The Tallgrass/Vote NO recap

[wvhsparent]

OK we have veered off topic and are heading for the trees......
Let's continue this in it's proper thread.

Other Sites for the 3rd High School


ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=school&action=display&thread=1136219994

[doctorwho]

momthreekids said:

I wish I could be more like you Topher, but trust is huge. I also don't trust Howie.

As I have study the facts there is a lot of unknowns. Starting with the land. Metzger seems confident, but things in a law suit can change and can drag on. HS is so important. We don't even know what the building is going to look like.

Scullen is another important decision too. It is an unkown. No one can say with 100% certainty that they won't take us out of Scullen. I can't vote on an unkown.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
reply :

I understand, yet you are seeking guarantees for some things in life there are no gurantees and the common good overrides that sometimes.

You're right, the BB property can take a sudden turn, but the SBmember I know well ( not MM) - also feels it will settle within a reasonable time - and they are confident.. 204 w/o a 3rd HS is a mess.....

you have seen quites from MM that it makes NO sense to move from Scullen -- it would also be against what they have done with boundaries to this point, and NO ONE else has a guarantee, yet that becomes a condition of a YES vote.

because of 'potential' twists and turns that could be unforeseen no one can guarantee that. No one can guarantee that you or I will be on this planet tomorrow, yet I choose to go forward as that is the best alternative .....

I believe you are seeking something that no one else has, and that's not going to happen. I would love you to vote YES but no one is going to change your mind if you stick to the ' guarantee'.

I can gurantee you this however. W/O the 3rd HS we will have overcrowded classrooms for the foreseeable future, our HS kids will lose elective classes at best, many will miss out on extracurricular activies most likeyl also, people WILL move from 204 and in turn house values withh drop -- maybe 5% - maybe the 15% the NIU study showed, re lo's willnot move to a school district where the schools are screwed up, we will still have to pass somekind of referendum to pay for the additional costs of instructing the new kids, there is no $0 solution, also maybe additional portables ( which is 5 years go away) - we will fall further behind other school districts in test scores as our some of our kids struggle to learn in the environment, we will lose teachers who will move to other districts where they do not have to work split shifts ( wouldn't you - talk to a few of them, they will behonest about what split shifts mean to them, just because law requires them to work them, the law doesn;t keep the good ones from applying elsewhere, as it is 204 is not near the top in salaries, add this and adios to many ) -

these are guarantees.

I do not have a guarantee we will be staying at the MS of my choice either. The SB didn't meet with my HOA - we went to the PTA meeting. I think the BB property is by far the best site, but is it the only one - no.

So if the SB gurantees you stay at Scullen, and then we lose BB and the new site is further south - or far north - then what ?


The bottom line for me is that we need the 3rd HS. I like the boundaries and BB site but realize nothing in this world is guaranteed - but the alternative to vote NO t0 me, guarantees bad things for all the kids of the distric IMO.


As far a JC role on the SB, or having had a private agenda -- no argument from me there, but she is one member and we have some truly excellent members also.

I hope you come around to the YES side for the kids, but I know if you are waiting for absolutes in everything, those aren;t going to happen for any of us -- ever or under and school board in the future either.

[/size][/size][/size][/b]



[/quote]

[cantretirehere]

Yes DW, excellent post even tho the small blue type is hard on the eyes - can you modify that?

wvhsparent said:

momthreekids said:

True, and I have been focusing on the SB members I do trust. I have been on the fence for some time looking and focusing and it comes down to that I can not vote for an unknown. The condemnation is huge. We may be voting on a site we might not get. I am a little upset at the board for not having all their ducks in a row. At least on the ballot it says the money will only go to building one new high school. So if we don't get the land they would have to find another site to build on.

I have spoken with M2 on this. At first he and I did not see eye to eye.... I was really having a hard time getting him to part with any credible info or any info for that matter.
Finally several of the last times we communicated he was open and honest. He even asked me to call him on the telephone. So now I feel he is really on the level. He is a bit concerned about the proceedings on the Condemnation, but as a lawyer, he says these are part of the normal process, so he is not overly worried. I also specifically asked him if the BB site takes too long or ends up costing too much, what would plan B be?
According to him, they would revisit the other listed sites deal with the "shortcomings" of the other site.
Anyone who has been with this board long enough knows which site I would love for them to revisit. ;D
Now as anyone in negotiations would know, you don't reveal your hand until needed. But he assured me that they would not let BB get out of hand price wise. Also as previously reported he stated they do not plan on starting any building until they have ALL the land needed, therefore past reports of them possibly starting to build on the 25 acres they own now is not true, for 2 reasons
#1 the parcel they have is not the best place to put the footprint of the school.
#2 they do not lose their bargaining position with the BB folks.

I felt much better after speaking with him.

I think the part of this quote that I highlighted in red just goes toward the point of mistrust. Why should anyone have to DRAG information out of a board member?

[doctorwho]

CRH-- I agree - I messed up on the orignal post when done and it was all in the box - so I colored to separate --but yeah it was hard to read - I just increased font size and emboldened -- thanks for compliment on post !

[cantretirehere]

just cuz I liked the post doesn't necessarily mean I agree with all of its contents - For the record.

[wvhsparent]

cantretirehere said:

Yes DW, excellent post even tho the small blue type is hard on the eyes - can you modify that?

wvhsparent said:

I have spoken with M2 on this. At first he and I did not see eye to eye.... I was really having a hard time getting him to part with any credible info or any info for that matter.
Finally several of the last times we communicated he was open and honest. He even asked me to call him on the telephone. So now I feel he is really on the level. He is a bit concerned about the proceedings on the Condemnation, but as a lawyer, he says these are part of the normal process, so he is not overly worried. I also specifically asked him if the BB site takes too long or ends up costing too much, what would plan B be?
According to him, they would revisit the other listed sites deal with the "shortcomings" of the other site.
Anyone who has been with this board long enough knows which site I would love for them to revisit. ;D
Now as anyone in negotiations would know, you don't reveal your hand until needed. But he assured me that they would not let BB get out of hand price wise. Also as previously reported he stated they do not plan on starting any building until they have ALL the land needed, therefore past reports of them possibly starting to build on the 25 acres they own now is not true, for 2 reasons
#1 the parcel they have is not the best place to put the footprint of the school.
#2 they do not lose their bargaining position with the BB folks.

I felt much better after speaking with him.

I think the part of this quote that I highlighted in red just goes toward the point of mistrust. Why should anyone have to DRAG information out of a board member?

You are correct....The only explanation I can come up with is the SB had an epiphany and finally started to give out the requested info, although slowly at first.
However like you state the mistrust damage was already done and not fully restored yet. That was why I was also calling for an independent review by someone on the outside. I wonder if this is something a Super from 203 or even 303 could do?
I fear it's too late in the game now, but who knows.

[cantretirehere]

When I read the dist 303 letter in the "soap box" section, I noticed that the superintendant did not list "distrust" as one of the reasons people had for voting no. I was wondering if her district's residents trust her.

[fence]

cantretirehere said:

When I read the dist 303 letter in the "soap box" section, I noticed that the superintendant did not list "distrust" as one of the reasons people had for voting no. I was wondering if her district's residents trust her.

I think that she eluded to mistrust when she said politicians are too political (what we accuse the SB of - trying to create boundaries to generate yes votes, favoring certain areas, not telling us the straight story, etc.), and people don't appreciate being threatened with cuts (what we're calling scare tactics I believe). I am sure that we're not as original as we think!

"Taxes are too high. Politicians are too, well, political. The superintendent is too tough, or not tough enough. Educators make too much money. Taxpayers don’t see the need for this building or that program. Or, they resent feeling “threatened” by impending cuts. The curriculum is too strong or too weak. The list goes on and on and on."

[proschool]

cantretirehere said:

When I read the dist 303 letter in the "soap box" section, I noticed that the superintendant did not list "distrust" as one of the reasons people had for voting no. I was wondering if her district's residents trust her.

I don't get your beef about distrusting the scholl board. We have a school board for a reason and its our resposibility to elect people that we trust.

If we all get together every two years and elect people that we don't trust how does that negate our responsibility to provide for a quality public education?

[wvhsparent]

I think the distrust is not due to an intentional act on the SB rather the lack of a consistent message.
By that I mean no info at first....then conflicting info...new info then the old info again, one member saying one thing, the super another. No consistency.
it has been endemic of the SB for quite a while up until lately......but they still revert back to their old ways at times still.
I think they are all well intentioned, but their past missteps are haunting them.

[doctorwho]

wvhsparent said:

I think the distrust is not due to an intentional act on the SB rather the lack of a consistent message.
By that I mean no info at first....then conflicting info...new info then the old info again, one member saying one thing, the super another. No consistency.
it has been endemic of the SB for quite a while up until lately......but they still revert back to their old ways at times still.
I think they are all well intentioned, but their past missteps are haunting them.

And let us remember not all of these board members were part of a lot of the previous issues

[wvhsparent]

True...but they are there now..........

[lancer]

Question for the Tall Grass people voting no -- Where you always a NO or did you change your vote when you were no longer slated for NV and going to the "new" school???

[204taxpayer]

lancer said:

Question for the Tall Grass people voting no -- Where you always a NO or did you change your vote when you were no longer slated for NV and going to the "new" school???

I was a yes for the last referendum. I was a yes for this referendum. I was a complacent yes. Being a good dutiful housewife and mother I was a yes "for the kids". I sat down with all the current boundaries for each level of schools in the district and began my search for how all this could work. I spent several hours on phone calls with board members, attended boundary meetings etc.

Weeks before the final boundaries decision was made was when I realized I just could not vote yes to THIS referendum. I do not begrudge anyone (yes or no) the reasoning behind their vote, we all have that choice to make. My decision in not based on boundary issues.

[fence]

204taxpayer said:

lancer said:

Question for the Tall Grass people voting no -- Where you always a NO or did you change your vote when you were no longer slated for NV and going to the "new" school???

I was a yes for the last referendum. I was a yes for this referendum. I was a complacent yes. Being a good dutiful housewife and mother I was a yes "for the kids". I sat down with all the current boundaries for each level of schools in the district and began my search for how all this could work. I spent several hours on phone calls with board members, attended boundary meetings etc.

Weeks before the final boundaries decision was made was when I realized I just could not vote yes to THIS referendum. I do not begrudge anyone (yes or no) the reasoning behind their vote, we all have that choice to make. My decision in not based on boundary issues.

So what changed your mind, after being a YES vote for an entire year?