Disappointment

[confused]

hmmm said:

archwinsome said:

Who on our side has the pull or authority to make it 'personal' assuming what you said is correct?

I have been pondering what recourse we all have for the last 2 days. Could we involve the State of Illinois? Attorneys? Class action lawsuits?

It seems to me that an investigation into the practices of this district are long overdue.

I completely agree and know of some who are looking into this.

I can't even believe that they are thinking of closing on this site when the BB fees are not even settled. We have no idea what that is going to end up costing our district. We still have the 25 acres as yet unsold, the $5M MINIMUM in legal fees and potentially closing on a site that could require remediation in the future. I pray they would be diligent with all the EPA stuff so that that too won't become a big cost down the road.

Never mind the fact that we were all told that we could afford whatever the outcome of the court proceedings were and when the was announced, those same folks decided that now we couldn't afford it. But now, with the money they will spend on this new site in addition to the damages, it appears they will spend the same. Is this also personal? We're mad that the BB attorneys got the best of us so, even though we can't really get a better deal at this point, we're not going to take that land. We'll show them. And who loses on the deal?

The misled taxpayers and more importantly, our kids who are now being shuffled all over the district. Twice as many kids are being relocated in this great deal for the district as compared to the referendum that the district approved.

Finally, to a point ED made about it appearing very personal, the inclusion of the letter about the bridge in the packet with the referendum materials. That definitely looked personal.

[brooksmom]

confused said:

eagledad said:

One of the biggest issues I have is in justifying the recommendation on lies. I am sorry to be so blunt, but anyone who says that the average commute from Steck, an elementary area that surrounds WVHS to WVHS is 29 minutes is being purposely deceitful - nothing less. To list that at the same time next to average commutes of 30 and 35 minutes for Cowlishaw/Watts and Owen respectively to MWGen is to outright disregard their very valid concerns and dismiss the new burden they would have to carry. I can not stand by and not call it out for what it is. It is a carefully crafted impossibility, created by our administrators to misrepresent reality. It is indefensible. I place total responsibility for this on Kathy Birkett who was leading the preparation and presentation of this proposal. I do not want to hear the excuse that "Laidlaw provided the data". Kathy put it on district letterhead and sent it to every family in the district. She bears the responsibility for recognizing the ridiculousness that it contains. Until now, I have held her in the highest respect, but now I question her competence.

I see a 3-way split of Peterson that does not make one iota of sense to me. Likewise the selective split of a small portion of Cowlishaw and Gombert have made no sense to me no matter how long I stare at them. Why are we doing this to those communities? What is the gain?

I am very disappointed in this.

Then at the very end of the proposal, I see the "Bridge Memo". I have to ask myself, was this so very important a point to be made that you had to deliver it in this vehicle? It was entirely inappropriate to single out this one issue and one subdivision while trying to unify the district. You might as well have just left a page blank and put 24-point font saying: "Oh yeah, and also... screw you Tallgrass!!!" at the end. I also place responsibility for this on Kathy Birkett who was leading the preparation and presentation of this proposal. It was unneeded and it served no good. This information is valuable - it should have been provided in another vehicle.

I am very disappointed in this.

Until I see our district stop giving misleading data, realistically consider the huge commute of some (Owen, Watts, Cowlishaw), address achievement imbalance rather than magnify it, and stop maliciously splitting subdivisions, I can not be a proud new Warrior. We will of course go where they tell us, but I can not support launching these new schools under these criteria. I will not support any referendum or current board member if this gets rubber stamped as proposed.

I don't want some of ED's great points to get lost in the shuffle. That transportation map was a joke - trying to make everyone's commute look roughly the same, give or take 5 minutes, is an absolute joke. And I appreciate the SD's plan to add more routes in the more outlying areas, but I would have to imagine this would add more cost to transportation, rather than reduce or maintain costs. How is that being explained? Aside from the financial, look at the time costs to these students. This is a huge commute for Owen, Fry, Watts & Cowlishaw. There was definitely a way to slice it where these commutes would not be necessary.

The 3-way split for Petersen and all the little splits at the ES's. Let alone Fry & Owen not only got the longest commutes but they're also the ones being asked to be the minority in their schools going off to a different high school. Middle school is the age when kids are getting geared up to support their high school. At Neuqua they have a whole section at the football games dedicated to Middle School students. So on Friday nights, when the Owen kids are getting ready to go sit in the MV section and Fry is getting ready to go sit in the WV section their friends will say, "Sorry, we're going to the WV game (or the NV game), respectively."

So, per the ridiculous transportation map, Owen & Fry get the longest commutes AND they get the joy of split middle schools.

I am not at all trying to justify their transportation times, but in terms of the transportation costs, we will be eliminating a whole set of double busing to WV because of the loss of the Freshman Campus. Currently, 2 buses come to each neighborhood, 1 bound for Freshman center and 1 bound for main campus. Having 1 bus to every neighborhood at the HS level for non-Neuqua will free up a lot of transportation money and buses.

[EagleDad]

gatordog said:

I got to start by saying WarriorEagledad, I see a lot of this way differently

I think you and I are reading the handout way differently. By definition the bus route is the beginning and end time. To me, the average means to and from. Look at two (only two I believe) current Steck area bus routes, Route 18/218 and 29/229. These routes averge to 27 minutes.

Are those two busses both going to Green or is one Gold bound (can you provide a link to these routes please).

I thought Steck had 663 feeders. That's a lot of kids to fit one or (or two) buses. It must a monsterously huge bus. The fact is that much of Steck are walkers - their "Bus Route Times" are 0 and must be factored in at the number of students to the overall "Average Bus Route Times". To do otherwise, and say that Steck has an average 29 minute transporatation time is deceiving.

And I'm not picking on Steck here, it is just one example and the pattern of deception on that map is used over and over again throughout the whole district. Multiple the Steck example by 21.

Then again, I thought 124 million dollars was 124, not 142 as according to our new everday math, so I'm probably wrong.

[brooksmom]

eagledad said:

gatordog said:

I got to start by saying WarriorEagledad, I see a lot of this way differently

I think you and I are reading the handout way differently. By definition the bus route is the beginning and end time. To me, the average means to and from. Look at two (only two I believe) current Steck area bus routes, Route 18/218 and 29/229. These routes averge to 27 minutes.

Are those two busses both going to Green or is one Gold bound (can you provide a link to these routes please).

I thought Steck had 663 feeders. That's a lot of kids to fit one or (or two) buses. It must a monsterously huge bus. The fact is that much of Steck are walkers - their "Bus Route Times" are 0 and must be factored in at the number of students to the overall "Average Bus Route Times". To do otherwise, and say that Steck has an average 29 minute transporatation time is deceiving.

And I'm not picking on Steck here, it is just one example and the pattern of deception on that map is used over and over again throughout the whole district. Multiple the Steck example by 21.

Then again, I thought 124 million dollars was 124, not 142 as according to our new everday math, so I'm probably wrong.

Here is an example of 2 inbound routes - 1 to Gold campus and 1 to Green - same neighborhood.

Route #: WVG009 WV Gold In
Route #: WVH027 WVHS INBOUND

[warriorpride]

eagledad said:

... Then again, I thought 124 million dollars was 124, not 142 as according to our new everday math, so I'm probably wrong.

Sorry WD, every time you say 124 I'm going to call you on it. It never was 124, with the puchase of the 25 BB acres already done. Please stop lying with numbers.

In addition, if all you truly want is Owen moved to WV and Peterson not split, your monologue full of name-calling and accusations was an interesting way to try to accomplish it. I can't help feeling that there's more that you want changed about the proposed boundaries.

[Arch]

How about someone calling out our Super on the statement that Diesel fuel oil was only used twice and then they only ran the generators for under an hour. (On video, Jan 22 meeting)

M2 tried to qualify that statement after I called them out on it and said that they were going by their data that only went as far back as 1991. I then responded and showed him where (using his time frame) there were 9 months of operation for the peaker plant using Diesel Fuel Oil since 1991 and gave them a link to the govt website to examine the raw data themselves. He later admitted:

"I do appreciate the link; there's more info there than the limited run
of paper copies we previously had.

m2"


They are without a lot of information and are making decisions based on mis-information. *THAT* right there is a HUGE problem that *ALL* of us will pay for when this is all said and done.

This is why I keep insisting they release their RAW data so we can check/balance it to make sure they are working with accurate and complete information. Right now, they certainly are not and Lord only knows what critical pieces they may still be missing or have inaccurate data on.

[concerned]

There is nothing wrong with wanting fair and logical boundaries. All you have to do is look at Peterson and see that this is personal. At this point after watching the SB work over the last two years it is very hard to trust them.

[warriorpride]

archwinsome said:

...They are without a lot of information and are making decisions based on mis-information. *THAT* right there is a HUGE problem that *ALL* of us will pay for when this is all said and done....

That's your opinion, and that's fine, as long as you state it as your opinion - you also can't predict the future, so it's probably most fairly stated as a risk.

Your statement has nothing to do with WD stating over and over again that he expected MV to cost 124M, and calling the SB/Admin liars - the real cost of MV was going to be well above 130M (adding in the cost of the 25 BB acres) regardless of where it was built. Just becase the Ref was for 124M doesn't mean that that was the full cost to build. Some newer people to this board may take things taken here as gospel. I want to make sure we're being accurate here.

ETA: I don't think there's a risk - I'm acknowledging that Arch might think that there is one. I, personally have faith that the SB/Admin will do everything to ensure that the MV site is safe.

[warriorpride]

concerned said:

There is nothing wrong with wanting fair and logical boundaries. All you have to do is look at Peterson and see that this is personal. At this point after watching the SB work over the last two years it is very hard to trust them.

I didn't say there was. But different people will have different opinions on what's fair. And WHAT IS wrong, is to call the Admin & SB liars and accuse them of things that are clearly false. If you have reasonable suggestions, then discuss them here & send them to the SB - don't grand-stand, though, and expect the SB to do your bidding afterwards.

[wvhsparent]

warriorpride said:

concerned said:

There is nothing wrong with wanting fair and logical boundaries. All you have to do is look at Peterson and see that this is personal. At this point after watching the SB work over the last two years it is very hard to trust them.

I didn't say there was. But different people will have different opinions on what's fair. And WHAT IS wrong, is to call the Admin & SB liars and accuse them of things that are clearly false. If you have reasonable suggestions, then discuss them here & send them to the SB - don't grand-stand, though, and expect the SB to do your bidding afterwards.

Exactly...well put WP.
I do agree that the Peterson situation is way out there. Ask them for their reasoning on why they did it that way.
To say they did it as punishment, or other personal reason IMHO is equally invalid.
Come up with a better solution for Peterson, present it with NO emotion, but as analytical as possible, and you might get a positive response.
While ED's post on his dissapointment with the state of things in the district was heartfelt, it was his position, There are parts I agree with, and parts I do not.
If that was to be used as a basis of requesting change, it wont work.

Bounce ideas off others here, maybe someone can come up with that little piece of the puzzle that may make the difference.

[Arch]

warriorpride said:

archwinsome said:

...They are without a lot of information and are making decisions based on mis-information. *THAT* right there is a HUGE problem that *ALL* of us will pay for when this is all said and done....

That's your opinion, and that's fine, as long as you state it as your opinion - you also can't predict the future, so it's probably most fairly stated as a risk.

Your statement has nothing to do with WD stating over and over again that he expected MV to cost 124M, and calling the SB/Admin liars - the real cost of MV was going to be well above 130M (adding in the cost of the 25 BB acres) regardless of where it was built. Just becase the Ref was for 124M doesn't mean that that was the full cost to build. Some newer people to this board may take things taken here as gospel. I want to make sure we're being accurate here.

ETA: I don't think there's a risk - I'm acknowledging that Arch might think that there is one. I, personally have faith that the SB/Admin will do everything to ensure that the MV site is safe.

They said 2, I showed them 9 months where it operated in the 'qualified' time frame they chose themselves later to 'qualify' their 2 times statement.

Their data was wrong. That is not opinion, that is fact.

ED has his own beef, I have mine. Don't mix the two.

Go pull the data yourself with the monthly consumption rates, electricity produced and supply inventory data broken out by Plant/month/year/fuel type and tell me your OPINION and see if it matches theirs or mine.

[confused]

warriorpride said:

concerned said:

There is nothing wrong with wanting fair and logical boundaries. All you have to do is look at Peterson and see that this is personal. At this point after watching the SB work over the last two years it is very hard to trust them.

I didn't say there was. But different people will have different opinions on what's fair. And WHAT IS wrong, is to call the Admin & SB liars and accuse them of things that are clearly false. If you have reasonable suggestions, then discuss them here & send them to the SB - don't grand-stand, though, and expect the SB to do your bidding afterwards.

I think the SB/Admin did receive reasonable suggestions - we've seen them posted here - why are we to think that more reasonable suggestions are going to change anything. The boundaries delivered to us on Tuesday are the exact boundaries that have been in the rumor mill since Nov/Dec. I think the only unknown was how were they going to handle Owen & Peterson. Now those are known. Why are we to believe that any email, monkey survey response or other will have a significant impact?

You see this all the time where a public body comes up with something - claim they want feedback and input - and in the end do exactly what they set out to from the get-go. I've emailed the board and the admin over the course of the past 3 months and have barely heard back from any of them. Maybe they are tired of the charade and don't want to even pretend to care anymore.

[EagleDad]

The Sb should not be doing anyone's bidding, and I am not calling for that. I am only looking for them to make fair and equitable decisions based on real and un-slanted data.

And I am sorry, but I see a calculated 29 minute average commute for Steck at the same time as 30 minutes for Watts/Cowlishaw and 35 for Owen as VERY slanted. Do you think these are an accurate representation if the real travel times under these boundaries?

[confused]

wvhsparent said:

warriorpride said:

I didn't say there was. But different people will have different opinions on what's fair. And WHAT IS wrong, is to call the Admin & SB liars and accuse them of things that are clearly false. If you have reasonable suggestions, then discuss them here & send them to the SB - don't grand-stand, though, and expect the SB to do your bidding afterwards.

Exactly...well put WP.
I do agree that the Peterson situation is way out there. Ask them for their reasoning on why they did it that way.
To say they did it as punishment, or other personal reason IMHO is equally invalid.
Come up with a better solution for Peterson, present it with NO emotion, but as analytical as possible, and you might get a positive response.
While ED's post on his dissapointment with the state of things in the district was heartfelt, it was his position, There are parts I agree with, and parts I do not.
If that was to be used as a basis of requesting change, it wont work.

Bounce ideas off others here, maybe someone can come up with that little piece of the puzzle that may make the difference.

The only problem I see with this is they've gotten themselves into a pickle. (not that they wouldn't have realized this). If they send all of Ashwood to NV, then they're hopscotching Fry and that goes against contiguous boundaries. They would have to totally change up the south configuration.

[wvhsparent]

eagledad said:

The Sb should not be doing above's bidding, and I am not calling for that. I am only looking for them to make fair and equitable decisions based on real and un-slanted data.

And I am sorry, but I see a calculated 29 minute average commute for Steck at the same time as 30 minutes for Watts/Cowlishaw and 35 for Owen as VERY slanted. Do you think these are an accurate representation if the real travel times under these boundaries?

ED I agree with you they massaged the data to their advantage to sell their assignment of Owen to MV.
They have done this since day one, on other things (even to sell BB to us) Everyone does this at some point in their lives. You sell the positives and minimize the negatives.
I suggest to you to contact KB or whoever is in charge of the Bus routes and ask for the actual times not the averages.
When you get them, post them and we can all find a way to add that to the overall presentation.