Environmental Letter from Shawn Collins

[fence]

We should. We should write LTEs and letters to the SB. We could write one, or each write our own. What do you think makes more sense?

Or we could just keep this up. It's our choice!

concerned2 said:

So we can't move away from our selfish motives and ask the SB for an independant source to deem the site safe? If we walk away from BB will we be able to afford the new site plus the damages from BB? These are very serious questions that should be answered. Some just want to continue with the name calling.

[refbasics]

sushi said:

Sorry, I know for a fact they text all day long.

Ok, I didn't poll each student as they exited, but this is how we get in touch with our HS kids during the school day. Ask most HS parents.

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

Cell Phone Usage


Location: Waubonsie Valley High School
Date/Time: 12/15/2006
Over the past few weeks, a significant number of cellular telephones have been confiscated during the school day. An alarming number of calls being placed to students during the school day are coming from parents or other relatives.

The 2006-2007 WVHS Student Handbook specifically states that "cellular radio telecommunication devices must be turned off at all times" during the school day. Any student who uses their cell phone during the school day may have that phone confiscated. The phone may, then, only be returned to a parent or guardian. Please refer to page 23 in the Student Handbook for further information.

Please refrain from contacting your child by cell phone during the school day. This includes text-messaging or instant messaging. Should you need to contact your student in case of emergency, please contact the main switchboard at [phone] or attendance at 375-3347.



Contact Information:
Address: 2590 Ogden Avenue
Aurora, IL 60504


Name: Deans' Office
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Listed: 12/15/2006 12:13:00 PM


------------------
p20 WV handbook 2007-08
.."CELLULAR TELEPHONES & ELECTRONIC SIGNALING DEVICES (BP 710.20)
Cellular Telephones
While in school or on school property, students may possess cellular radio telecommunication devices,
including cellular telephones, only in accordance with the following requirements:
1. Cellular radio telecommunication devices may be used before and after school only.
2. During the school day, cellular radio telecommunication devices must be turned off at all times.
Programming such devices to vibrate rather than ring does not fulfill the “off” requirement; cellular
radio telecommunication devices must be stored away and not in the view of the public. If your
cellular radio telecommunication device is in view of the general public, you will be asked to take
the device to a Dean and your parents will be asked to pick it up from the Dean’s Office.
3. Cellular radio telecommunication devices may not be used to conduct any activities which violate
Board policy, school rules, state law or federal law.
4. Cellular radio telecommunication devices may not be used in any manner, which interferes with, or
is disruptive to educational or extracurricular activities or events. Notwithstanding the rules set
forth above, cellular radio telecommunication devices may be used at any time to respond to or
report an emergency situation. Violations of this policy may result in disciplinary action, including
suspension and/or expulsion.
5. Cell phones cannot be used as a camera. Cell phones are not allowed in locker rooms or
bathrooms.
6. If you bring a cell phone to school you are responsible for it. The school is not responsible for it if
it’s lost or stolen. We will not put a high priority on investigating theft of this item.
Telephone Usage (BP 710.20)

Electronic Devices
In an effort to maintain an appropriate and safe atmosphere at Waubonsie Valley High School,
students are not permitted to use or possess ipods, MP3 players, CD players, radios, Nintendo, PSP, or
any other portable game systems or electronic devices at anytime during the school day, except during
the students' lunch/option period. Waubonsie Valley strongly discourages students to bring any of
these items to school and is not responsible for these items in any way. However, if students choose to
bring these devices they must keep them in their assigned academic lockers during the school day,
except during the students' lunch/option period. Use or possession of these devices during the school
day, except during the students' lunch/option period, may result in a written referral and confiscation of
the item. If a student has an electronic device confiscated, he/she may retrieve the item from the

[concerned2]

I will write, just hope they listen!!!

[Arch]

concerned2 said:

I will write, just hope they listen!!!

Good luck with that.

[doctorwho]

concerned2 said:

So we can't move away from our selfish motives and ask the SB for an independant source to deem the site safe? If we walk away from BB will we be able to afford the new site plus the damages from BB? These are very serious questions that should be answered. Some just want to continue with the name calling.

And some of us have been writing to and talking to SB-SD members for quite some time. Don't assume all the conversations take place only on this board.

[entitled]

Perhaps you missed my earlier post, Sushi. How many of your children will attend MV or even WV? Some are quick to point fingers at the hypocritical motives of others. What are your motives? Community healing? Defending ineptness? Protecting your neighborhood's image? What gives?

[rural]

entitled said:

Perhaps you missed my earlier post, Sushi. How many of your children will attend MV or even WV? Some are quick to point fingers at the hypocritical motives of others. What are your motives? Community healing? Defending ineptness? Protecting your neighborhood's image? What gives?

IIRC, Sushi's in TG, so her kids will be at WV and she's fine with it. What's your point with this? What's your angle?

Sorry, my bad, she's in WE not TG, still at WV, though.

[sushi]

I have answered this question before. My motives are simple. We need a third HS. I have always supported it. If the site is safe, we should build a third HS.

My kids will have already graduated; I have 5 (soon to be 6) nieces and nephews who will attend WV and MV and neighbor kids I love like my own.

I have never denied the fact that there were many mistakes made along this road. I don't think the board had anything but the best of intentions. My opinion.

[fence]

I think it's more a matter of being very upset that there are people using the lawsuit for their own personal gain rather than for the issue itself.

And this is true - there are those that are behind the lawsuit for very personal reasons rather than a general altruistic concern.

Believe me, that doesn't mean that everyone who has a concern has questionable motives, although I think that people have a tendency to overcorrect when it comes to reacting to it.

entitled said:

Perhaps you missed my earlier post, Sushi. How many of your children will attend MV or even WV? Some are quick to point fingers at the hypocritical motives of others. What are your motives? Community healing? Defending ineptness? Protecting your neighborhood's image? What gives?

[sushi]

From a poster on the other board:




OK - well, Pandora Collins has indeed started to lead us down the slippery slope. The potential environmental safety of BB has now been questioned. I'm sure nobody, especially those who are fighting so vigorously against AME, want to hear anything like this.

Macom isn't even worth talking about, as it's clearly as "bad" as AME. And Hamman, being our of the 204 boundaries, and next to landfill and a concrete plant isn't even worth a second look. So, now that BB's safety has been questioned, where do we go from here?

People have been quoting MM from 2 years ago, as having "ruled out" AME due to safety concerns (BTW, a false statement that he ruled it out), but that was without ANY testing. How can people continuously quote his statement 2 years ago about the perception of the AME site safety, while, present day, any statement that he, or professionals charged with ensuring with the safety of the site, are questioned; brought under a microscope; and tossed aside a being either deceitful, or, at minimum, insufficient to "prove" the safety of the site. Which is it: do we believe things that MM says or don't we? You can't say that you believe something that he said 2 years ago (based on no actual testing) and now you don't believe him (after a number of different tests have actually been performed).

Why the scrutiny only for the MV site? What about all of the other schools - I didn't want to bring this up, but what about Peterson? It seems close enough to the same RR tracks, pipelines, and power lines that that some allege are unsafe for MV. Where's the outrage and the website and the lawsuit?

How does anyone propose that we "prove" the safety of any site? I now have a perception that BB may have environmental safety issues. That wasn't listed on the Ref - I want the Ref voided & a re-vote! Where's the flaw in this thinking? It's the same path the nsfoc is leading us down.

I'm starting to think that the nsfoc may really just want 2 HSs in 204 forever. I wonder how close they are with CFO types. I mean, just read what's on their site regarding the questioning of enrollment projections and the questioning of schools capacities. That's straight from the CFO site. Scary.

[Avenging Eagle]

sushi said:

From a poster on the other board:




OK - well, Pandora Collins has indeed started to lead us down the slippery slope. The potential environmental safety of BB has now been questioned. I'm sure nobody, especially those who are fighting so vigorously against AME, want to hear anything like this.

Macom isn't even worth talking about, as it's clearly as "bad" as AME. And Hamman, being our of the 204 boundaries, and next to landfill and a concrete plant isn't even worth a second look. So, now that BB's safety has been questioned, where do we go from here?

People have been quoting MM from 2 years ago, as having "ruled out" AME due to safety concerns (BTW, a false statement that he ruled it out), but that was without ANY testing. How can people continuously quote his statement 2 years ago about the perception of the AME site safety, while, present day, any statement that he, or professionals charged with ensuring with the safety of the site, are questioned; brought under a microscope; and tossed aside a being either deceitful, or, at minimum, insufficient to "prove" the safety of the site. Which is it: do we believe things that MM says or don't we? You can't say that you believe something that he said 2 years ago (based on no actual testing) and now you don't believe him (after a number of different tests have actually been performed).

Why the scrutiny only for the MV site? What about all of the other schools - I didn't want to bring this up, but what about Peterson? It seems close enough to the same RR tracks, pipelines, and power lines that that some allege are unsafe for MV. Where's the outrage and the website and the lawsuit?

How does anyone propose that we "prove" the safety of any site? I now have a perception that BB may have environmental safety issues. That wasn't listed on the Ref - I want the Ref voided & a re-vote! Where's the flaw in this thinking? It's the same path the nsfoc is leading us down.

I'm starting to think that the nsfoc may really just want 2 HSs in 204 forever. I wonder how close they are with CFO types. I mean, just read what's on their site regarding the questioning of enrollment projections and the questioning of schools capacities. That's straight from the CFO site. Scary.

I am very optimistic about the chances for the district now, because of this statement.

The desparate attempt to start claiming that BB is unsafe bodes well for the acknowledgement and admission by the naysayers that MWGEN IS DEFINITELY NOT SAFE. Instead of focusing on the futile attempts to defend the undefensible site, the clan of the cave bear is now focusing on trying to use the Ghostbuster EVP gun to try to discredit the relatively pristine location of the BB property.

This is an excellent start to a new week in D204!

[WeBe204]

fence said:

I think it's more a matter of being very upset that there are people using the lawsuit for their own personal gain rather than for the issue itself.

And this is true - there are those that are behind the lawsuit for very personal reasons rather than a general altruistic concern.

Believe me, that doesn't mean that everyone who has a concern has questionable motives, although I think that people have a tendency to overcorrect when it comes to reacting to it.

entitled said:

Perhaps you missed my earlier post, Sushi. How many of your children will attend MV or even WV? Some are quick to point fingers at the hypocritical motives of others. What are your motives? Community healing? Defending ineptness? Protecting your neighborhood's image? What gives?

I'll add to that. As a relatively new resident I perceive an almost religious battle between a group who do not want to go to wvhs and group in the who were never happy with NVHS or were MVHS was originally located. (I am not saying these are the only groups involved in NSFOC or NSFOCFRAUD but they are there)

I am sick and tired of both of these groups. I feel like this current situation is being used as a platform to re-open a decade old battle. This battle just hyper-inflates the emotions. I wish both sides would just take their ball and go home. There are new people in town like myself who do not give a rats butt about your old wars.

I care about the here and now. I realize the emotion engine is a bit hot today because the papers ran the environmental issues today. For those that think it fake science. Then no worries it will get tossed. Just be patient. And for those who think the science has merit well you got your info published today.

And finally, if anyone is spending time trying to pump the Sun Poll on either side all I can say, "Get a life" Until we have a poll that says certified by accounting firm X they are all bull poopy. (that includes survey monkey as well)

[sushi]

AE, the point is not to discredit the BB site. The point, IMO, is that there are EMF's EVERYWHERE in our everyday life. Unfortunately, on the Eola site, they are represented in a big way (visually). That doesn't mean they aren't everywhere around us in other places.



Also, please note I am not the author of the post.

[wvhsparent]

archwinsome said:

wvhsparent said:

OK see if you can get N-group to hire Environ to perform the tests, and be sure to post the results.

I have a different one waiting in the wings. Their request back in Early Feb was for the current Phase1 and Phase 2 data as a starting point.

*crickets*

Excellent.....I await the results

[refbasics]

sushi said:

From a poster on the other board:




OK - well, Pandora Collins has indeed started to lead us down the slippery slope. The potential environmental safety of BB has now been questioned. I'm sure nobody, especially those who are fighting so vigorously against AME, want to hear anything like this.

Macom isn't even worth talking about, as it's clearly as "bad" as AME. And Hamman, being our of the 204 boundaries, and next to landfill and a concrete plant isn't even worth a second look. So, now that BB's safety has been questioned, where do we go from here?

People have been quoting MM from 2 years ago, as having "ruled out" AME due to safety concerns (BTW, a false statement that he ruled it out), but that was without ANY testing. How can people continuously quote his statement 2 years ago about the perception of the AME site safety, while, present day, any statement that he, or professionals charged with ensuring with the safety of the site, are questioned; brought under a microscope; and tossed aside a being either deceitful, or, at minimum, insufficient to "prove" the safety of the site. Which is it: do we believe things that MM says or don't we? You can't say that you believe something that he said 2 years ago (based on no actual testing) and now you don't believe him (after a number of different tests have actually been performed).

Why the scrutiny only for the MV site? What about all of the other schools - I didn't want to bring this up, but what about Peterson? It seems close enough to the same RR tracks, pipelines, and power lines that that some allege are unsafe for MV. Where's the outrage and the website and the lawsuit?
How does anyone propose that we "prove" the safety of any site? I now have a perception that BB may have environmental safety issues. That wasn't listed on the Ref - I want the Ref voided & a re-vote! Where's the flaw in this thinking? It's the same path the nsfoc is leading us down.

I'm starting to think that the nsfoc may really just want 2 HSs in 204 forever. I wonder how close they are with CFO types. I mean, just read what's on their site regarding the questioning of enrollment projections and the questioning of schools capacities. That's straight from the CFO site. Scary.

-----------

Peterson was built even before any houses were built in ashwood, i believe. brad could answer this better than i could.

there might have been some houses in ashwood creek(south of 111th and crone, off 248); but i don't think there were many, if any at all, built in ashwood park- south of 103rd.. north of 111th.