Unity

[Arch]

Eb,

The topic police left months ago from here. We wander.. that's part of the discussion. I'm as guilty as anyone for it.

[eb204]

Apr 27, 2008 20:55:55 GMT -6 macy said:

Apr 27, 2008 20:49:18 GMT -6 Arch said:

Leaving points of contention unsettled and set off to the side does not equal unity.

Nor does stating time and time again "it's time to move on"!

Why would I move on at this point? Three lawsuits against this district that has a history of getting "creamed" in a court of law, a rush to sign a contract in less than 48 hours without an appraisal on the AME site despite telling residents "all options" were on the table, environmental concerns that have not been fully addressed, a precedent setting lawsuit hanging over our heads addressing a multitude of issues (despite the fact the "Player" discounts this lawsuit, I'm intrigued as I believe it has merit).... I could go on and on...

Stop telling me to "move on." It's insulting.

I'm not moving on. I'm still here paying attention.

Ooops, almost forgot.

Ciao Bella!

ETA: to the next person that states it is time to move on:

My response: "baci il mio asino"

I never stated "it's time to move on". I stated that's it's time to move together and make this district...." To me, moving on means "get over it". Moving together means doing what it takes as a community to come together in unity to support our schools - academics, sports, etc. An example that comes to mind is the IPPC Basketball game last November. This was a great community event that wasn't about "them vs. us". It was about the community and raising money for IPPC scholarhips to give to students in our community. It seemed like everyone who attended had a great time. I'd like to see more of this working and moving together to create more opportunities for unity in this district. Maybe if you listen to the message of some posters and not just the words, you will hear what others are saying.

[eb204]

Apr 27, 2008 22:31:23 GMT -6 Arch said:

Eb,

The topic police left months ago from here. We wander.. that's part of the discussion. I'm as guilty as anyone for it.

Tell that to Macy. It seems she thinks I wandered off the unity topic. My bad...

[WeBe204]

Apr 27, 2008 22:37:34 GMT -6 @eb204 said:

Apr 27, 2008 22:31:23 GMT -6 Arch said:

Eb,

The topic police left months ago from here. We wander.. that's part of the discussion. I'm as guilty as anyone for it.

Tell that to Macy. It seems she thinks I wandered off the unity topic. My bad...

I think maybe you are getting the wrong idea. Tone and intent is hard to determine on these boards. I typically start assuming most people are calm, level headed, nice people. Sure sometimes that is no reflected in their posts. I do not believe this is one of those cases.

In this case, I believe she meant your post did not contain unity statements in her opinion. Not that your post was off topic. I think it was meant to be sarcastic not accusatory. Just a different view point.

Edit-- Being on topic is certianly not my strong point

[Arch]

Apr 27, 2008 22:37:34 GMT -6 @eb204 said:

Apr 27, 2008 22:31:23 GMT -6 Arch said:

Eb,

The topic police left months ago from here. We wander.. that's part of the discussion. I'm as guilty as anyone for it.

Tell that to Macy. It seems she thinks I wandered off the unity topic. My bad...

Everyone can read my post and figure it out, thank you.

[overtaxed]

Apr 27, 2008 22:27:12 GMT -6 @eb204 said:

Apr 27, 2008 20:26:54 GMT -6 macy said:

eb204,

In all fairness, your post was not all about unity.

Sorry, macy...I guess I'm not up on all the "rules" about posting under a certain topic. Since when does anyone stay on topic every single time? "In all fairness" WTH? I have seen others "wander" off the subject, but you don't call them out. I was merely reflecting on my own personal journey over the last 2 years. I wasn't arguing any points, just stating how my opinions have come to be. I even stated I didn't want to debate anything, so I was trying to stay on the Unity topic. I now regret having posted my thoughts here, as time and again, they have been picked apart by you and others. So much for trying to extend an olive branch over here. You nearly make it impossible.

This is why I don't post much anymore. Many of you have been courteous, even when there isn't agreement. I want to extend a thank you to those who have welcomed different viewpoints and opinions.

Ed204
You are just a product of the SB/SD wearing you down. It has been a LONG time with this unrest. We all want it to be finished, we are all warn out from the abuse of power from the SB. We are all die hearts here, including you. We all may want different outcomes but we want it. We have been in a holding pattern for a long time and then we get slapped in the face repeatedly (and our checkbooks) with no apology, just insults to us the taxpayers from our inept school board.

If you are wise you are nervous about the lawsuits coming, ANYONE WOULD BE A FOOL NOT TOO BE. Even if it is best case, we pay a lot of money down the drain.

Hang in there, don't don't let the SB win by wearing you down!! Keep your opinion and postings!

[rural]

Macy, I would never tell you to "move on," and I certainly don't want to kiss your arse!

[scarbroughknight]

Unity? Please! Unity left #204 after the first boundry meeting. Even after this mess is over bits and pieces of what certain members of the SB has been up too all these years are going to come to light and continue to tear apart the district. Until an entirely new SB and Super is elected we can't even think about words like Unity.

[doctorwho]

Apr 27, 2008 22:34:50 GMT -6 @eb204 said:

Apr 27, 2008 20:55:55 GMT -6 macy said:

Nor does stating time and time again "it's time to move on"!

Why would I move on at this point? Three lawsuits against this district that has a history of getting "creamed" in a court of law, a rush to sign a contract in less than 48 hours without an appraisal on the AME site despite telling residents "all options" were on the table, environmental concerns that have not been fully addressed, a precedent setting lawsuit hanging over our heads addressing a multitude of issues (despite the fact the "Player" discounts this lawsuit, I'm intrigued as I believe it has merit).... I could go on and on...

Stop telling me to "move on." It's insulting.

I'm not moving on. I'm still here paying attention.

Ooops, almost forgot.

Ciao Bella!

ETA: to the next person that states it is time to move on:

My response: "baci il mio asino"

I never stated "it's time to move on". I stated that's it's time to move together and make this district...." To me, moving on means "get over it". Moving together means doing what it takes as a community to come together in unity to support our schools - academics, sports, etc. An example that comes to mind is the IPPC Basketball game last November. This was a great community event that wasn't about "them vs. us". It was about the community and raising money for IPPC scholarhips to give to students in our community. It seemed like everyone who attended had a great time. I'd like to see more of this working and moving together to create more opportunities for unity in this district. Maybe if you listen to the message of some posters and not just the words, you will hear what others are saying.

The problem eb is that I agree- some people are ready to try and resolve issues open right now - the problem is our leadership cangive a rat's behind about solving any of it. Some areas still being totally ignored or treated like less than equal members fo 204.
As we all get together what does that do for the safety of the land ( and I know you do not think it is an isue, but others do ) - what does it do for the Watts or Cowlishaw commute for the next 20-30 years - what does it do for 8th graders who will enter a shell of a HS their sophomore year and have 1/2 their HS life spent in a freshman center in a school they will move from, and sophomore year in a warehouse with little if any sports /exrtra curriculars ?
What do we get for discussion, or plans to work on, rolling of the eyes from leaders when people speak, closed door meetings to settle everything, and rushes to judgement on every single decision.

How can anyone move together when this is what is going on ? All it is dong is further alientating people from the district - and you and I are both power less it seems to change any of that behavior.

[doctorwho]

Apr 28, 2008 7:57:07 GMT -6 @scarbroughknight said:

Unity? Please! Unity left #204 after the first boundry meeting. Even after this mess is over bits and pieces of what certain members of the SB has been up too all these years are going to come to light and continue to tear apart the district. Until an entirely new SB and Super is elected we can't even think about words like Unity.

agree

[sashimi]

Rural..I just wanted to touch on your following statement:

"On this point we must disagree. I believe the vote was whether or not we needed a 3rd HS and whether you were in agreement to fork over the tax dollars specified. How you interpreted the sweet talk from Howie and the SB is your own demon to wrestle with now.


I appreciate your post in that it has inspired me to write a LTE to the Naperville SUN (which I have not done in weeks) in that I find this to be so clear. In the spirit of unity, I can understand a lot of the arguments from the other side, but the representations that the referendum was to build a third high school on BB land was certainly not just sweet talk...

With all due respect, the Board and Admin did not think it was just sweet talk either, or the District committed perjury when it was represented to the Court, after the referendum was passed and to avoid dismissal of the condemnation case, that the 2006 referendum REQUIRED the District to build the school on the BB land!

Thus, I think it is worth noting that THE DISTRICT (not NSFOC) was the first to conclude if it could not buy the BB land, it did not have the authority to build a third high school without a new referendum (this is what it represented under penalty of perjury to the DuPage County Court)!!!! Judge Popejoy is not going to have to walk very far to get these documents.

Although there are also literally dozens of other written examples that were published before the election as well (forget the verbal representations), my favorite is the pamphlet that THE DISTRICT PRINTED AND PUBLISHED and put in my daughters backpack just a few weeks before the vote in an attempt to sway us to vote for the 2006 referendum. It indicated that the referendum was "TO BUILD A THIRD HIGH SCHOOL ON THE LAND LOCATED AT 75TH STREET AND ROUTE 59......" Is this just sweet talk???

As an aside, even if you interpret the referendum language as not requiring the District to build on BB (because the language was absent), the referendum itself is per se invalid because the language did not tie into what the Board resolutions required (the Board only authorized the placement of a referendum before the voters to build a third school on the land located at 75th street and Route 59.....). Lawyers drafting the actual referendum language can not LEGALLY play with the actual language to change the intent of what was resolved by a vote of the Board.

Do you really consider the above to be just sweet talk (legal statements to the Court and factual information distributed to persuade voters to vote yes)?? I do not. In fact, it is illegal to distribute school materials related to a referendum that are opinions (or "sweet talk").

These statements that the referendum was to build a third school on BB MUST BE CONSTRUED AS A FACT (by law!). If the absence of the site location on the ballot does not require the construction of the school on BB, the referendum is invalid!

The representations that the referendum was to build on BB make sense in that the Board and Admin made a specific decision to tie the referendum to the land location based on what it at least perceived (from its hired experts) as an absolute necessity, or the referendum would have failed.

Also, it may not be public knowledge as of yet, but the Board and Administration believed that if it had selected the AMES land, the referendum would have failed (this is clear and will become very evident to everyone after the upcoming depositions of Mr. Crause and the Board).

I know I can be stubborn, but how in the world can the District have proceeded down the path of buying the AMES property based on its own factual representations to the voters and its own legal representations to the Court? Based on its own statements in the past, if it did not want to put forward a new referendum, it had the obligation to seek clarification from the Court before proceeding with buying the AMES land and violating what it previously had declared was the result of the 2006 referendum.

I may be in the minority, but I truly believe the Court is going to declare the school construction on the AMES site illegal based on the above. I think the Administration is very aware of this risk and the speed of what has gone on is its attempt to get so far down the road with financial commitments that it puts the Court in a position that if it acts, it will have effectively bankrupted the District (the taxpayers). One hell of a dangerous game to play.

[Arch]

Anyone want to cross-examine that?

... compounding errors with more errors... welcome to D204.... Pride goeth, and all that jazz.

[fence]

I think what macy was responding to was the part in your initial post that said something about not wanting to argue points and that this thread was supposed to be about unity.

Maybe she just meant that everyone kind of gets in the details on both sides, not that she was correcting you to stay on topic.

Just in case it offers some clarity.

I know it happens to me - I post stuff that applies 2 pages back and it gets misunderstood. Kind of like now

eb I get where you're coming from. Details are tough to argue because people get one-sided. But all the details add up to a bigger idea, and I think everyone is closer there than we realize. If we'd stop arguing black or white on every point, we'd realize that we're all part of the same grey beast.....

Apr 27, 2008 22:27:12 GMT -6 @eb204 said:

Apr 27, 2008 20:26:54 GMT -6 macy said:

eb204,

In all fairness, your post was not all about unity.

Sorry, macy...I guess I'm not up on all the "rules" about posting under a certain topic. Since when does anyone stay on topic every single time? "In all fairness" WTH? I have seen others "wander" off the subject, but you don't call them out. I was merely reflecting on my own personal journey over the last 2 years. I wasn't arguing any points, just stating how my opinions have come to be. I even stated I didn't want to debate anything, so I was trying to stay on the Unity topic. I now regret having posted my thoughts here, as time and again, they have been picked apart by you and others. So much for trying to extend an olive branch over here. You nearly make it impossible.

This is why I don't post much anymore. Many of you have been courteous, even when there isn't agreement. I want to extend a thank you to those who have welcomed different viewpoints and opinions.

[fence]

Wow. Perfect summary.

People can argue all the details they want to argue about class sizes and operating expenses and enrollment figures, and middle school needs, and entitled subdivisions, or hurt feelings or whatever.

But I have yet to hear an answer as to how, given even any chance of the outcome described below, we can logically support moving forward in UNITY with buying another piece of land.

The only rebuttals I hear are emotional responses about NFUD and how they want BB or nothing, or the pat answer "the SB is confident that this has no merit."

Neither are logical or in any way reassuring. There is no earthly reason that we need to have a school built by 2009 if it means putting our financial situation and our reputation in peril to accomplish it. Heaven knows everything else that was presented in the referendum has not been honored. Why should we care about the date? Why can't we resolve NSFOC, resolve BB, and then go on from there with reality instead of speculation?

Apr 28, 2008 8:29:23 GMT -6 sashimi said:

Rural..I just wanted to touch on your following statement:

"On this point we must disagree. I believe the vote was whether or not we needed a 3rd HS and whether you were in agreement to fork over the tax dollars specified. How you interpreted the sweet talk from Howie and the SB is your own demon to wrestle with now.


I appreciate your post in that it has inspired me to write a LTE to the Naperville SUN (which I have not done in weeks) in that I find this to be so clear. In the spirit of unity, I can understand a lot of the arguments from the other side, but the representations that the referendum was to build a third high school on BB land was certainly not just sweet talk...

With all due respect, the Board and Admin did not think it was just sweet talk either, or the District committed perjury when it was represented to the Court, after the referendum was passed and to avoid dismissal of the condemnation case, that the 2006 referendum REQUIRED the District to build the school on the BB land!

Thus, I think it is worth noting that THE DISTRICT (not NSFOC) was the first to conclude if it could not buy the BB land, it did not have the authority to build a third high school without a new referendum (this is what it represented under penalty of perjury to the DuPage County Court)!!!! Judge Popejoy is not going to have to walk very far to get these documents.

Although there are also literally dozens of other written examples that were published before the election as well (forget the verbal representations), my favorite is the pamphlet that THE DISTRICT PRINTED AND PUBLISHED and put in my daughters backpack just a few weeks before the vote in an attempt to sway us to vote for the 2006 referendum. It indicated that the referendum was "TO BUILD A THIRD HIGH SCHOOL ON THE LAND LOCATED AT 75TH STREET AND ROUTE 59......" Is this just sweet talk???

As an aside, even if you interpret the referendum language as not requiring the District to build on BB (because the language was absent), the referendum itself is per se invalid because the language did not tie into what the Board resolutions required (the Board only authorized the placement of a referendum before the voters to build a third school on the land located at 75th street and Route 59.....). Lawyers drafting the actual referendum language can not LEGALLY play with the actual language to change the intent of what was resolved by a vote of the Board.

Do you really consider the above to be just sweet talk (legal statements to the Court and factual information distributed to persuade voters to vote yes)?? I do not. In fact, it is illegal to distribute school materials related to a referendum that are opinions (or "sweet talk").

These statements that the referendum was to build a third school on BB MUST BE CONSTRUED AS A FACT (by law!). If the absence of the site location on the ballot does not require the construction of the school on BB, the referendum is invalid!

The representations that the referendum was to build on BB make sense in that the Board and Admin made a specific decision to tie the referendum to the land location based on what it at least perceived (from its hired experts) as an absolute necessity, or the referendum would have failed.

Also, it may not be public knowledge as of yet, but the Board and Administration believed that if it had selected the AMES land, the referendum would have failed (this is clear and will become very evident to everyone after the upcoming depositions of Mr. Crause and the Board).

I know I can be stubborn, but how in the world can the District have proceeded down the path of buying the AMES property based on its own factual representations to the voters and its own legal representations to the Court? Based on its own statements in the past, if it did not want to put forward a new referendum, it had the obligation to seek clarification from the Court before proceeding with buying the AMES land and violating what it previously had declared was the result of the 2006 referendum.

I may be in the minority, but I truly believe the Court is going to declare the school construction on the AMES site illegal based on the above. I think the Administration is very aware of this risk and the speed of what has gone on is its attempt to get so far down the road with financial commitments that it puts the Court in a position that if it acts, it will have effectively bankrupted the District (the taxpayers). One hell of a dangerous game to play.

[researching]

Apr 28, 2008 8:29:23 GMT -6 sashimi said:

Rural..I just wanted to touch on your following statement:

"On this point we must disagree. I believe the vote was whether or not we needed a 3rd HS and whether you were in agreement to fork over the tax dollars specified. How you interpreted the sweet talk from Howie and the SB is your own demon to wrestle with now.


I appreciate your post in that it has inspired me to write a LTE to the Naperville SUN (which I have not done in weeks) in that I find this to be so clear. In the spirit of unity, I can understand a lot of the arguments from the other side, but the representations that the referendum was to build a third high school on BB land was certainly not just sweet talk...

With all due respect, the Board and Admin did not think it was just sweet talk either, or the District committed perjury when it was represented to the Court, after the referendum was passed and to avoid dismissal of the condemnation case, that the 2006 referendum REQUIRED the District to build the school on the BB land!

Thus, I think it is worth noting that THE DISTRICT (not NSFOC) was the first to conclude if it could not buy the BB land, it did not have the authority to build a third high school without a new referendum (this is what it represented under penalty of perjury to the DuPage County Court)!!!! Judge Popejoy is not going to have to walk very far to get these documents.

Although there are also literally dozens of other written examples that were published before the election as well (forget the verbal representations), my favorite is the pamphlet that THE DISTRICT PRINTED AND PUBLISHED and put in my daughters backpack just a few weeks before the vote in an attempt to sway us to vote for the 2006 referendum. It indicated that the referendum was "TO BUILD A THIRD HIGH SCHOOL ON THE LAND LOCATED AT 75TH STREET AND ROUTE 59......" Is this just sweet talk???

As an aside, even if you interpret the referendum language as not requiring the District to build on BB (because the language was absent), the referendum itself is per se invalid because the language did not tie into what the Board resolutions required (the Board only authorized the placement of a referendum before the voters to build a third school on the land located at 75th street and Route 59.....). Lawyers drafting the actual referendum language can not LEGALLY play with the actual language to change the intent of what was resolved by a vote of the Board.

Do you really consider the above to be just sweet talk (legal statements to the Court and factual information distributed to persuade voters to vote yes)?? I do not. In fact, it is illegal to distribute school materials related to a referendum that are opinions (or "sweet talk").

These statements that the referendum was to build a third school on BB MUST BE CONSTRUED AS A FACT (by law!). If the absence of the site location on the ballot does not require the construction of the school on BB, the referendum is invalid!

The representations that the referendum was to build on BB make sense in that the Board and Admin made a specific decision to tie the referendum to the land location based on what it at least perceived (from its hired experts) as an absolute necessity, or the referendum would have failed.

Also, it may not be public knowledge as of yet, but the Board and Administration believed that if it had selected the AMES land, the referendum would have failed (this is clear and will become very evident to everyone after the upcoming depositions of Mr. Crause and the Board).

I know I can be stubborn, but how in the world can the District have proceeded down the path of buying the AMES property based on its own factual representations to the voters and its own legal representations to the Court? Based on its own statements in the past, if it did not want to put forward a new referendum, it had the obligation to seek clarification from the Court before proceeding with buying the AMES land and violating what it previously had declared was the result of the 2006 referendum.

I may be in the minority, but I truly believe the Court is going to declare the school construction on the AMES site illegal based on the above. I think the Administration is very aware of this risk and the speed of what has gone on is its attempt to get so far down the road with financial commitments that it puts the Court in a position that if it acts, it will have effectively bankrupted the District (the taxpayers). One hell of a dangerous game to play.

Wow!!! Beautifully written and well said!