|
Post by dpc on Apr 3, 2006 15:04:05 GMT -6
dpc, people who attend the SB meetings know, the SB members engage in lively debate over a variety of issues...they do not "spew the party line", they discuss, disagree, deliberate and come to a concensus. They often disagree with HC too. Regarding CV, I have seen her sit silently meeting after meeting and speak only when she has a prepared statement to read. She is the ONLY SB member to address the meetings in this way. I have emailed her questions, respectfully, honestly looking for information. She is the only SB member who has never responded to me. She does not articulate opposing viewpoints, she just says NO. No one dismisses her. One really has to attend the SB meetings and see it for themselves. I've attended nearly all the regular SB meeting which is the basis for my point about BG and JS. I understand that CV doesn't speak much and I surmise that it's because she knows she's not welcome and her points will be shot-down before they leave her mouth. I think this is the reason why she reads the prepared statements because she must choose her words wisely knowing the world is waiting with bated breath to hear them. Personally, I'd rather have a SB member that does as much behind the scenes work and analysis as she does. I know this because she's responded to several of my emails questioning her about her projections on enrollment, capacity, etc. All I ever get from JS and MM is a bunch of rhetoric without any real substance to support their claims. As for BG, he's never responded to any of my emails. I still don't understand why others don't see the need for independent thinking on the part of the SB. I've seen way too much group thinking going on at the SB meetings although some of the members are crafty enough to hide this mentality.
|
|
|
Post by chicoryowl on Apr 3, 2006 15:12:22 GMT -6
I believe a lot of the info that was put out there was for just that to get the referendum passed. M2 even mentioned in his email property values. A scare tactic to get the yes votes. There are things that you refer to as scare tactics that I refer to as reality. You're contemplating private schools. Why is that? Is it because of the high taxes? Are our home values increasing at a faster rate than surrounding communities because people move to this area because it's close to private schools? Does Naperville win all these community awards because of the Riverwalk? Perhaps there really is a strong link between property values and the surrounding school system. We're obviously going to disagree, but I can't see that the school board would have rushed out to purchase 40 portable classrooms which not only need to be placed somewhere on the campuses, but also add more kids to already crowded common areas. It seems that anytime the SB paints a picture that isn't palatable, it's labeled a scare tactic. The problem is, it's a CFO term which they used extensively (taxes will go through the roof, the school will add $13M in costs, the enrollment will go down and the 3rd HS will close, Petersen will never open), but nobody ever called them on it.
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Apr 3, 2006 15:25:29 GMT -6
CV is really starting to annoy me. The more I think about it, I would rather have Chuck Kern on the board then her. You would still have 1 anti-ref person on the board, but at least CK could understand the issues facing our district and possibly add something constructive. Those 2 WDTA nutbirds on the 203 board at least occasionally say something insightful (when it's not "Let's burn all them science books and get the kids some bibles to learn 'em with!" or "I went to school in a 100 year old building that was 25 degrees in the wintertime and I don't want any better for my young 'uns!!"). Why do you think CV doesn't understand the issues facing our district? As far as I can tell, the other SB members have done nothing but dismiss her from the get-go. I bet it's very tough to be in her shoes knowing that no matter what she says, someone is going to complain about it. Do they do the same thing to BG and JS. From what I can tell, they've done nothing but spew the party line. Not sure if you've been following what has happened with corporate governance in the US in the past four years. It has changed significantly whereby corporate boards aren't just the rubber stampers that they used to be. I see no reason why we should expect anything less from our SB as they are accountable to the stakeholders every bit as much as corporate boards are accountable to their shareholders. I think CV takes her responsibilities to the stakeholders quite seriously. Why else would she go out on the limb she's on? It certainly isn't for the wonderful treatment she receives from her SB colleagues and some of the 204 residents that seem to ridicule her no matter what she does. I'm a big believer in checks and balances and I think CV is keeping the other SB members in check. I think she doesn't understand the issues facing our district because she stated that in the interview. She has been on the board for a YEAR and the only thing she understands are the capacity and enrollment figures (!) ? This is the quote directly from the interview that is especially concerning: "With the referendum being first and at the forefront, it feels like I’ve learned a lot about capacity and enrollment and a little bit about the finances. But that’s a big animal. (With a budget of) $225 million, I can’t say I’ve really felt like I’ve had a good chance to dive into that yet. Or the curriculum, really." She had 6 WEEKS to review the budget and couldn't come up with one coherent question or suggestion last year, just a no vote? She has been on the school board for ONE YEAR and hasn't had the CHANCE to look into the curriculum? The referendum was not proposed until late last fall. What was she doing before then? Yes, she is not a rubber-stamper. She is merely a road bump in the way of progress. I would respect her if she was anything but that. That's why I made the comment about the 203 board members. At least they make constructive critisms & alternative suggestions. Her only suggestion over the past year was to move the 6th graders back to the ES ... but then she couldn't find the time to attend the special board workshop to discuss her idea?? It's infuriating, really.
|
|
|
Post by chicoryowl on Apr 3, 2006 15:28:17 GMT -6
The only things I know about CV are that: -At the 3 SB meetings I have been to, she either seemed catatonic or flustered. -Nearly everything I've seen about her in the paper seems to have been written from a CFO website. This along with the above item leads me to believe that she's just a mouthpiece for CFO/CRAFT/Taxpayer Alliance. -The article in the Herald where it was pointed out that she was passing around incorrect pictures of the school and her LTE in the Sun have led me to believe that she is out of touch with the people she is supposed to be working with if not in fact working against them.
|
|
|
Post by bookworm on Apr 3, 2006 15:33:44 GMT -6
I am not a fan of CV, however, I feel that the treatment she has recieved at the hands of the other school board members is reprehensible. If she has a problem speaking in public because she stutters or something then the way that she has been treated by the other board members is even worse than reprehensible. Just because she has a differing opinion or has trouble verbalizing her thoughts does not give anyone the right to treat her badly.
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Apr 3, 2006 15:37:27 GMT -6
I've actually grown to become a huge fan of CV.
Having someone of her intellect and debate capabilities as the most visible anti-referendum leader is the best thing that ever happened for getting the referendum passed!
Thank you CV, and keep being "you"!!!!
|
|
|
Post by dpc on Apr 3, 2006 15:53:00 GMT -6
I am not a fan of CV, however, I feel that the treatment she has received at the hands of the other school board members is reprehensible. If she has a problem speaking in public because she stutters or something then the way that she has been treated by the other board members is even worse than reprehensible. Just because she has a differing opinion or has trouble verbalizing her thoughts does not give anyone the right to treat her badly. I agree bookworm. The public slamming of CV by JC in the DH last week was in extremely poor taste and reprehensible. I've never heard a board member of any kind publicly humiliate a fellow board member like she did. But we know JC's not the brightest bulb burning out there and at least she showed her true colors. What's funny about that story is that I received the photo of the new high school from another SB member not CV! Like it or not, 11,000 residents in 204 support CV on some level. Again, I ask all of you, what's so bad about having a SB member that goes against the grain (sarcasm aside ED)? Also, have any of you ever been in the executive sessions? Have you heard her speak behind these closed door sessions? Perhaps she's more vocal in these sessions. Finally, how do you know that CFO wrote all of her pieces? Do you have evidence of this? Perhaps CV shared her knowledge with CFO rather than CFO sharing it with her? I've seen plenty of knowledge sharing between CB and the pro-ref group yet nobody is publicly bashing him. Why?
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 3, 2006 16:13:50 GMT -6
I bet over half couldn't even tell you who CV is.
She was a non factor in this election. She could have played a real opposition position but didn't understand what to do. Instead of shaping boundaries and possibly cutting deals, she sat there and abstained on every vote.
You had 3-3 votes in a whole bunch of votes. So instead of playing one group off the other, she sat there like a bump on a log. Watching the final boundary meeting told me that she had NO IDEA of what was going on.
I ask the CV supporters this. If it is true. Why did she never have the meeting where she was suppose to chair concerning about the 6th graders being brought down to the grade schools? If she really cared about her solution, why did she abandon it?
If they were her ideas why wasn't she credited for it by her group on their website.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 3, 2006 17:07:57 GMT -6
Also, we have a poster here that swears she saw CV and Ari meet up before the final boundary meeting. The poster also noted that Ari gave CV notes for t he meeting.
|
|
|
Post by dpc on Apr 3, 2006 17:55:07 GMT -6
Also, we have a poster here that swears she saw CV and Ari meet up before the final boundary meeting. The poster also noted that Ari gave CV notes for t he meeting. Pardon my ignorance but who is Ari and why is he important? I've seen other SB members chat with attendees prior to many public meetings and I've seen notes passed as well. Am I to assume that something sinister is going on between them? Again, I ask you - why is it so bad to have a SB member go against the grain?
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 3, 2006 17:58:22 GMT -6
That's quite a stretch of the facts Following your logic, 14,339 residents support JC, HC, BG, MM, etc. on some level. Bob is right - a vast majority of the voters have no idea who the board members are. I do know one thing about CV - I told her publically in a board meeting that her capacity numbers involved forcing unsafe numbers of students (46.3 to be exact) through numberous science laboratories, and the safe limit is about half that. When presented with this new information, she did absolutely nothing with it !!!!! Anyone with a shred of integrity would have said, "Whoa, I better check that out." Instead, she sat silently - after all, that didn't support her case. I fail to see how that is a responsible board member action.
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Apr 3, 2006 18:01:31 GMT -6
Also, anyone can ask George Vickers who introduced him to Ari and Chuck Kern. CV set that up so they could take over CFO. Please - it is beyond me why Sara Hooker didn't ask those questions because it would have made for a much better interview.
I am NOT against a SB member going against the grain if there is a reason for it, or if they provide viable alternatives.
I am against a SB member going against the grain if the goal is to defeat all referendums (ala CRAFT) for the sake of school funding reform. If that's the battlefield, why do our kids have to be the casulaties?? There is a better way to accomplish this agenda then dismantling school districts.
|
|
|
Post by dpc on Apr 3, 2006 18:11:56 GMT -6
Also, anyone can ask George Vickers who introduced him to Ari and Chuck Kern. CV set that up so they could take over CFO. Please - it is beyond me why Sara Hooker didn't ask those questions because it would have made for a much better interview. I am NOT against a SB member going against the grain if there is a reason for it, or if they provide viable alternatives. I am against a SB member going against the grain if the goal is to defeat all referendums (ala CRAFT) for the sake of school funding reform. If that's the battlefield, why do our kids have to be the casulaties?? There is a better way to accomplish this agenda then dismantling school districts. Did you hear that from George Vickers directly? And how do you know that CV's mission is to defeat all referendums? Last year she voted No and this year she voted No again to the same proposal albeit more expensive. She publicly stated while running for SB last year that she has voted Yes to all referendums prior to 2005. How can that be going against all referendums? Finally, is she a member of CRAFT? Sorry Mom but you are making major leaps that are completely without merit. Also sounds like you have a personal issue with CV because you are getting so riled up. Were you two friends at one point?
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 3, 2006 18:11:58 GMT -6
Was the only time that CV did not abstain was the final boundary vote?
There was so much ample oppotunity for her to get concessions from other board members during the vote. Could have held BG over the barrel with a possible yes vote on Option 6? Could have held m2 over the barrel with a yes vote on the Brookdale/Gombert swap?
I am sitting here thinking of all the concessions she could have gotten by one side against the other. Could gotten a more stringent referendum wording?
How about the fact that she said the enrollment numbers proved we needed a third HS before the election. She lied
IMO, she isn't real opposition. She is a pawn.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 3, 2006 18:16:17 GMT -6
|
|