Board members ease voters concerns ???

[starfish]

I came across this old email sent out to voters in response to a letter from a voter that was passed around encouraging people not to vote "yes" because he/she felt that the board was not being truthful with the district regarding the boundaries and that in the end they would find a way to change the boundaries once they got the ref. to pass.

The email from Mark Metzger to the district states that voters should not be concerned with the content of the letter because the board had no agenda to change the boundaries and voters told the board they needed to know boundaries in or to evaluate their votes.

He goes on to say that the board would stick to their core tenant of allowing public involvement in the process in the event that boundaires were to change and that the board would not decide to make the changes by itself. "To change boundaries after the vote smacks of a bait and switch, which is yet another reason I don't think it is likely to happen" .

At the end of the email Metzger asks the question "Do you want to believe those who stand up and are willing to be accountable for their words and actions or those who sling mud and spread lies from a perch of anonymity. I hope for the sake of this community, our children and our property values, we make the right choice. My vote will be YES , and I encourage you to do so as well.

So my point here is we were to a degree misled and if MM truly feels this way then he should stick to his word. If the boundaries are changing, the pubic should be allowed to be involved in that process. I hardly think that one school board meeting would be considered involvement in the process. His email implies that BB is a done deal by giving voters the impression that the boundaires in all likelyhood would not change.

In several meetings voters asked MM "what is your plan B if we don't get the land and his answer was there is no plan B as we will get the land, these are just your typical legal ranglings.

The email is long but I think it is worth reading.

I awoke this morning both surprised and relieved that for the first
time in many years, opponents of whatever the school district is
currently attempting to do had not engaged in their favorite
pastime of the past: the Sunday morning anonymous smear piece.
I thought we’d made progress as a community, but I was mistaken.
The smear piece arrived today instead, although it appears to be
unique to Tall Grass.
True to form, it’s unsigned and unattributed, but I think we all
know where it came from, don’t we? Although I generally think it
wise to follow Yogi Berra’s advice to “Never answer an
anonymous letter” I was asked to offer my thoughts on this latest
collection of lies, and I agreed to do so.
The flier begins with the admonition not to believe “scare tactics.”
I suppose that means we can all ignore the rest of the sheet in
which Tall Grass residents are told of secret plans to send Fry to
Waubonsie no matter what and to drive taxes through the roof. If
that’s not scare tactics, I don’t know what is.
Why a $13,000,000 addition to Neuqua won’t work.
The author suggests that a Neuqua addition for $13,589,437 is a
better idea. To that, I have two responses: First, an addition will
cost far more than that; and Second, it won’t solve all of our
problems.
The architects, at the Board’s request last year, estimated that the
cost of a 600 seat classroom addition would cost at least
$13,500,000. Note that there are three key caveats there: “Last
year” “600” and “classroom.” The “last year” element alone
means greater costs. Consider that the cost of the building
materials for the high school are up more than $8.6 million in just
one year (which, given the building boom in Asia and along the
Gulf Coast makes sense). Proportionately, that translates to
several million more than the estimate by the time we’d be able to
start construction. Of course, we’ll also see labor cost increases in
the interim as well, which means that the cost will probably be $16
to $18 million on the low side before it could begin.
Next, consider the “600” issue. We already have 9,200 students in
grades 2-5. In seven years when they’re all in high school, that’s
800 more students than we have seats for them to use. Beyond the
kids who are already here, there’s the issue of 1,000 or so homes
yet to be built in the district. Does anyone seriously believe that
we will see all of those homes built and that no kids will move in?
Some tell me that that it will be filled exclusively with lateral
movement from within the District. If that’s true, that still means
1,000 homes available in the district with kids moving in to them.
Returning to the 600 student Neuqua addition, there’s also the
problem of more than 200 “seatless” students at Waubonsie, which
is also seeing enrollment growth. No addition at Neuqua is going
to address that problem. So now we need to look at a Waubonsie
addition as well. What the anonymous author isn’t telling his
readers is that the architects have also concluded that there’s
almost no way left to add on to the main building at Waubonsie.
That means adding space to the Freshman building and making
Waubonsie in to a full-time, two building campus. Figure another
$10 to $15 million to get the addition built. Unfortunately, that
kind of addition means students traveling back and forth across
Ogden to change classes, and I don’t see any way that the
Waubonsie attendance area would support a referendum to do that,
and no referendum will pass in this district without support from
both sides.
Still on the “600” issue is the middle school space need. The
estimate is that building a middle school would cost on the order of
$40-45 million.
Now consider the “classroom” issue on the addition: Adding 600
classroom spaces doesn’t make any of the common spaces any
bigger – we would still need more library, lunchroom, gym and
other elective spaces added in addition to the classroom space.
The only way the architects could come up with such spaces was to
build a self-contained, stand-alone addition (sort of a mini school),
which would house the new classrooms and the necessary ancillary
spaces. The added cost of doing so would likely be $20-$25
million on top of the classroom cost. And the only places to put it
would be the soccer field, the football field or the baseball fields.
The school district has no power to take the park district’s land that
is adjacent to the school, and they’ve assured us they have no
interest in selling it.
So the much-hyped $13,000,000 addition is, in actuality, at least a
$95 million proposition, and it only addresses space needs for the
800 high school students who are already here. Even CFO’s
leadership has agreed (at a televised School Board meeting) that
9,200 is a safe number to use for projecting high school enrollment
going forward. What if kids do move in to those 1,000 homes?
We’ll need even more space, and that means still more money to
make those additions larger yet.
And then what do we have? Two monstrous high schools. Isn’t
there a reason that not one of our neighbors (indeed, no one else in
the state) is building schools that big?
Compare that to a new 3,000 student high school. Even if the
opposition is right and 9,200 high school students is all that we
ever get, we’ll have three high schools, each with 3,000 or so
students – what’s wrong with that? As one of my neighbors put it
recently, “District 203 is 30% smaller than District 204 and they
have only two high schools. Why shouldn’t we have a third one?”
There is No Real Risk of a Further Boundary Change
The flier author argues that there is a secret plan to send Fry to
Waubonsie no matter what. The argument is that Jeannette and
Howie have some agenda to see the option 6 boundaries revisted
and the Board has “alluded” to a change for the Peterson area. All
hogwash.
Immediately after the decision was made at several school
presentations, Jeannette made it clear that the decision was made
and she would support the boundaries as decided. For his part,
Howie has never stated a preference for option 6; he has only said
that option 6 was superior (from a management perspective) to
either version of option 5 with a Gombert/Brookdale swap.
The Board has never alluded to a Peterson change. That’s an
overblown attempt to read tea leaves that were never there. It
stems from a public comment made by a Peterson area resident
who argued that there were only two students from the area who
would be in high school in 2009 and that they would be going to
Waubonsie alone since (she argued) the area was never going to
develop. I then asked her (not stated or argued as one newspaper
account reported) if it wouldn’t make more sense to take up that
question later to see if her assumptions were correct. She argued
that doing so wouldn’t make sense and went on to other points.
The Board never discussed any changes to boundaries for Peterson
– it was purely a question to probe a speaker’s intentions.
So that leaves the question of why the Board isn’t likely to revisit
boundaries. As painful and agonizing as the process was for
residents, I can assure you that it’s much worse for Board
Members. None of us will be in any hurry to do that again. That
means that the only way the boundaries are likely to change is if
the Board is willing to abandon one of the core tenets of this
school district – public involvement in the boundary process – and
simply decides to make the changes by itself. Frankly, if we were
going to do that, we would have done so in January rather go
through the process we selected. And don’t forget that doing that
means that the majority which voted for the selected plan would
need to decide to undo that decision. Someone on the losing side
of a motion can’t move to reconsider.
Beyond the practical reality lies the idea of simple fairness. We
did the boundaries two years earlier than normal because the voters
told us that they needed to know the boundaries in order to
evaluate their votes. To change the boundaries after the vote
smacks of a bait and switch and is just simply unfair, which is yet
another reason I don’t think it’s likely to happen.
Middle School Boundaries
One thing the anonymous coward wrote is correct: The Board
isn’t making any guarantees on middle school boundaries. I think
each of Board Member and the Superintendent has now said that
they think it is unlikely that Fry would be removed from Scullen.
The reason is simple: right now, everyone from Fry walks to
Scullen. To change Fry’s middle school is to incur bus costs that
we do not have now, and to do so permanently. The fact that doing
so doesn’t make sense is, I think, why everyone has made such a
comment.
I think the only reason it hasn’t been phrased as a guarantee is that
the Board hasn’t had time to delve in to the issue, and it’s simply
unfair to give a guarantee to one area alone.
Taxes Can’t Go Up More Than
You’ve Been Told.
The sole question asked on the ballot seeks permission to issue
bonds in the amount $124,660,000. We’ve made very
conservative projections of the actual cost to taxpayers, so it’s very
likely that the cost will actually be less than projected. In any
event, the referendum only approves the cost of building and
equipping the school – it will have no effect on the rest of your tax
bill.
What the flier author seems to be arguing is that having a third
high school will mean that the 2009 referendum will need to be
larger. Specifically, the rocket scientists at the Will-DuPage Tax
Alliance supposedly have figured out what the 2009 referendum
request will be. Personally, I’m very impressed, because getting to
that number means knowing the rate of inflation for 2006, 2007
and 2008; knowing the EAV growth for the school district for
those same years; knowing what the state will do with school
funding for each of the next three years; knowing what the current
and the next teachers’ contract will look like and cost and then
projecting all of that out to 2019. Doing all of that in just a few
short days is either terribly impressive or riddled with errors. With
the need to tell the future required to do it correctly, my money is
on the latter, not the former.
The district has, with much care and analysis, determined that the
incremental cost of a third high school is $4.5 million. That’s the
cost of things like the administrative staff, the utility bills, the
nurse, the librarian, and the cost of other things unique to the
building like the extra curricular and athletic programs. Key point:
Teacher cost is not unique to the building – we will incur those
costs whether we build a third high school or not. The residents of
this district simply won’t agree to have high school classes at 50 or
60 students, and the teaching staff can’t be required to work both
shifts in a split shift. That means that as the number of students in
the high schools rises, our hiring of high school teachers will also
rise.
The $4.5 million operating cost of a new high school would mean
$80 or so per year to the owner of a $300,000 home. Where the
Tax Alliance came up with its $15 million figure is anyone’s
guess, but it’s $10 million more than is needed to use a third high
school in this district.
Speaking of the vaunted Will-DuPage Taxpayers Alliance, you
should know what it’s all about. It’s a small group of people
aligned with CRAFT, a McHenry County organization whose sole
purpose is to defeat any and every school referendum. To that
group, there is no such thing a necessary referendum. Do we really
want to listen to a group that’s already made up its mind on every
referendum without even looking at the facts?
What does a NO vote give us?
First and foremost, it ends the discussion of a third high school. It
will not, as some have suggested, give us more time to find a better
site or redo the boundaries. The Board has been clear that this is
our last effort to build a third high school. Why? Because the
need for middle school space will no longer permit us any further
delay. The current proposal recaptures the Waubonsie Gold
campus and turns it back in to a middle school, which is how the
middle school need gets addressed. A “NO” vote means that we’ll
probably come back immediately with a referendum to build a
middle school on the land we acquired with 2001 referendum
money. Building that school ends the pursuit of a third high
school, since it would no longer be possible to build a 3,000
student building and it is unlikely the voters would ever approve
building a 1,800 student high school that, because of its smaller
enrollment, would offer fewer amenities (programs, sports teams,
clubs) than Waubonsie and Neuqua.
A “NO” vote forces us to have split shifts if we do not add more
space before 2009. There simply won’t be room to do anything
else without adding more space. That’s not scare tactics; it’s
simply reality – a scary reality.
One side in this debate has made no bones about who it is: the
members of the Board of Education are publicly known, our
telephone numbers are public and regularly printed in the
newspaper and our email addresses available at a click from the
District web site. The same thing is true for the administrators and
the leadership structure of the “204 The Kids” group. Every ad is
signed, every email is from a person you can contact.
The opposition has continued to remain in the shadows from which
they can safely take unfounded shots at people trying to make a
difference and deny responsibility for the increasingly negative and
banal tactics they use. What they hope for is to create fear,
uncertainty and doubt (an old IBM marketing strategy) that will
lead to a NO vote.
Do you want to believe those who stand up and are willing to be
accountable for their words and actions or those who sling mud
and spread lies from a perch of anonymity? I hope for the sake of
this community, our children and our property values we make the
right choice. My vote will be YES, and I encourage you to do so
as well.
Mark Metzger
[e-mail]

[slp]

When people state we didn't vote on boundaries but rather on a 3rd high school...I think this comment explains how many people feel about the vote and why they feel 'duped' now.

This is taken from the above email from Mark Metzger :

....Beyond the practical reality lies the idea of simple fairness. We
did the boundaries two years earlier than normal because the voters
told us that they needed to know the boundaries in order to
evaluate their votes. To change the boundaries after the vote
smacks of a bait and switch and is just simply unfair, which is yet
another reason I don’t think it’s likely to happen.

[wvhsparent]

slp said:

When people state we didn't vote on boundaries but rather on a 3rd high school...I think this comment explains how many people feel about the vote and why they feel 'duped' now.

This is taken from the above email from Mark Metzger :

....Beyond the practical reality lies the idea of simple fairness. We
did the boundaries two years earlier than normal because the voters
told us that they needed to know the boundaries in order to
evaluate their votes. To change the boundaries after the vote
smacks of a bait and switch and is just simply unfair, which is yet
another reason I don’t think it’s likely to happen.

This also taken way out of context. He was applying it to the BB site, at which time if they changed yes,
However new site. that staement does not apply anymore.
It would be like them making the boundaries as is now and then changing them right before the new school opens.

[macy]

wvhsparent said:

slp said:

When people state we didn't vote on boundaries but rather on a 3rd high school...I think this comment explains how many people feel about the vote and why they feel 'duped' now.

This is taken from the above email from Mark Metzger :

....Beyond the practical reality lies the idea of simple fairness. We
did the boundaries two years earlier than normal because the voters
told us that they needed to know the boundaries in order to
evaluate their votes. To change the boundaries after the vote
smacks of a bait and switch and is just simply unfair, which is yet
another reason I don’t think it’s likely to happen.

This also taken way out of context. He was applying it to the BB site, at which time if they changed yes,
However new site. that staement does not apply anymore.
It would be like them making the boundaries as is now and then changing them right before the new school opens.

I disagree WVHS Parent.

I received the above mentioned Metzger letter via email the morning of the 06 referendum vote.

It changed my mind as I was worried the boundaries would change after watching what had happened with the Orange shirts, Option 6 fight, etc.

That email changed my NO vote to a YES vote.

I think that promise swayed votes.

[fence]

true, but he did say that voters needed to know boundaries in order to evaluate their votes, which explains the recent reactions of people who were no longer the recipients of "the idea of simple fairness."

wvhsparent said:

slp said:

When people state we didn't vote on boundaries but rather on a 3rd high school...I think this comment explains how many people feel about the vote and why they feel 'duped' now.

This is taken from the above email from Mark Metzger :

....Beyond the practical reality lies the idea of simple fairness. We
did the boundaries two years earlier than normal because the voters
told us that they needed to know the boundaries in order to
evaluate their votes. To change the boundaries after the vote
smacks of a bait and switch and is just simply unfair, which is yet
another reason I don’t think it’s likely to happen.

This also taken way out of context. He was applying it to the BB site, at which time if they changed yes,
However new site. that staement does not apply anymore.
It would be like them making the boundaries as is now and then changing them right before the new school opens.

[doctorwho]

fence said:

true, but he did say that voters needed to know boundaries in order to evaluate their votes, which explains the recent reactions of people who were no longer the recipients of "the idea of simple fairness."

wvhsparent said:

This also taken way out of context. He was applying it to the BB site, at which time if they changed yes,
However new site. that staement does not apply anymore.
It would be like them making the boundaries as is now and then changing them right before the new school opens.

and let's face it -- changing sites was not on the table at that time - it was - we're getting BB because it's the best property

and it also acknowledges the fact that knowing the boundaries affects the vote -- except this site we didn't get to vote on.

[macy]

does anyone on this board have a copy of what Metzger was replying to?

I didn't save the one I received. After the referendum passed, who would have thought it would have been relevant today?

[d204mom]

Oh, Howie addressed changing sites in the following district wide communication.

But in retrospect, as much as the boundaries were engineered to pass the ref; this communication was engineered to get certain school board members re-elected.

Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:11 PM

You may have read in the local newspapers that a Naperville area
developer proposed a concept to sell Indian Prairie a parcel of land in the southwest portion of the district for the construction of Metea Valley High School.

The Board of Education reviewed but did not accept the developer's concept last October for several reasons. The proposal involved portions of property the developer did not own and involved multiple other parties and additional
hurdles. No financial incentive for the district was offered.

The referendum presented to the community was based on the Brach-Brodie land and boundaries were determined. Those boundaries would no longer be in effect if the location of the school changed. In our opinion, the location of the land and boundaries are contributing factors to why people voted
as they did. A promise was made to the community and the community supported the district by passing the referendum.

Further, when the two parcels of land are compared, we believe
Brach-Brodie is still the best property for the high school. It is easy for someone to speculate on land value in the newspaper, but ultimately the value has to be proven in court.

Although the land acquisition is taking longer than the we would like, we are confident that the district will purchase the Brach-Brodie land for a fair price as the legal process continues to move forward.

Howard Crouse
Superintendent

AM I TO ASSUME NOW that we are under no obligation to ever pass a referendum in D204 again?

[d204mom]

d204mom said:

In our opinion, the location of the land and boundaries are contributing factors to why people voted
as they did.

Assuming also that when Howie says "OUR" opinion he is referring to the school board and administration?

[lacy]

"The flier author argues that there is a secret plan to send Fry to
Waubonsie no matter what. The argument is that Jeannette and
Howie have some agenda to see the option 6 boundaries revisted
and the Board has “alluded” to a change for the Peterson area. All
hogwash."

Hogwash?? Looks like clairvoyance to me.

Hmmm....Aren't these exact changes reflected in the current boundary proposal? Fry to WVHS - most of Petersen to NVHS. I remember receiving this flyer. I don't know if I kept it. It looks like these people were way more right than wrong.

I would like to hear M2 address this. I think he owes us an explanation. At several meetings I attended prior to the referendum vote the board was questioned regarding whether there was a chance we wouldn't get the BB land or what would happen if the price of the land was too high. M2 acted like it was a total slam dunk - we'd get the land - don't worry and we could afford the price because they had built in some extra funds.

Obviously now we know that he was very wrong.

People's legitimate concerns were belitted, scare tactics (split shifts - next year!) were used, and the bottom line is they marketed the whole thing around BB and a certain set of boundaries. I remember M2 speaking more than once about how a bait and switch on the voters would be wrong and he states it here as well.

"To change the boundaries after the vote smacks of a bait and switch and is just simply unfair, which is yet another reason I don’t think it’s likely to happen."

Now it has all changed, and we're just supposed to shut up.

[macy]

Lacy,

Yes, to me it seems like you need to shut up or be punished or labeled as a "bad community".

I live in the Fry attendance area. It's been obvious in my postings.

There is much talk about "behaving badly", etc.

Give me a break. People have lost focus.

Credibility, fiduciary responsibility, etc. all pertain to the School Board. Not any one particular community.

[lacy]

macy said:

Lacy,

Yes, to me it seems like you need to shut up or be punished or labeled as a "bad community".

I live in the Fry attendance area. It's been obvious in my postings.

There is much talk about "behaving badly", etc.

Give me a break. People have lost focus.

Credibility, fiduciary responsibility, etc. all pertain to the School Board. Not any one particular community.

Yep, the whole labeling game is a smokescreen to draw attention away from the real issues.

But I think people have caught on.

[WeBe204]

lacy said:

Hmmm....Aren't these exact changes reflected in the current boundary proposal? Fry to WVHS - most of Petersen to NVHS.

IMO, the MOST you are talking about are the old wheatland boundries. Most of those loctions were here long before there was a Tall Grass.

That part of Peterson I believe I am sensing concern about.. Well do not worry. The administration has taken care of those 7.. yes, 7 kids and made sure they will get their just deserves by sending them to Still by themselves and onto WVHS.

I wonder what kind of bus they send for seven kids?

I am not trying to open up old battles but honestly 7 kids.. Is that going to open the path for Fry to NVHS? No.

[lacy]

brad204 said:

lacy said:

Hmmm....Aren't these exact changes reflected in the current boundary proposal? Fry to WVHS - most of Petersen to NVHS.

IMO, the MOST you are talking about are the old wheatland boundries. Most of those loctions were here long before there was a Tall Grass.

That part of Peterson I believe I am sensing concern about.. Well do not worry. The administration has taken care of those 7.. yes, 7 kids and made sure they will get their just deserves by sending them to Still by themselves and onto WVHS.

I wonder what kind of bus they send for seven kids?

I am not trying to open up old battles but honestly 7 kids.. Is that going to open the path for Fry to NVHS? No.

I'm not talking about your area (north of 103rd) -

I'm talking about the Ashwood subdivision south of 103rd - they are going to NVHS. Do I have that right? I don't get that. Why were they put back into NVHS?

And I don't agree with the old Wheatland deal either. If they are going west of 59, they should have taken us all.

[lacy]

So, Brad, how about M2's statement?

He said this would not happen.

I'll be waiting for some sort of statement from him.....