|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Apr 28, 2008 9:10:30 GMT -6
In the interest of getting off the catch all Unity thread I am breaking your comments out, Sashimi. For me, this was a thought provoking post. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 28, 2008 9:19:44 GMT -6
In the interest of getting off the catch all Unity thread I am breaking your comments out, Sashimi. For me, this was a thought provoking post. 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. And I remember clearly when people at the PTA meetings ( where SB members and D Holm presented, explained to those concerned that the referendum did not have BB specific language, that the reason it did not is they had to hurry to get it on the ballot 121 days before the election and they couldn't alter it now because it would take it out of that time frame and delay voting on it by 6 months- and thus delay the school. This was alsot he time they cautiosuly told people it could actually open Fall 2008 if all flowed well. And I just posed two quotes, one from HC and one from JC that acknowledged the vote was for 3rd HS @ BB - and that they gave the people what they wanted - boundaries and location. Were there som epeople who would have voted for a 3rd HS period - sure. Were there a lot ( look at 2005 vs 2006 turnout) that voted for BB ( or against BB ) - you bet. Read the quotes in the paper at the time from both SB members - Sd admin - and voters, this is not hard to discern. |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Apr 28, 2008 9:31:02 GMT -6
I forgot to mention one important thing....
The rush to go forward (and spend 5-10 million is accelerated costs) is not because of overcrowding demands in 2009 .
High school attendance (using the Admin's numbers) decreases slightly in 2009 (it goes up again in following years). So why 2009 vs. 2010 (especially at a cost of 5 to 10 million dollars). Why close on land in 36 hours? Why announce all options are on the table on Friday and vote to buy the AMES land on Monday??
I think it is clear that the rush is to try to go faster than the courts can.
|
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Apr 28, 2008 9:33:39 GMT -6
I forgot to mention one important thing.... The rush to go forward (and spend 5-10 million is accelerated costs) is not because of overcrowding demands in 2009 . High school attendance (using the Admin's numbers) decreases slightly in 2009 (it goes up again in following years). So why 2009 vs. 2010 (especially at a cost of 5 to 10 million dollars). Why close on land in 36 hours? Why announce all options are on the table on Friday and vote to buy the AMES land on Monday?? I think it is clear that the rush is to try to go faster than the courts can. A TRO would certainly help with this rush. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 28, 2008 9:49:52 GMT -6
I forgot to mention one important thing.... The rush to go forward (and spend 5-10 million is accelerated costs) is not because of overcrowding demands in 2009 . High school attendance (using the Admin's numbers) decreases slightly in 2009 (it goes up again in following years). So why 2009 vs. 2010 (especially at a cost of 5 to 10 million dollars). Why close on land in 36 hours? Why announce all options are on the table on Friday and vote to buy the AMES land on Monday?? I think it is clear that the rush is to try to go faster than the courts can. A TRO would certainly help with this rush. I picture it like taking the razor away from the emotionally unstable.. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 28, 2008 10:05:13 GMT -6
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???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The district argued in Will County - that flyer represented only FACTS - no opinions or "we'll try."
|
|
|
|
Post by spousestonethrow on Apr 28, 2008 12:50:40 GMT -6
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??? Wow....I totally forgot about that! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The district argued in Will County - that flyer represented only FACTS - no opinions or "we'll try." |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 28, 2008 12:59:05 GMT -6
They need to throw it in now and save themselves the embarrassment.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 28, 2008 13:15:18 GMT -6
The other little bit that could be a big problem - my understanding is that the resolution passed by the board to put the wording on the ballot contained reference to BB and the board never corrected that resolution before the referendum. So the wording on the ballot was not approved by the board. Ooops.
|
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on Apr 28, 2008 14:09:47 GMT -6
For reference, below is the wording from the referendum.
While the ballot did not specifically mention the site location, it also didn't mention anything about a requirement for the school to be the same size as WV and NV, and have the same ammenities. Why are some 'promises' from the SB treated as unyielding requirements, while others are not?
|
|
|
|
Post by rural on Apr 28, 2008 14:16:42 GMT -6
For reference, below is the wording from the referendum.
While the ballot did not specifically mention the site location, it also didn't mention anything about a requirement for the school to be the same size as WV and NV, and have the same ammenities. Why are some 'promises' from the SB treated as unyielding requirements, while others are not? Because they are the ones in the seats of power. They were elected to these positions to make exactly these types of decisions. I was at the IPPC meeting this morning and Dick Furstenau said it best: You want change? You have to get rid of the people making the decisions with which you do not agree. (Not verbatim.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Apr 28, 2008 14:24:02 GMT -6
For reference, below is the wording from the referendum.
While the ballot did not specifically mention the site location, it also didn't mention anything about a requirement for the school to be the same size as WV and NV, and have the same ammenities. Why are some 'promises' from the SB treated as unyielding requirements, while others are not? Because they are the ones in the seats of power. They were elected to these positions to make exactly these types of decisions. I was at the IPPC meeting this morning and Dick Furstenau said it best: You want change? You have to get rid of the people making the decisions with which you do not agree. (Not verbatim. ) Wait, wait.. This coming from the guy who is suing my city? Ah, okay.. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 28, 2008 14:27:49 GMT -6
Because they are the ones in the seats of power. They were elected to these positions to make exactly these types of decisions. I was at the IPPC meeting this morning and Dick Furstenau said it best: You want change? You have to get rid of the people making the decisions with which you do not agree. (Not verbatim. ) Wait, wait.. This coming from the guy who is suing my city? Ah, okay.. If you want chance, call Mr. Collins! LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Apr 28, 2008 15:10:21 GMT -6
For reference, below is the wording from the referendum.
While the ballot did not specifically mention the site location, it also didn't mention anything about a requirement for the school to be the same size as WV and NV, and have the same ammenities. Why are some 'promises' from the SB treated as unyielding requirements, while others are not? Good point! After all the verdicts, TROs, and damages, here's what we will end up on opening day 2015 on the BB 25 acre property for our 200-400 million bucks:  |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Apr 28, 2008 15:24:29 GMT -6
For reference, below is the wording from the referendum.
While the ballot did not specifically mention the site location, it also didn't mention anything about a requirement for the school to be the same size as WV and NV, and have the same ammenities. Why are some 'promises' from the SB treated as unyielding requirements, while others are not? Because they are the ones in the seats of power. They were elected to these positions to make exactly these types of decisions. I was at the IPPC meeting this morning and Dick Furstenau said it best: You want change? You have to get rid of the people making the decisions with which you do not agree. (Not verbatim. ) The community DID elect MM, AT, and CB to their positions largely because they claimed they would stick with BB when opponents were talking about Macom and Plan B,C,D etc. We elected people who we agreed with; we agreed that BB was the correct course to take, then they got elected and changed course. I think many feel the only recourse is the court system. I do look forward to an objective person looking at this mess . |
|
Rural..I just wanted to touch on your following statement:
)