Hearing starts today

[bob]

I guess if this whole thing fails, CV wants to send Tallgrass and WE to WV.

[title1parent]

Hey now Bob, then that probably means Gombert is going to NV. I am not ready to move, yet.

So are there no reprimands that the SB can do to CV?

[bob]

Does she send her kids to Gombert? Maybe that is what she wants all along.

BTW, I know for a fact that Ari was there.

[warriorpride]

title1parent said:

...

So are there no reprimands that the SB can do to CV?

We looked at this a while ago. CV is clearly not following through on what's expected of an SB member. I don't have time to comb through everything right now, but if anyone wants to, just take a look here: board.ipsd.org/policy/sec2/index.asp

I see things in "Board Member Ethics" that she seems to have violated, based on what we've heard.

This is promising (Board Member Removal From Office): board.ipsd.org/policy/sec2/215_03.pdf

[title1parent]

No, her kids go to McCarty. Wonder if she has HS age kids...maybe she got one of those Parent Invitations and she could finally experience what it is like to walk through the crowded halls of WV.

[wvhsparent]

My feeling now is that the Judge will probably rule that the SD should have had an appraisal done PRIOR to making it's offer, however seeing that the offer was made AND is within the range of what FMV appaisals done AFTER...he is going to let it slide.....Then we will be "game-on" for the jury trial of the condemnation....where the values\offers will have to be produced.


This is my opinion only....I am no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV

[bob]

Did I miss the JC IMPEACHES HERSELF ON STAND special Naperville Sun Edition?

[wvhsparent]

bob said:

Did I miss the JC IMPEACHES HERSELF ON STAND special Naperville Sun Edition?

no; you need your special revealer pen on on the paper, or the invisible text reading glasses for the computer.

[Arch]

Since CV seems to have stated things that are completely irrelevant and offered no evidence to support that irrelevant tangent, perhaps the judge will look at that as a complete waste of time by the defense and see it for the empty desperate gesture that it is.

[warriorpride]

archwinsome said:

Since CV seems to have stated things that are completely irrelevant and offered no evidence to support that irrelevant tangent, perhaps the judge will look at that as a complete waste of time by the defense and see it for the empty desperate gesture that it is.

The CV comment about believing that the district’s crowding issues could have been resolved by shifting students probably serves the following puposes:

- More free publicity for CFO/CRAFT/etc. to plan seeds for the 2009 referendum. Are we really going to have to hear from these people for the next 2+ years?

- See the 3rd bullet point here: www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/eminent_domain.html "...The government must also demonstrate that the taking of the property is for a public use". Maybe it's a last ditch effort to convince the judge that there isn't a real need for a 3rd HS, thus causing him to rule in favor of BB. The incorrect thinking by some would be that 204 wouldn't build a 3rd HS, then. If this really fell through, the 3rd HS would just have to get built somewhere else.

[momof3]

eagledad said:

I have it on good authority that Ari Rosenthal was present in the courtroom to watch Chrsitine Vickers testimony yesterday.

Additionally, someone littered CFO "Vote No 204" signs on County Farm Road leading to the courthouse yesteday. (nice)

The connections are obvious here.

I saw the blurb in the Sun re: those signs but didn't put it together until I read the article about the hearing. Kate Houlihan wrote the blurb but Paige Winfield wrote the article about the hearing - I wonder if they (the reporters) put it together?
From Nov 10 p.13 Government Watch:

A blast from an election past

On a recent trip to the DuPage County Circuit Court in Wheaton, a certain election-related sign placed in the grass near the intersection of County Farm Road and Roosevelt Road caught this Government Watch reporter's eye.

At first glance the small red square seems unobtrusive enough, simply another byproduct of an election season when an abundance of signs is thrust upon the unassuming motorists.

But it also looked familiar. As in, seen around town before the March primary.

A closer glance - well, as close as one can safely get while driving - showed that the sign was a leftover "Vote No" sign from the March referendum for Indian Prairie School District 204.

The reporter was so befuddled that she slowed down as much as she could to make sure she was seeing the letters "IPSD 204" correctly. It appears she was.

- K.H.