd say that's pretty good. Nice try at taking a shot at WVHS but I'm damn proud of that HS and the work the teachers and administrators do there.

Regarding your comment about Dr. D changing the way we educate our Special Needs kis you are wrong again. D204 is piloting a program for Special Needs Kids that is being done across the US. This program from what I can see puts more power in experienced teachers hands who know how to deal with Special Needs Kids and less hands in the teacher aides and therefore reduces the aides. This was discussed at length at the last school board meeting but I'm guessing by your assumptions you were not at the last school board meeting or you would be more informed.

Again, this is a "pilot program" that will be tried at Cowlishaw, McCarty, Steck and Welch Elementay Schools. In addition, Granger and Hill Middle Schools. Maybe those teachers have not been informed because they are not at one of these schools? The Director of Special Needs Kids at IPSD spoke at the the SB Meeting and had nothing but positive things to say about this program. The teachers have been told about this because ultimately they will have more control then they have in the past. To also assume that Dr. D is forcing this is not truthful. As evidenced at the SB Meeting the Special Needs Department was trying to convince the SB that this was a great program more so then the SB or Dr. D was trying to push it on the IPSD.

Remember it is a "pilot program" and the results will be recorded and evaluated very intensely as the SB has already warned during the meeting. If thing don't go the way as planned I'm sure they won't go forward with the program. Remember IPSD has always been known as an amazing SD for special needs kids. My kids benefited from speech at IPSD since they were both in preschool. I doubt IPSD would do anything to put these programs in jepordy.

Please Big D next time you raise an issue don't assume or point fingers when you obviously don't have any of the facts. Instead you assume and point fingers at Dr. D when this is a Special Needs Program decision as well as a SB decision for a pilot program. Without change as a school District how to we improve? I am also interested in this program to see how it does and hope it works out for our kids and teachers. That's why it is a pilot program.

Thanks Big D for showing us all once again what happens when you "assume".

Have a wonderful weekend.

MR

By Eola Toll Mounting on May 17, 2008 6:40 AM

KK, is that all you have? Speaks volumes as this is the usual response from many of you and your followers. So I guess it must be true as you say.
_______________

Quite honestly, this is all I need. People who cut/copy/paste the party line from NSFOC (or NSFOC Fraud for that matter) as if it were some revelation from the almighty are doing nothing more than propagating propaganda and adding nothing to the discussion -- they deserve to be called out for the hacks they are (on both sides). While I don't agree with them on many items, D&S, GF, and a couple other NSFOC supporters have posted intelligent arguments that have made me pause, rethink, and alter some of my positions. They were able to accomplish this not by playing the role of partisan hack, but by thinking and communicating their thoughts effectively in a written forum. For instance, D&S is absolutely right that NSFOC has done some serious good by forcing MWGEN to back out causing MV to be sited further from the contamination source. I hadn't considered that before. Score one for D&S and the NSFOC. I demonstrate that I listen to intelligent arguments and adjust my positions based on these arguments. So there.

Copying NSFOC BS is a waste of disk space on the Sun's web servers. At least do us the favor of posting a link to this drivel so we can more easily ignore it and move on to the more intelligent discussions that have been taking place the past two weeks.

Hallueajah!! I SEE THE LIGHT!! NSFOC, cancel the lawsuit please, don't you know they started grading the property? What nonsense have I been thinking all this time? Now...Where is my lemming outfit, I need to get it back on and also get my pom poms to join in the mindless cheerleading support of the SB. Even if they bankrupt us (the district) its everyone else's fault. Never Fear; I will help find more folks/groups to potentially blame if that comes to pass.

Thanks Anon #???? for showing be the light and the error of my ways. :)
------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on May 16, 2008 7:18 PM
All,

The game is over! Get over it - Metea construction is underway.

NFSOC - your kids will be just fine at WVHS.

Time to end this nonsense.

Yes Always!! :) Good analogy. Hyenas are only dangerous in packs (they junt in packs). Very similiar to the little Anon group out there pecking away with nonsense quotes. Great thing about hyenas is their sickly little laugh. Unfortunately cant hear it through cyberspace.

----------------------------------------------------
By anonymous on May 16, 2008 6:18 PM

Still enjoying yourself GF? The tolerance only lasts a short time before they turn on you like hyenas. Have fun! Good Night!

Incredulous--ever notice how many years it will take for the diesel costs to equal the increased cost of the land? It is always over a period of years, and never takes into account the time value of money. Know anybody good at doing present value tables to find out how long in real dollars it will take for the costs to become equal?

To Big D--it is true that WVHS, NVHS, and almost every public school in the country has failed NCLB. Since everyone has to pass the same test in the same language in the same environment. This includes English Language learners, and special needs students. The only accomodations, I believe (someone in education please help), are that the directions for the test (not the test itself) can be given in a limited number of languages other than English and that the test is given in another way for the visually impaired.

D204 has a huge number of kids with special needs and the largest number of languages spoken in homes of any school district in the state. NCLB is designed specifically to leave these groups behind and is working amazingly well. Our district does not accept this and works to help all students reach their full potential, the fact that the federal government believes that should be punished is the story, not the wonderful diversity of D204!

In addition, assuming the Dems retain control of congress (not much of a stretch) and if we get a Dem president, NCLB will be left behind, so by 2009 this could all be completely moot. Those who live here and top universities throughout the country recognize that both of our schools are outstanding and recruit our graduates. Somehow that does not mesh with the idea of a failing school or district!

The switch of the new high school to the Eola location ignored transportation costs, and as a result D204 lost the expected 9% savings anticipated when the location was at Brach-Brodie - note this was Option 5A where Bruce Glawe announced the savings potential at one of the boundary meetings leading up to the referendum vote in 2006. Well that's gone now - so 9% savings lost or $1M per year.
------------------
OK, class, bear with me. What is wrong with this statement:

B is 9% cheaper than A. C is not B. So C is 9% more expensive than B.

Anyone? Well, it could be that C is also cheaper than A. Which is exactly what the same Bruce Glawe said about the Eola site. Namely, that it was also cheaper than the status quo ante, because either way less kids get bused. One good Bruce quote is as good as any another, right?
--------------
In addition, using D204's own school/student pairings for the Eola location generates 10-13% more bus miles. These numbers were scrubbed by experts using D204 data. Bus mile increases alone could generate another $1.5 million in transportation costs (13%) per year - that's $30M over 20 years
-----------------
But wait. Extra credit: if we pay by route, and the people who are charging by route (Laidlaw) said that the costs would be the same, will the costs not be the same? And will not the increased fuel costs be their problem (and even more reason for them to estimate correctly)?

I have no idea if anyone is even paying attention to
these rectal analyses on the NSFOC site, but they are pretty incredible.

And the most amazing and stupendous part about them is that their transportation costs always add up to just about exactly the amount by which the BB site was more expensive than Eola. Hey, whaddya know? The land was twice the price, but we will make it up on diesel!

By Khazakstan Kid on May 16, 2008 9:18 PM
By Eola Tolll Mounting on May 16, 2008 6:27 PM

"Saw this on NSFOC site."
_______________________

Gee, then it must be true...

------
KK, is that all you have? Speaks volumes as this is the usual response from many of you and your followers. So I guess it must be true as you say.

Moderator Jim,
This thread about the NCLB law and the suspicion that the SB is driving the 09 date to avoid losing control of the district because Waubonsie has not met the required milestones for years seems very interesting. Have you considered doing an article on this topic, interviewing some objective sources (ie outside the district) and talking to our school admin/board?

Since many of us have lost trust in the administration and Metzger it would be good to see if there is any substance to this issue.

I heard today that Daschner is planning to announce his new plan for changing the way we educate our special needs kids. I also heard that the teachers who perform this critical service to the districts special needs kids have not been involved nor have they had any preview of his plan. We have great teachers in 204 and I find it insulting that Daschner thinks he's smarter than all of them. When he was fired from his last job the local papers commented that although he had many accomplishments listening to the teachers and parents was a major problem for him. This latest brainstorm by Daschner may also make for an interesting investigative story.

Just a couple of suggestions from a loyal reader.

By Eola Tolll Mounting on May 16, 2008 6:27 PM

"Saw this on NSFOC site."
_______________________

Gee, then it must be true...

To South of 111th East of 59 on May 16, 2008 1:16 PM

Re your post:

I agree with your comment, "If you post crap, you run the risk of getting crap back" which is why I commented on your line about canasta and bunko. If your method of argument is to belittle people, which your comment was, then I disagree with your method.

See my response to nosuchthingasneutral, I think you are jumping the gun here. As I explained, I never said I was against the NSFOC, I didn't even mention them. I do question why now it seems that only those who have had their boundaries changed are allowed to comment or be taken seriously? I am simply pointing out that all of us are affected one way or another.

As a result of this whole mess my taxes are going to go up. Who's to blame? I think the school board should get a majority of it.

My comment to nosuchthing that we probably agree on more than we disagree about pertains to you as well.
__________________________________________

I'll give this one more shot.

1) If you think comments about bunco and canasta are insults, then you haven't been on this blog very long and you have a real eye-opener in store for you.
2) If you don't want to get hit with crap, stay out of the line of fire. You butted in when I replied to 3rd HS and began throwing bombs of your own. I suggest you find out where the volley originates before you involve yourself next time.
3) I am not going to discuss the above two points again. This is sounding like a "But, mom, she started it" argument which is not only ridiculous but embarrassing.

Moving on to more pertinent issues:

If you were not referring to the NSFOC when you made the "I'm being sued" comment, then yes, I jumped the gun and apologize. I've been reading these blogs for weeks. Whenever I have read this comment, 99.9% of the time the blogger is referring to the NSFOC. It amazes me that there are folks more upset about a lawsuit from a relatively small group of people that isn't pursuing money damages than they are 3 multi-million dollar lawsuits from two powerful trust groups.

Of course all of us are affected one way or another, no doubt about it. But we are all not affected equally. You are concerned about overcrowded schools, high taxes, and maintaining your property values. I am concerned about overcrowded schools, high taxes, maintaining my property values, my daughter's middle school being split and her freaking out because almost all her friends will be attending NV while she is bussed to WV and having to start high school with no close friends to rely on for support. So I get a little testy when I hear folks from the NV catchment area singing the blues.

I also agree that the SB is the architect of this mess, no one else. So it does sound like we agree more than disagree on these points after all.

All,

The game is over! Get over it - Metea construction is underway.

NFSOC - your kids will be just fine at WVHS.

Time to end this nonsense.

Saw this on NSFOC site.

Bus Fuel Costs A Major Expense Going Forward

School district leaders all over the nation are worried about rising fuel prices consuming budgets. Since the beginning of the year when average diesel fuel prices were already 33% higher than last year, that gap has widened to over 53% higher than last year. What does this mean for D204? Why does D204 not incorporate fuel costs and bus miles into their school location decisions?

One school district has seen the cost per gallon on diesel increase by more than a dollar and gasoline prices increase by around 70 cents per gallon. So, school district leaders have had to look to other areas in their budgets to pay for fuel.

D204 will tell you that we pay by the number of routes, and so fuel cost is irrelevant. Maybe so, but D204 has to realize that the bus vendor, in this case, Laidlaw, now called First Student, is in the business to make money. Whether they get their money from local districts or partially reimbursed from the state, they will evntually collect the increase in fuel costs - you can bet on that.

Fuel makes up a significant portion of the bus costs for any school district, and as prices rise, the fuel share of total transportation cost increases proportionally. Assume about 10% of total bus costs represent fuel and rises with prices.

Vendors have many marketing techniques to collect the cost and a margin (profit) on the services provided, and one of those methods involves paying by the route. The cost per route may look like a reasonable number, but how does D204 know the difference between a good route cost and a bad route cost. Do they benchmark with D203? Do they have an analysis model to assure taxpayers that they are not paying too much for bus transportation?

We would like to know the answers. So readers, please let us know your thoughts on the subject. We will update this article as we learn more. Feel free to let us know if we can improve our analysis and how.

D204's bus costs are budgeted for about $11.3 million (M) this year. Since the budget was already set in 2007, there may be a significant increase in bus costs coming soon - depending how the vendor contract works. The cost will have to be covered because a bus vendor cannot afford to eat the difference, and will find a way to pass it on.

Let's assume that the share of total costs related to fuel is about 10% of a bus cost which would include labor (the driver), fuel and maintenance in order of highest to lowest share of total costs per bus - the majority of costs being labor by far.

That would mean about $1.1M for fuel alone. If prices are up 53% versus last year and continue that way, then add another $0.6 million in 2008 just for the fuel cost increase or $1.7M just this year for fuel assuming 10% of the bus costs is fuel in 2008. If the petroleum products market remains volatile to the upside - meaning prices go up and down but generally keep rising over time, then D204 could expect fuel costs to increase at well beyond inflation. Most experts feel there is no turning back on fuel costs, and that the $4 to $5 per gallon fuel costs will be common in the future.

Let's say the average increase is just 5% per year on the possible total costs of fuel for 2008 ($1.1M + $0.6M = 1.7M total fuel costs). Over 20 years that's $56 million for total fuel alone assuming it's 10% of total bus costs and grows at 5% per year, or $22M more than a flat $1.7M per year over 20 years. Assume half that $22M growth in fuel cost could be attributable to the tighter fuel market, or $11M over 20 years higher fuel costs from tighter market conditions. That's big dollars. That's also before increases in bus miles due to Eola location, which is far from the population center in thw south, and thus adds bus miles.

Yes, we already acknowledged that we pay by the route, but the fuel cost and increases in market prices must be covered by the cost per route. That means every decision made on school locations and boundaries, that does not take distance and time into account, and minimizes bus riders, will waste taxpayer money.

The switch of the new high school to the Eola location ignored transportation costs, and as a result D204 lost the expected 9% savings anticipated when the location was at Brach-Brodie - note this was Option 5A where Bruce Glawe announced the savings potential at one of the boundary meetings leading up to the referendum vote in 2006. Well that's gone now - so 9% savings lost or $1M per year. That's $20M over 20 years in lost taxpayer money already.

In addition, using D204's own school/student pairings for the Eola location generates 10-13% more bus miles. These numbers were scrubbed by experts using D204 data. Bus mile increases alone could generate another $1.5 million in transportation costs (13%) per year - that's $30M over 20 years.

Therefore, in summary, over 20 years fuel costs could rise $11M due to a tight market beyond expectations, $20M due to the lost 9% savings Bruce Glawe promoted at Brach-Brodie, and $30M due to a 13% increase in bus miles based on the Eola location - $61M in total bus costs over and above the current budget, based on fuel and other bus costs.

However, NSFOC still uses a conservative value of under $20M for transportation savings at the Brach-Brodie versus Eola-AME location for MVHS (or $20M higher cost for Eola than Brach-Brodie if you prefer).

----------
So add another 20M to Eola people. Or more.

By Anonymous on May 16, 2008 4:36 PM
Greg/Civic,
If you could stop stroking one anothers ego's for a minute...
The ONLY legally binding document that the SB is required to follow is the actual referendum language on the ballots. So all of the superfluous talk about new slates and re-votes and do-overs is just a waste of breath. We voted to give them the money to build a 3rd HS. We did NOT vote on location, boundaries, or what Greg Forrest thinks. So get over it.
------

Still enjoying yourself GF? The tolerance only lasts a short time before they turn on you like hyenas. Have fun! Good Night!

Fair enough Anon #????. HOWEVER, I must point out that this strand is about mediation failing and where we think this is going next. you are probably correct that the most likely outcome is the court cases will play out and next big date is may 23rd. What a bunch of us are wondering, is that if the case moves forward (is not dismissed), would their be another opportunity for mediation (risks of SB losing jump dramatically after 5/23) and if so, what would/could it be and still keep consistent with the approval for a 3rd HS?

Let me ask you a question; would you prefer (however unlikely you may think it is) to wait until July 30th then find out 3rd HS at Eola is frozen by the courts and ordered to be unwound (pending appeal?) when other possible solutions were potentially available? For the general "voted no" crowd (I guess me being one of that group since I was against the 3rd HS both in 05 and 06) this would be the best case scenario as it would be extremely unlikely the thing would ever get built as the bubble will have passed and enrollments continue to decline.

I think the majority of the district did want the HS at BB (ie the ref passed), If the majority of the district still wants it but at the new location Eola, all is well and the suit is moot and we can move on. If they want it; but only at BB for whatever reasons, (mitigation/elimination of unknown BB suit damages liability, or pipeline conerns at Eola, or businng costs, or whatever...); then the SB has some hard choices to make.

Dont worry about it though, the SB will not negotiate based on their track record anyways so this is really an academic argument unless something materially changes in the near future. But maybe you are right, why should I waste my time talking about it when there is very little chance of a non court ordered re-vote.

I am perfectly content to wait for a verdict. Just thought perhaps there might be an opportunity to salvage something that the majority on both sides might be able to live with or at the very least avoid a lose/lose.

Sorry I offend you so much (from your post): "or what Greg Forrest thinks. So get over it."

I seem to be hitting everyones hotbuttons every time I open my mouth. Just like the SB should be able to realize the same thing with 4 outstanding lawsuits against them at present. Maybe we both need to recoginize we are both doing something wrong to get so much negative feedback....

See ya
GF

----------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on May 16, 2008 4:36 PM
Greg/Civic,
If you could stop stroking one anothers ego's for a minute...
The ONLY legally binding document that the SB is required to follow is the actual referendum language on the ballots. So all of the superfluous talk about new slates and re-votes and do-overs is just a waste of breath. We voted to give them the money to build a 3rd HS. We did NOT vote on location, boundaries, or what Greg Forrest thinks. So get over it.

By D&S on May 16, 2008 1:40 AM

"Thanks for your response, Mustang. I enjoyed reading your post. I respect your position as an educator and think your personal experiences add validity to your opinion. But I do need to ask, where was your voice during the MWGen land dispute?"

Hi D&S
Thank you for your complement in regards to my post. In response to your question, "Where was I during the MWGen dispute?" Well, where do I begin? A husband with a very important job (hence the reason for our relocation to the area), 3 teenage children, 2 dogs, teaching 5 AP and/or Honors classes to high school students,... shall I go on? Unfortunately, there are just so many hours in the day, so I simply read the reports, studied the results, and made what I perceived to be my own informed decisions. I believe that one has to let go sometime, and I was ready to move on after the 2005 referendum.

By Re-Vote on May 16, 2008 12:18 PM
If a new referendum on the Eola site were to be held. It would fail. Isn't that obvious? Of course, all the NSFOC members (all 9 of them :-)) will vote. But, for most of the district, there's not a lot of interest. Yes, it's true. Many of us recognize the need for a 3rd high school to address the overcrowding. But we don't care where it gets built. North, South, Central. Go ahead, kill the plans to build the 3rd high school. I can't wait to read your complaints when the schools go on split sessions.

-------
It is obvious that split shifts were a fear of the taxpayers based on the survey conducted by the referendum consultants. The strategy was to talk about the fears of taxpayers to help promote the 3rd HS. It worked.

However, those arguments will not fly this time. The enrollment has dropped one high school. WHile there may be a short term need for a bubble, a large 3rd HS may not be needed today. The people who approved the referendum were lied to. AFter the 2005 referendum a second enrollment was commissioned at NIU to pump up the numbers higher than the first study. That was also part of the strategy.

Dont believe this? Talk to Ehler's and Associates about that idea. Its making them a ton of money in bond comissions today.

Greg/Civic,
If you could stop stroking one anothers ego's for a minute...
The ONLY legally binding document that the SB is required to follow is the actual referendum language on the ballots. So all of the superfluous talk about new slates and re-votes and do-overs is just a waste of breath. We voted to give them the money to build a 3rd HS. We did NOT vote on location, boundaries, or what Greg Forrest thinks. So get over it.

By just the facts on May 16, 2008 1:14 PM
The real cost to a referendum "do over" is the increased construction costs. My understanding is that a good rule-of-thumb for increases in construction costs is 1% per month. For a $100 million project, that is a $1 million/month cost. Therefore, a referendum do over could have cost taxpayers (all of us) in excess of $10 million (assuming we had a vote in Nov and couldn't break ground until next spring).

I guess the saying "time is money" is true.
------
A special election can be held quickly, but does cost the expense of the election. Not sure what cost is but it's a lot less than the cost of waiting.

Also, note that there is expedite costs that would be avoided. Those costs were originally $10 million, then revised to 5mil. I doubt that with the delays the cost went down. Expedite costs are probably higher than 10 mul now.

Lastly, you can put $100 mil in a CD and earn another 4% over one year.

So the above would easily cover the cost of waiting..esp when the 2009 opening may be in jeopardy even after spending $10-15mil on expedite fees.

Then we do not take risks on any other hidden costs at Eola. At this point spending the extra $100k per acre would have been wiser than the reckless move to Eola. I have to think there were other motives to do something so risky.

Hi Civics

I think your idea really has some legs!! Got to stew on it a little, but There are a lot of pros in this. I think it would have to come after May 23rd in mediation agreement as a court (IMO) is more likely to nullify the 2nd ref entirely and start with a blank slate (if NSFOC is successful and SB refuses or is unable to build on BB)

Yes in a clean slate SB has full authority to pick location etc (but they can still listen to constituent input as they make their decisions). However, before a verdict we are in real murky waters here. (IMO) SB could still be the final decision maker, they would just be asking for constituent input to "help" them make their final decision (granted they are asking for ALOT of input and not just from specific groups etc). Very similiar to the Owen East exemption they made at the boundry meeting. This was not illegal (voters deciding boundaries which is also a No No), they just listened to their constituents input before making their final decision.... (spltting hairs I know)

Ok the money is in hand: receive voter input on which site to build on. This is very good as it keeps the vote no crowd out of a second bite of the apple. As you know, I was against a 3rd HS. I do not want to rehash my reasons in total in order to defend myself against all the folks that will be calling me anti kid or anti education etc; but my view was the ref was about solving overcrowding and the buldge currently in the pipeline. I thought there were better more cost effective ways to handle this than a 125M HS (move from 6-8 to a 7-9 JR HS + additions etc). Now, if it was about 4 HS's with optimal #'s for optimal learning (2000 a HS according to AK); my problem with that was we already built NV to accomodate 4500 kids, we dont want to run it at 50% capacity and open 2 more HS's for 2000 student optimal learning environment? That is the scary thing about long term decisions, its tough to go in an alternate direction once the building is finished.

I like it Civ, If NSFOC suit survives past 5/23; this might be a more lucrative option...... I would support it.

Best
GF

----------------------------------------------------
By Civics on May 16, 2008 10:52 AM
Greg

re/ the re-vote idea

You said it pretty well for me. And you got my reasoning right as well. I hate it when I am so transparent. I guess I prefer to think of it as consistent!

But I have to admit that aside from the principles of Republic, there is a part of me that would not want a re-vote because I fear it will not pass. And I want that third HS (even though I am also "safely" at NV).

If there were a way to have a vote that said "GIVEN that we WILL build a third school, where do you want it? BB or Eola?"

Unfortunately I think that violates one of your (and the State's) principles (SB gets to decide location) and it would also prevent a fall '09 opening.

Personally, I am OK with missing that date since my kids are little. But I dont think it would go over too well with the folks who are dealing with overcrowding right now. And I am not sure it answers the other issue which is.....What did we vote for? A HS or a location?

I will give it a bit more thought. Greg, what do you think of my idea for the vote?

There WILL NOT be another vote people. The high school is being built. Some of you need to let things go. We will have three great High schjools get used to the fact!

Hi Incredulous

I think there are a great many ways to read the legalese in both filings (wow hard to imagine lawyers obstrgating and adding complexity LOL)

The NSFOC case (IMO) is saying the written factual documents to the voters/taxpayers and the courts mean 2nd ref is BB and the school board did disperse some of their authority at their own request (disclosing location/boundries in court and documented) IN ORDER TO GET THE REF PASSED AND OBTAIN THE MONEY. If that is the case, refuting the 2nd referendum responsibilities (build on BB) violates the 2nd ref and nullifies it does it not?. If the SB argues they broke their own laws/rules and violated the ELA, and points to their own case law that shows they are not allowed to hand over this responsibility BUT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KEEP THE $$ and move on from here; then the court will need to determine the proper remedy if any. One of the remedies could be a "do over" to ensure ELA and SB rules remain intact and fix the violation; but there are lots of others as well. It will be interesting.

----------------------------------------------
By Incredulous on May 16, 2008 12:38 PM

The District's motion to dismiss has some interesting stuff in there (well, as interesting as that stuff can be). One of the arguments is that school boards have the legal responsibility to select (or abandon) school sites, without a referendum, and are *not allowed* to delegate that. They point to where the statue says just that plus some cases about it.

Now if that part is right, it would have actually been illegal to specify a site on the referendum and it would be illegal to have any kind of vote about sites or boundaries, since the board is obligated by law to make those decisions for themselves.

The best they could do would be a non-binding poll of some kind. Which would probably not solve anything.

Ironically, the NSFOC response makes the argument that since the referendum passed it is now law and the board is obligated to do what it says. Which would seem to mean they *have* to build the new school now and it would be illegal to stop and have a re-vote on the issue.

Either way you slice it, sounds like it is a done deal and there is no re-doing it now.

to D&S on May 16, 2008 11:39 AM

I agree with your comment, "If you post crap, you run the risk of getting crap back" which is why I commented on your line about canasta and bunko. If your method of argument is to belittle people, which your comment was, then I disagree with your method.

See my response to nosuchthingasneutral, I think you are jumping the gun here. As I explained, I never said I was against the NSFOC, I didn't even mention them. I do question why now it seems that only those who have had their boundaries changed are allowed to comment or be taken seriously? I am simply pointing out that all of us are affected one way or another.

As a result of this whole mess my taxes are going to go up. Who's to blame? I think the school board should get a majority of it.

My comment to nosuchthing that we probably agree on more than we disagree about pertains to you as well.

The real cost to a referendum "do over" is the increased construction costs. My understanding is that a good rule-of-thumb for increases in construction costs is 1% per month. For a $100 million project, that is a $1 million/month cost. Therefore, a referendum do over could have cost taxpayers (all of us) in excess of $10 million (assuming we had a vote in Nov and couldn't break ground until next spring).

I guess the saying "time is money" is true.

We can not stop and have a non-binding vote on every issue that the SB needs to address. This is just ridiculous. We elect our school board members - I'm assuming that we elect those members that accurately reflect our own viewpoints. If you want to vote on everything, nothing will ever happen in this district. Is that really what that NSFOC wants? Actually yes, as long as their teens graduate from NVHS.

to: nosuchthingasneutral on May 16, 2008 10:49 AM

Check your D204 map - your comment "(aka Plainfield)" was obviously meant as some kind of dig? Then you proceed to call me Elitist? No wonder people have taken such abusive sides in this mess.

What gave you the idea that I do not support NSFOC? - I didn't even mention their name. I simply said I had an interest in this because I was being sued. I also said I don't want overcrowded schools, and I want to protect my property value. I never gave any opinion as to which location I preferred - that one I will leave to you guys because it does directly affect you.

My comments were in direct response to D&S who seems to think that anyone East of 59 and South of 95th (which I am) has no vested interest in this cause.

My real complaint is directly at our SB who I believe mis managed this entire fiasco. Yes, my situation has been NV in every districting scenario, but I thought that NSFOC's goal was to get as many people involved as they can, or is it simply those West of 59?

and by the way, South of 111th and East of 59 is a subdivision known as High Meadow with over 800 homes. We are in Naperville city limits, and we are in District 204.

And to your final comment: My hope is for cheaper taxes and less crowded schools for ALL of district 204 kids - not just mine. I certainly didn't think that wanting to pay less in taxes, and not wanting overcrowded schools would be such an issue.

Now that I am off the soapbox I'll ask, is it plausible to suggest that the SB put Eola/Molitor site up for a district confirmation vote? This will maintain the "integrity" of the referendum vote and we'll either say yes or no to Eola and a lot of things can be put behind us.
---------
The District's motion to dismiss has some interesting stuff in there (well, as interesting as that stuff can be). One of the arguments is that school boards have the legal responsibility to select (or abandon) school sites, without a referendum, and are *not allowed* to delegate that. They point to where the statue says just that plus some cases about it.

Now if that part is right, it would have actually been illegal to specify a site on the referendum and it would be illegal to have any kind of vote about sites or boundaries, since the board is obligated by law to make those decisions for themselves.

The best they could do would be a non-binding poll of some kind. Which would probably not solve anything.

Ironically, the NSFOC response makes the argument that since the referendum passed it is now law and the board is obligated to do what it says. Which would seem to mean they *have* to build the new school now and it would be illegal to stop and have a re-vote on the issue.

Either way you slice it, sounds like it is a done deal and there is no re-doing it now.

Greg,

Read your post again at
By Greg Forrest on May 16, 2008 12:44 AM
and you will understand where you lost it. Why should I get the SB to agree to a referendum? It is YOU who wants a revote so YOU do all the work. I was just teling you to offer to pay for it. I am not the one to decide why and how a referendum is done. And yes, I do think that SB will not redo it as they don't need to. You want a revote just because the outcome is not of your liking. That's all.

Why is the Sun continuing to add "fuel to the fire" and cover every move that NSFOC makes??

Why not report that the public bid opening for the mechanical contractors was this week, so the Board is going forward and giving no credence to these selfish, "me-only, me-first" individuals.

If a new referendum on the Eola site were to be held. It would fail. Isn't that obvious? Of course, all the NSFOC members (all 9 of them :-)) will vote. But, for most of the district, there's not a lot of interest. Yes, it's true. Many of us recognize the need for a 3rd high school to address the overcrowding. But we don't care where it gets built. North, South, Central. Go ahead, kill the plans to build the 3rd high school. I can't wait to read your complaints when the schools go on split sessions.

By Civics
If there were a way to have a vote that said "GIVEN that we WILL build a third school, where do you want it? BB or Eola?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Se my 10:00 am post, I there with you.......again, if this were possible.

GF:

To your earlier post. I "chose" civics (it could be perspective) due to MR's recent situation as these were the folks that came to mind when trying to consider a reliable, rational pro-Eola voice. Any omissions are purely unintentional.

sBy South of 111th East of 59 on May 16, 2008 9:20 AM

Not sure I follow your logic. I live south of 111th and East of 59 and this boundary decision directly affects me because I (dist. 204) am being sued. My taxes will go up because of litigation, my kids could end up going to a school with over 5,000 of their closest friends, and as has been argued ad infinitum my property value may stagnate or even go down over this issue. I take exception to your statement that we don't have to "deal with the problem".

I also find it ironic that the way you seem to "deal" with the problem is to make the snide comment that, "This should leave you free to focus on your canasta or bunco nights". (Always a classy move to throw in a cheap shot - really helped your argument.) God forbid anyone should disagree with D&S, the final arbiter of everything right and wrong!
________________________________

It's a very simple principle, South. If you post crap, you run the risk of getting crap back. If you want respect, give respect, and we'll all get along.

And no, those of you districted to NV are NOT dealing with this issue like we are. If for some reason Metea does not get built, then you will have to deal with it, but you're largely unaffected at this point. And when you talk about being sued and having to pay for litigation, if you're referring to the NSFOC lawsuit, give it a rest! The district is currently fighting 3 separate lawsuits from two very wealthy and powerful groups. These are the Brach and Brodie trusts you've heard of. Starting June 10, they will be doing all they can to get millions of your tax dollars. They don't care if they wipe out the district coffers, that's their goal. They don't care if Metea gets finished or opens in 09. They don't care if your property values go down or stagnate as a result of their actions. If you want to discuss being sued by those groups, then we have a lot to talk about. If all you want to do is gripe about the NSFOC suit, then I'm not interested.

About the canasta and bunco comment: you seem to forget I live in this area, too. We all have our groups. I apologize if I offended anyone by leaving out bridge.

It it amazing to see how people (in "safe" neighborhoods) do feel that nothing can happen to them (near or far future - doesn't matter). I think we have got to this situation precisly because many wrong decisions and missteps were tolerated, overlooked. We really should find a solution to this mess. A new vote is the only one logical thing we have so far. But we can brainstorm for more. In any case this district is torn - imagine a body where a hand is injured - you try to cure it so it will heal or you just ignore it and do not take care of it. What possibly can happen? The wound can heal on its own over a time leaving a huge scar or it can get infected and spread to the whole body.

Demo, you are now changing your tune? In your original post you were up for a confirmation vote to put to rest all the extraneous crap that tainted the BB referendum AS LONG AS YOU DIDNT HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. I merely said, I will drum up the money for the confirmation vote if you could get the SB to agree to a vote on MVHS at Eola.

Why offer up the "Ready for it" challenge if you dont think it will ever happen and you dont want it to happen (IMO based on reading your latest anon post)? It is you that are losing it as this makes no sense; why even say it if you dont agree with it and dont want it to happen?

----------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on May 16, 2008 8:15 AM
Greg,

You are really loosing it. I was mentioning the first referendum that passed. It was a "blank 3rd HS referendum free from all the crap" other than the imagination of some. You can harp all you want but another referendum is not going to happen. You can have a million referendums and you can always find people that will find issues with something that was NOT on the referendum. You are worse than NSFOC as their motives are little less hidden.

By Greg Forrest on May 16, 2008 12:44 AM
So Demo...

----------------------------------------------------
By Where's Democracy? on May 15, 2008 10:20 PM

To all wanting a vote for a decision:

By Incredulous on May 15, 2008 8:10 PM

Question is, is it wiser to pay something you know for certain costs 100% more just to avoid damages that are likely to be less than that and quite possibly zero? This knowing that the longer you wait the more everything will cost, no matter what you decide?

I have never understood why that seems "fiscally irresponsible" to people who oppose Eola.
_______________________________

Hi, Incredulous! I wasn't ignoring you, just had other fires to put out.

I definitely see your point. Alka Tyle told us this very thing at a SB meeting, and I couldn't disagree with it. Given that available, affordable land is almost nonexistent in 204 now, waiting 1-2 years to settle the BB lawsuits before proceeding could pretty much guarantee that 204 would never have a 3rd HS, and if by some miracle we could find land, it would cost us a lot more to build on it later than it would now. We're simply between a rock and a hard place.

I'm not saying we shouldn't proceed now, I'm just not sure that proceeding at Eola was the right move from a purely financial standpoint. In making their decision, the SB chose only to consider what they definitely knew at the time, which was that the Eola site's base price was lower than BBs. No dispute. But the added "walk out costs" from the three pending BB lawsuits threaten to not only eat up these savings, but in a worse case scenario could cripple the district financially and interfere with the completion of Metea. By ignoring this the SB is gambling again, like they did at BB, that the worse will not occur. I think that's somewhat irresponsible, especially given how well that worked for them the first time around.

I don't have a crystal ball and neither does the SB. Personally, I would have leaned toward just paying the extra $17M for BB, no matter where we had to scare up the extra cash, and just being done with it. None of this other junk would be happening right now if we had. I do agree that we had no choice but to build now. It's the SB's wisdom in jumping to the Eola site that I question.

Greg

re/ the re-vote idea

You said it pretty well for me. And you got my reasoning right as well. I hate it when I am so transparent. I guess I prefer to think of it as consistent!

But I have to admit that aside from the principles of Republic, there is a part of me that would not want a re-vote because I fear it will not pass. And I want that third HS (even though I am also "safely" at NV).

If there were a way to have a vote that said "GIVEN that we WILL build a third school, where do you want it? BB or Eola?"

Unfortunately I think that violates one of your (and the State's) principles (SB gets to decide location) and it would also prevent a fall '09 opening.

Personally, I am OK with missing that date since my kids are little. But I dont think it would go over too well with the folks who are dealing with overcrowding right now. And I am not sure it answers the other issue which is.....What did we vote for? A HS or a location?

I will give it a bit more thought. Greg, what do you think of my idea for the vote?

To South of 111th East of 59 (aka Plainfield)

So why is the Eola site a good location choice for your personal circumstance? How I look at it, you should be joining the NFSOC cause.

If they moved it back to BB, there would be no more litigation by NFSOC and BB to hold things up at a higher cost, and it would be ultimately cheaper in operating (transportation) costs. So you would get your less crowded NVHS and cheaper taxes!

P.S. That's very "elitist" of YOU to think you deserve cheaper taxes and a less crowded school for YOUR kids.

By Civics on May 15, 2008 6:19 PM
Help

Aha...I see we went from $200 million to $300 million in the space of few short posts!

Supporting your opinions and invented "facts" with more opinions and invented "facts" does not make them any more valid or any more true.

But keep trying! Who knows....perhaps you will say something of interest eventually!
--------
Sorry for not clarifying...
We are heading for $200 mil in costs excluding financing and operating costs over 20 years.
Let me correct the #300 mil including financing and operating costs over 20 years...thought I was being nice with the 300 mil...the acutal costs all-in are probably higher.

These are not invented facts, but reasonable estimates..do the math. If we end up spending $180M on a school what's that going to cost over 20 years? What's your number?

Throw in the wasted transportation costs and damage to the environment on top of that.

If you cannot dispute these figures with your own analysis, then do not bother to comment because shrapnel rolls off my back when it comes from people who consider every opinion or estimate "invented" and "hilarious" and whatever.

I have the right to present my thoughts and estimates, and will endeavor to not present them as facts but estimates, but please don't call me names and offer up some estmates of your own...a discussion of opinions.

From this point forward, I will only discuss the fully built up numbers that I estimate, so there is no confusion. We used to build sports stadiums for this kind of money. And now the enrollment figures point to a very serious waste of money on buildings instead of good education.

To ignore the changing environment is a concern for a lot of people - a lot more than you may think. Most people who voted YES had reasons for it. If they thought a new HS was needed, were OK with the cost, liked the location, or the boundaries, then they voted YES. Since these possible reasons for voting have all changed for the worse (up in costs, no longer true, etc.), then what could possibly be the reason for voting YES today for those who Voted YES in 2006?

Give me one thing other than "we trust our elected leaders"...leaders who did not re-engage the public very well, had no independent transportation consultants or demographers involved. The reson for still voing YES cannot be let's spend a bunch of money because it will somehow benefit the community - but I dont know how. I am just asking, because I cannot think of a good reason to vote YES today, and I am sure I have a lot of company.

And what's wrong with canasta or bunco? Is D&S inferring that those who play these games are not interested or motivated to be informed or be entitled to express an opinion on this blog?

We know Greg F likes to play poker - so do I. - Maybe we should now decide who's opinion and thoughts are valid by playing bridge or chess. Or - for a true test of strategic thinking - how about a round of the classic game GO.

Another attempt toward finding the common ground.

With a better understanding of the referendum process (thanks to all), I now know that what I had called for is/was highly unlikely, if not impossible.

Both sides generally agree that
1.) 204 needs the 3rd HS
2.) We voted to provide funds towards the construction of the 3rd HS.

I am pretty confident that after the 2006 referendum passed, we all believed that Metea would be built on BB. This belief was based upon the information provided and propagated by the SB at the advice of the Public Opinion firm in their employ. Now, while it is clear that we have taken this to mean different things it is certain that the existing ambiguity requires a more prudent approach than is currently in process.

Now that I am off the soapbox I'll ask, is it plausible to suggest that the SB put Eola/Molitor site up for a district confirmation vote? This will maintain the "integrity" of the referendum vote and we'll either say yes or no to Eola and a lot of things can be put behind us.

By Anonymous on May 16, 2008 6:52 AM
KK,
I-O
To Anon #????

Yes we all know what was on the ballots, but obviously you havent been following along, that is not what many of us take issue with...

Cost should be able to be quantified from SD/SB as they dish up referendums all the time and they should have historical costs to provide. I'm sure it varies depedning on if its a stand alone (more expensive) or in same timing as other regularly scheduled voting periods/elections (where costs could be shared?)

No, I dont know everything; but thanks for giving me credit for knowing everything just the same. I totally missed the sarcasm...

-----------------------------------------------------
And Metea Either Way,
That was a great line..

For all those who want "another referendum" does anyone know how much that costs? And again I say, can ANYONE (GF jump in here, because you clearly know everything) show me a ballot that shows us voting for a site or boundaries and not "a 3rd HS" as I seem to remember my ballot stating. I think maybe there were two different ballots used. One for the NSFOC types, who voted for BB no matter what the issues, and one for just plain voters who wanted a really great new HS.

to: D&S on May 15, 2008 9:51 PM Who wrote:

In fact, whether Metea goes on BB or Eola, you're "safely" at NVHS either way, so I highly doubt you really care which site it goes on. It's much easier to be virtuous and tell others how to behave when you are not the one having to deal with the problem.

So why don't you leave the judgmental assessments to those of us who are affected by the 3rd HS and have to adjust to the changes. This should leave you free to focus on your canasta or bunco nights.

____________________________________________________________________

Not sure I follow your logic. I live south of 111th and East of 59 and this boundary decision directly affects me because I (dist. 204) am being sued. My taxes will go up because of litigation, my kids could end up going to a school with over 5,000 of their closest friends, and as has been argued ad infinitum my property value may stagnate or even go down over this issue. I take exception to your statement that we don't have to "deal with the problem".

I also find it ironic that the way you seem to "deal" with the problem is to make the snide comment that, "This should leave you free to focus on your canasta or bunco nights". (Always a classy move to throw in a cheap shot - really helped your argument.) God forbid anyone should disagree with D&S, the final arbiter of everything right and wrong!

Greg,

You are really loosing it. I was mentioning the first referendum that passed. It was a "blank 3rd HS referendum free from all the crap" other than the imagination of some. You can harp all you want but another referendum is not going to happen. You can have a million referendums and you can always find people that will find issues with something that was NOT on the referendum. You are worse than NSFOC as their motives are little less hidden.

By Greg Forrest on May 16, 2008 12:44 AM
So Demo...

----------------------------------------------------
By Where's Democracy? on May 15, 2008 10:20 PM

To all wanting a vote for a decision:

I have an idea--let's put the new high school in Bolingbrook. The south of 95th crew can go there, the east of 59 to NVHS and west of 59 to WVHS and the far northers find private schools or go to Bolingbrook. They'll acquiesce, they always do, TG ends up at MVHS, WE continues to complain about going to the school they always should have been attending. The new school is now closer to the population center and center of growth. Oh wait, then Ashbury sues.

Gosh, I wish I were on this school board bcz then I too could take massive abuse, threats, and receive neither thanks nor respect. Wow, what a deal! Thank you master, may I have another?

KK,
I-O

And Metea Either Way,
That was a great line..

For all those who want "another referendum" does anyone know how much that costs? And again I say, can ANYONE (GF jump in here, because you clearly know everything) show me a ballot that shows us voting for a site or boundaries and not "a 3rd HS" as I seem to remember my ballot stating. I think maybe there were two different ballots used. One for the NSFOC types, who voted for BB no matter what the issues, and one for just plain voters who wanted a really great new HS.

By sniper target practice on May 15, 2008 11:06 PM

D&S has officially lost it. I like the honesty she shows when she highlights "safely" at NVHS while slamming "3rd HS". Thank you D&S for letting everyone on the blog know that your stance is not about dollars and cents but about boundaries (unless the loss of your home value dollars and cents qualify).

I am sure the homeowners east of 59 support the location regardless of the location because it will ease crowding at NVHS.

You have to love how she attacks 3rd HS's spelling but doesn't give Greggy any grief over misspelling "beleive" twice in the same post.
___________________________________

Blah, blah, blah. There is only one thing worth responding to in your post. 3rd HS did not make a spelling error, Einstein. LUDICROUS is an adjective. LUDACRIS is an American rap artist. Duh.

By Go Mustangs on May 15, 2008 7:58 PM

I was an original member of the referendum committee that met for months in 2005, and when the first referendum vote was defeated, I moved on because I assumed that the school district would have taken that no vote for what it meant - no. I have only periodically checked on the issue as new developments warrant, or as news breaks in the paper. My youngest child is scheduled to be the first class through the new Matea Valley High School, and I do care about its location. I really do take issue with your idea that as a parent, "I was so desperate to have this high school built on Eola Road, that I would risk the health of my child for fear that the school board would have it built elsewhere."

I must admit that I am new to the area (2004), that my older children attend WVHS, that I worked as a long term substitute teacher at NVHS, that I have been a high school teacher in 3 other states, and that I now teach at a high school in a neighboring community. I must also admit that I find the term "helicopter parent" to be one of the most amusing terms I have ever heard to describe certain parents, and believe me; I have met many in my career!

As part of my teaching duties, I have been a homebound teacher for students who were too ill to attend school. I have worked with children suffering from various illnesses, including some whose problems were thought to be "environmentally related." It is so inconceivable and offensive to me that someone, or anyone for that matter; would assume that I prioritize the location of a school building above the health of my child, or anyone else's child for that matter.

And please, don't assume that I am ready to thank NFSOC for pointing out potentially hazardous problems with a school site; especially when I can read any and all findings for myself, and make my own educated and informed conclusions.
________________________________

Thanks for your response, Mustang. I enjoyed reading your post. I respect your position as an educator and think your personal experiences add validity to your opinion. But I do need to ask, where was your voice during the MWGen land dispute?

I attended several school board meetings during this time, including the one where the MWGen soil reports were released. A couple of people spoke, pro and con. But the only folks I remember raising concerns or asking questions about the report were the ones not in favor of building at Eola. I can't remember anyone who was pro-Eola being concerned about the test results. In fact, I talked to some very nice pro-Eola folks there after the meeting. The only thing they said about the test results was, in effect, "if it's good enough for the SB, that's good enough for me". My child isn't even going to Metea and I was more unsettled by this than they were.

I understand it would be offensive to you that anyone would prioritize the location of a school building above the health of a child, but I'm sorry to say this is what I saw going on throughout the process. Building the school as soon as possible was the priority, everything else was secondary and could be dealt with at some point, one way or another. And let me tell you, the pro-Eola folks at those SB meetings were really, and I mean REALLY, set on getting Metea built at Eola, and as long as the SB was telling them what they wanted to hear, they were following along mindlessly like a bunch of sheep. They were so excited about the board's response to the test results--just fence the peaker plant off, slap a couple of engineered barriers on the other four hot spots and we're good to go!--that they accepted everything at face value and questioned NOTHING. Apparently I'm not the only one who's noticed this, as Anon says ". . . most that have blogged/spoken @ SB meetings/I have encountered fail to acknowledge any environmental/historical site concerns." As a teacher having direct contact with sick children, I'd think this would make you even more sensitive to environmental issues such as this.

It's unfortunate that you did not stay as involved in 06 as you were in 05. If you had, you would probably have a better idea of the lengths the SB went to to make sure that no vote did not stay a no and how the NSFOC came about. The NSFOC did not originally point out the potentially hazardous problems with the MWGen land, the SB did that themselves prior to the 06 vote. But the NSFOC were the only ones who challenged the SB on it, and as a result the MWGen land is no longer a part of Metea. The pro-Eola supporters did not accomplish that for Metea, the NSFOC did. Love 'em or hate 'em, you still have to give credit where credit is due.

By the way, I don't know any true helicopter parents, much less any Black Hawks. I think the majority of us are more like Ospreys, you know, those hybrid plane/helicopter aircraft. We prefer to fly, but we're darn good at hovering when we have to.

To Sniper

BELIEVE. BELIEVE BELIEVE

D&S gives me a pass because she knows I am a horrible typer. Most other folks have not expressed their dissatisfaction with my spelling either, but I never claimed I was good at typing.

What you dont know is that I have "KeRato Conus" (sp?) in one eye for sure and I am getting my other eye tested in the very near future as my vision has seriously degraded in that eye as well. This is a warping of the cornea and the thickness is different all along the surface. This is not good. It severely reduces the "correctable vision" you can obtain with glasses and contacts. There are only two treatments. One, you can try and wear hard contacts and hope your cornea molds/forms to the hard shape of the hard contact and then try and get best refraction you can out of it. Second is a Cornea transplant.

you see, sometimes its not just my bad typing or actual spelling errors, becasue at night I have to take those hard contacts out, and I cant see the letters on the keyboard or the monitor very well without them. This creates quite a few errors I'm sorry to say.

But never fear, BELIEVE beleive beleive LOL purposeful spelling error :)

a few typo shots are FAR less effective than ONH's Greggy slam which I see you incorporated into your spelling complaint below (doesnt count though, because you had to steal it from ONH. Zero points for creativity. Only ONH gets credit for "Greggy").

If you really want to get under my skin; you have to talk to ONH or your going to have to get creative on your own. I am her puppet and she can always put her fishing line out, reel me in, and get a bunch of riled up blogs out of me :) you are not quite there yet, but dont give up!!!

------------------------------------------------------
By sniper target practice on May 15, 2008 11:06 PM

You have to love how she attacks 3rd HS's spelling but doesn't give Greggy any grief over misspelling "beleive" twice in the same post.

TO: Metea Either Way on May 15, 2008 10:09 PM

Hi Metea

I cant speak for Civ, but I am always game for that. I have tried several times (letter to board and 3 minute "communication" in person request to the board). In all fairness; they didnt say no. they didnt say yes either. Mostly just silence and polite smiles. My take away was their silence meant no...HOWEVER this is an assumption on my part and I freely admit that.

Like I said, I am game for it (and I dont want to speak for Civ...he is more than capable in that regard and I would welcome the opportunity to work with him on this).....but from our previous conversations on this particular subject; Civ has reminded us (me included) that we are a republic. We elected the SB members to make decisions on our behalf and there is no need for another referedum vote. In this line of thought it would be inconsistent with Civs views to support a re-vote. I could be wrong, and maybe in light of newer variables (drop suit and mediation etc)....? But we will have to wait for Civics to weigh in on this.

Best
GF

So Demo; you say you were happy with the first referendum outcome? My understadning of ref #1 was that it failed 58% no to 42% yes. The second tainted referendum with all the added documentation both written and in court was the one that passed.

WHich one are you happy with Demo? If its the first one, you should be hopping on hot coals with all the meddling that took place on Ref 2. Or is it you are happy with ref 2 (irregardless of how it was obtained); and you are not happy with those of us that call into question the legality of ref 2 process? Your personal needs/wants are really showing Demo.....

I would be happy with a blank 3rd HS referendum free from all the crap. If that passes, SB has full atonomy and can put the thing on AME EOla or on cloud 9 for all I care.

Tell you what, you figure out a way to get SB to agree to a confirmation referendum and I will find the money to pay for it. Most likely one of the 4 lawsuits would get dropped (NSFOC's) if not it would be moot/nullified and thrown out once a vote occured.

Get me that, and I will get the money.

----------------------------------------------------
By Where's Democracy? on May 15, 2008 10:20 PM

To all wanting a vote for a decision:

I am all for it if YOU are ready to pay for it. I am happy with first vote and it's final outcome (and evrything in between) and do not want to pay for your fancies. Why don't some of you put your house on lien to cover the cost. If the revote end in a different site/no-school whatever, the district foots the bill. If the decision remains to still build at Eola, you pay all costs associated with this revote (including speedup cost to build the school in time etc.). Ready for it?

By just curious on May 15, 2008 10:00 PM
Greg Forrest,

Just curious - if the district had held a referendum this spring as a "do over" since the site moved to Eola, would there have needed to be another "do over" once Midwest Gen backed out of the deal and the site shifted to be the full AME site?
-----------------------------------------------------

Hi Curious

I'm sorry, I's not sure I'm following your train of thought so forgive me if I am off track in my reply.

I think you are asking if a ref happened in march on the original site that included the 37acres with peaker AND IT WAS APPPROVED (majority yes vote) what would happen when midwest gen backed out?

Thats a big IF and since it didnt happen, its like creating an alternate universe. Total conjecture on my part and lots of assumptions but here goes.

1. since (in your scenario) SB re-engaged constituents with same vigor on peaker eola as they did with BB site, my guess is that they would want to continue the precident they set with the original 2nd ref and roll it over from peaker EOla to AME Eola. Bottom line, if they did not mention a site in written documentation and in court and just reloaded the generic 1st ref that failed and shot again and it passed, this would all be a moot point. If they got the "blank" ref with no info/location/boundaries tied to it, they would not be required to continually re-engage the voters on every site and follow the panhdora's box that they themselves opened as they thought it was necessary to do so.

2. Look at the Aurora City council. THey had to "re-vote" for annexation of the 3rd site (AME EOla) when midwestgen backed out and nullified their annexation approval of Peaker EOLA. Same logic. Any change needs to be ratified.

THis would all be so easy, if SB just kept their perverbial yaps shut and carbon copied ref one into ref two. They felt it wouldnt pass without more info (their words not mine) and ref two needed more love, candy, and sugar to woo enough voters. Once you open pandora's box its very difficult to close unless you hit the reset button and completely remove tainted 2nd ref and start from scrach with blank generic no extra info 3rd HS referendum. With a blank slate, SB has total autonomy. As it stands, we are in very murky waters no matter what happens with this particular lawsuit (I think there are 4 lawsuits now?)

By perspective on May 15, 2008 8:22 PM
By Anonymous on May 15, 2008 6:55 PM

was from me . . .
_______________________

Too funny! You are hopelessly GF'd. But I'm sure MR will recognize you.

By D&S on May 15, 2008
Plus, if you are south of 95th street and east of 59 as you claim, that puts you squarely at NVHS and, thanks to the zealous marketing of boundaries by our SB in 06, you knew this when you voted for the 3rd HS. How selfless of you. In fact, whether Metea goes on BB or Eola, you're "safely" at NVHS either way, so I highly doubt you really care which site it goes on. It's much easier to be virtuous and tell others how to behave when you are not the one having to deal with the problem.

So why don't you leave the judgmental assessments to those of us who are affected by the 3rd HS and have to adjust to the changes. This should leave you free to focus on your canasta or bunco nights.

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

D&S has officially lost it. I like the honesty she shows when she highlights "safely" at NVHS while slamming "3rd HS". Thank you D&S for letting everyone on the blog know that your stance is not about dollars and cents but about boundaries (unless the loss of your home value dollars and cents qualify).

I am sure the homeowners east of 59 support the location regardless of the location because it will ease crowding at NVHS.

You have to love how she attacks 3rd HS's spelling but doesn't give Greggy any grief over misspelling "beleive" twice in the same post.

To Go Mustangs
And please, don't assume that I am ready to thank NFSOC for pointing out potentially hazardous problems with a school site; especially when I can read any and all findings for myself, and make my own educated and informed conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mustangs I am absolutely confident that you could, provided the findings were made available to you. Perhaps I missed it, and if so shame on me, however as I saw it the SB went from a position stating that the Eola site posed "environmental hazards that disqualified from consideration" as it related to the 2006 referendum to one that was the next best choice for the community without any further research or remediation. Unchallenged, the MWGen site would have simply been "fenced off."

Personally I just don't get it.

To all wanting a vote for a decision:

I am all for it if YOU are ready to pay for it. I am happy with first vote and it's final outcome (and evrything in between) and do not want to pay for your fancies. Why don't some of you put your house on lien to cover the cost. If the revote end in a different site/no-school whatever, the district foots the bill. If the decision remains to still build at Eola, you pay all costs associated with this revote (including speedup cost to build the school in time etc.). Ready for it?

Perhaps this will help keep things in perspective (not the blogger because he doesn't agree with me so I don't like him/her.....jk).

Those who side with the NSFOC do not speak for the entire district however the "numbers" for this side are larger than the SB, anti-NSFOC are willing to admit.

Those who are pro-Eola do not speak for the entire district however the "numbers" on this side are larger than the NSFOC, pro-BB are willing to admit.

What we can all admit is that absent a confirmation vote on a new site (yes, I continue to bang this drum) the fringe element on each side of this debate will fill the void with conjecture, innuendo and flat out ignorance against the contra view. This includes the alleged lawyers, judges, teachers, economists, physicians, etc. on each side. Personally speaking, I feel there is a lack of transparency and until both sides come clean, the battle will continue in a manner that is least beneficial to the district.

Here's a radical idea, have GF & Civics (in lieu of MR) lead a bi-partisan campaign/petition calling for the SB to put the Eola/Molitor site to a distrct vote. This way we'll finally have the consensus needed to put the "my side is larger/right" argument to bed. From here we as a district concentrate our efforts against those forces, including but not limited to Brach & Brodie, the SB, the NSFOC, the Superintendent, etc. that will ultimately cost us all a lot more time, aggrevation and money.

Greg Forrest,

Just curious - if the district had held a referendum this spring as a "do over" since the site moved to Eola, would there have needed to be another "do over" once Midwest Gen backed out of the deal and the site shifted to be the full AME site?

I see I'm late to the game here, a lot of conversation has taken place. Some of it good, most of it not. Most of my thoughts have already been echoed by someone else so I'll spare everybody the repeats.

By Help on May 15, 2008 9:13 AM
Unbelievable. You deserve the shrapnel you've taken today.

By Metea Either Way on May 15, 2008 2:41 PM
Pot, meet kettle.

LOL! Best one liner of the entire thread!

To NapervilleBuckeye on May 15, 2008 12:20 PM
OK, NapervilleBuckeye, let's see how much of a "Buckeye" you really are (BTW, I'm a BG grad). This shouldn't be too hard. Ready? Here we go. O-H!

By SaveEarth on May 15, 2008 5:00 PM
Saw this on NSFOC ...
Gee, then it must be true....

To 3rd HS on May 15, 2008 4:54 PM--

Re your post:

"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.
_________________________________

You know, I've noticed a very similar trend. I love how people on this blog (those who are passionately FOR the Eola site) actually think they're speaking for the entire district when they state something. This becomes even more ludicrous when they think they're speaking for everyone living north of 95th street. Because, they naturally assume that everyone north of 95th would only support the 3rd HS at Eola and nowhere else.

I've noticed this kind of thing coming from BOTH sides of the argument for quite some time.

Plus, if you are south of 95th street and east of 59 as you claim, that puts you squarely at NVHS and, thanks to the zealous marketing of boundaries by our SB in 06, you knew this when you voted for the 3rd HS. How selfless of you. In fact, whether Metea goes on BB or Eola, you're "safely" at NVHS either way, so I highly doubt you really care which site it goes on. It's much easier to be virtuous and tell others how to behave when you are not the one having to deal with the problem.

So why don't you leave the judgmental assessments to those of us who are affected by the 3rd HS and have to adjust to the changes. This should leave you free to focus on your canasta or bunco nights.

Oh, and FYI, it's spelled "ludicrous". Ludacris is a rapper.

Hi NoSuchTHingasNeutral

I disagree with Incredulus on several levels. One being the primary reason this will not be done (volentarily by mediation outcome anyways) and secondly (to a lesser degreee) the legality of a second vote.

Primary reason no engagement or confirmation ref on new site is due to SPEED ABOVE ALL ELSE and secondarily because the SD does not beleive they violated the law on the BB referendum (second referendum). I beleive they could execute a confirmation referendum on Eola to receive voter input if they wished to. Then they would have to decide to either heed the call of their constituents or again "go cowboy". One thing I do agree with Incredulus on is that SB already has the 125M money from the ref, so there is no need to re-engage their constituents at this time. If a court determines SD broke the law on the WRITTEN factual statements (not the VERBAL statements that D204 lawyers successfully neutralized in their dismiss motion IMO) then the court could very easily order another referendum and the likely location would be the current location at EOLA.

you and I may yet receive our wish out of this whole mess!!!

Have a good one!!
GF

---------------------------------------------------
By nosuchthingasneutral on May 15, 2008 3:10 PM

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.

you, your daughter, and your family will be in my thoughts and prayers. Please give me a call if there is ANY WAY I can help/be of assistence.

ALL my best
GF

----------------------------------------------------
By MR on May 15, 2008 10:32 AM
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 15, 2008 6:55 PM

was from me . . .

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.
-----------
Question is, is it wiser to pay something you know for certain costs 100% more just to avoid damages that are likely to be less than that and quite possibly zero? This knowing that the longer you wait the more everything will cost, no matter what you decide?

I have never understood why that seems "fiscally irresponsible" to people who oppose Eola.

Good luck MR.

I will pray for you and your daughter too.

Best Regards,

By D&S on May 15, 2008 10:32 AM

"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.

____________________________________________________________________

To D&S,

I was an original member of the referendum committee that met for months in 2005, and when the first referendum vote was defeated, I moved on because I assumed that the school district would have taken that no vote for what it meant - no. I have only periodically checked on the issue as new developments warrant, or as news breaks in the paper. My youngest child is scheduled to be the first class through the new Matea Valley High School, and I do care about its location. I really do take issue with your idea that as a parent, "I was so desperate to have this high school built on Eola Road, that I would risk the health of my child for fear that the school board would have it built elsewhere."

I must admit that I am new to the area (2004), that my older children attend WVHS, that I worked as a long term substitute teacher at NVHS, that I have been a high school teacher in 3 other states, and that I now teach at a high school in a neighboring community. I must also admit that I find the term "helicopter parent" to be one of the most amusing terms I have ever heard to describe certain parents, and believe me; I have met many in my career!

As part of my teaching duties, I have been a homebound teacher for students who were too ill to attend school. I have worked with children suffering from various illnesses, including some whose problems were thought to be "environmentally related." It is so inconceivable and offensive to me that someone, or anyone for that matter; would assume that I prioritize the location of a school building above the health of my child, or anyone else's child for that matter.

And please, don't assume that I am ready to thank NFSOC for pointing out potentially hazardous problems with a school site; especially when I can read any and all findings for myself, and make my own educated and informed conclusions.

By MR on May 15, 2008 10:32 AM

Your are right! You and your family (esp. your daughter) are in my thoughts and my prayers. I hugged all three of my kids today.

Good luck tomorrow and God bless!

Help

I have to appologise. I called your opinions 'invalid', which of course they are not.

They are your opinions and you are entitled to them.

However -- they are simply that.....your opinions. Yet you state them as facts. And that is my objection.

Help

Aha...I see we went from $200 million to $300 million in the space of few short posts!

Supporting your opinions and invented "facts" with more opinions and invented "facts" does not make them any more valid or any more true.

But keep trying! Who knows....perhaps you will say something of interest eventually!

To Mr
I wish you and your family well, I will pray for your daughter and family.

To MR on May 15, 2008 10:32 AM--

I am so sorry to hear about this; it must be very frightening for all of you. Please give us an update later on how your daughter is doing. Best wishes--D&S

To NapervilleBuckeye on May 15, 2008 12:20 PM

Re your reply to Help on May 15, 2008 9:13 AM

"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!!"

Read Civics post to Help on May 15 at 11:32 AM. This applies to you as well. Get a grip, man, before you stroke out.

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 effectively.

The timing of the problems around the Brach-Brodie land may have coincidently happened right around the time that D204 was realizing the perceived academic problems required drastic action. Perhaps the decision that all tests must be in English, was the last straw. You see, having a high school in the far north allows the busing of more and more students every year to "tweak the system" so to speak - as needed to remain within the performance guidelines of the NCLB Act.

Another reason includes the very real possibility of needing to close a high school eventually ...now that the D204 enrollment is already in decline due to the maturing of Naperville and Aurora, with little room to grow. Note that D204 has about 55,000 homes and only another 1000-2000 new build units to reach complete build out. Most of these new build units are in or near Sector G. The math is indisputable - a steady decline already in the works from 55,000 units cannot be offset by growth from 2000 new units. All this information was known back in 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2006 when various building projects and options were in the news.

Perhaps an independent enrollment study similar to D303's plan is needed. Maybe the study could allow D204 to slow down, and re-think the high school contruction time table, and save money. See the full story of D303's plans to have a 3rd enrollment study performed here.

Some parents and officials did not want a third high school to be too far in the south. If it were too far south, then the closure of WVHS would add time and costs for the bus trip to the new high school in the south. Two high schools in the south just did not seem right, even though that was where the majority of the population and growth were located.

The bottom line here however, is that for some reason in the future, WVHS may close. Parents and taxpayers need to understand this situation and what it means for their families. If there are only two high schools, NVHS and MVHS, then more and more students will have to be bused from the WVHS north to MVHS to fill the declining enrollment there.

You may have a situation where every 2-3 years, boundaries change again, and some other neighborhood now moves from NVHS to MVHS to maintain the balance of similar sized schools. The issue of having the same number of students in the two high schools feels like a long-term goal carved in stone in D204, no matter the cost. However, this wastes taxpayer money and is impractical given the structure and demographics of our district.

It is not a perfect world in any district. However, financial prudence and efficient use of taxpayer money in delivering excellent education must be the first priority. Unfortunately, if the above "perfect balance" view persists, other neighborhoods, like parts or all the rest of Welch, Owen and Clow could find themselves on buses to MVHS some day. We use those examples only because the far distance to MVHS for neighborhoods south of 95th street would be prohibitive - well at least in most school districts. Of course perhaps not in D204 however, where logic and geography get thrown out the window for political solutions. This approach ultimately costs taxpayers via higher taxes and the district via lower revenues.

So the parents silently supporting the D204 decisions because they feel unaffected today, you may want to pay a bit more attention because tomorrow may be your turn. In addition, the busing costs only escalate as enrollment declines further, due to the growing need to backfill lost students in the north. As you may know, only 17% of the population lives in northern D204, and over 64% lives in the south. So the escalation of transportation costs, time and safety risks are indisputable. Of course, your school board suddenly said at the school board meeting on 4/14/08 that there was 11% savings in transportation costs with the selected Eola site. The numbers come from our bus vendor who gains revenue by having more students on buses. How contrived is that number? Where's the independent transportation consultant? We deserve better from our officials.

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.

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.

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."

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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!

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

To Anon @ 10:41 PM

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

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.

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

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 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.

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?

"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.

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."

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,

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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!

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,

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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?

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,

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.

-----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?!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.....

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.

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.

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.