|
|
Post by Arch on May 9, 2008 13:55:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on May 9, 2008 15:40:58 GMT -6
Wow, I see two parts to the disrict's defense:
1) this party wasn't lied to, "all the voters were lied to equally" , so the group has no claim, and
2) any statements that the SB members (and administrators??) are political and voters should know that politicians lie to get votes.
That's how I read it and boy does that hurt...OUCH!
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 9, 2008 16:17:06 GMT -6
Wow, I see two parts to the disrict's defense: 1) this party wasn't lied to, "all the voters were lied to equally" , so the group has no claim, and 2) any statements that the SB members (and administrators??) are political and voters should know that politicians lie to get votes. That's how I read it and boy does that hurt...OUCH! I think the flaw in #2 is that the district spent taxpayer money on flyers that were not factual. Obama or McCain or 204thekids can spend campaign donations on flyers that lie about anything they like but the district can't spend taxpayer money to present non-factual information  to sway voters. ETA - I'm sure there is something on file with Will County in which the district swore up and down that the flyers ONLY presented factual information (due to the pervious complaint about the FAQs). The flyers did not state that "we'll try" to build the school at 75th and Commons. Stated that the referendum was for a school that would be built at 75th and Commons. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on May 9, 2008 16:25:15 GMT -6
I agree d204M, that's why I put the (administrators??) in there.
The motion refers only to statements made by SB members...not statements made by the superintendent, which is not a political position, nor any published information, flyers, website etc. from the district.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 9, 2008 16:36:22 GMT -6
Just went throught the motion to dismiss.
Rew- I agree with your analysis on the content.
Here are two statements from the motion that personally struck a nerve.
"Thus, a reasonable voter reading the proposition could only conclude that he or she was voting to permit the Board to build “a high school” and issue bonds to pay for it."
"The Rudiscill court concluded that even if village officials intentionally lied to voters, “it is doubtful that the fundamental right to vote is even implicated.”
ETA: I guess a "reasonable voter" is one that only reads a ballot. A "reasonable voter" should not attend meetings in which public officials are "intentionally lying".
At least, that's my interpretation of the motion.
|
|
|
|
Post by cb on May 9, 2008 17:22:48 GMT -6
Wow, I see two parts to the disrict's defense: 1) this party wasn't lied to, "all the voters were lied to equally" , so the group has no claim, and 2) any statements that the SB members (and administrators??) are political and voters should know that politicians lie to get votes. That's how I read it and boy does that hurt...OUCH! I agree that is extremely painful to read. I think about all the trust issues my older neighbors had with the SB based on past history. I managed to convince many of them to vote YES based on the proximity of the BB HS to our neighborhood. I would say after reading this, that trust is gone for good. I think the kids will be sweating in their classrooms in September for many years to come. I don't see a referendum for AC or anything else passing in the near future. My interpretation of this document is: we are politicians, you can never trust us. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 9, 2008 17:28:29 GMT -6
Wonder if Mr. PR read this before it was filed? It's political suicide.
OK what is his real name? Anybody?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 9, 2008 17:42:25 GMT -6
"We can use your tax dollars to emphatically say one thing then pull a slight of hand w/ verbiage on the ballot and you can just suck it up!"
|
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 18:20:29 GMT -6
Keep in mind that in a motion to dismiss, the court will assume that all of the plaintiff's facts are true. The SB's motion assumes this as well. The SB is saying that even if everything the NSFOC says is true, they still have no claim. In other words, they are saying that even if they did pull a bait and switch, the NSFOC still can't sue.
Their arguments are legal, not factual.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 9, 2008 18:26:02 GMT -6
Maybe they need a 3rd amended complaint w/ child endangerment. Then the district can try to prove how survivable a pipeline accident is from 220 feet away.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 18:34:39 GMT -6
Maybe they need a 3rd amended complaint w/ child endangerment. Then the district can try to prove how survivable a pipeline accident is from 220 feet away. I thought someone already did that for them.  |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 9, 2008 18:35:37 GMT -6
Keep in mind that in a motion to dismiss, the court will assume that all of the plaintiff's facts are true. The SB's motion assumes this as well. The SB is saying that even if everything the NSFOC says is true, they still have no claim. In other words, they are saying that even if they did pull a bait and switch, the NSFOC still can't sue. Their arguments are legal, not factual. I guess the argument comes down to - is there is a difference between comments made by an elected official and documents published by a non-elected official using taxpayer monies? Seems pretty cut and dried to me. We'll see what happens on the 23rd. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 9, 2008 18:38:55 GMT -6
Maybe they need a 3rd amended complaint w/ child endangerment. Then the district can try to prove how survivable a pipeline accident is from 220 feet away. I thought someone already did that for them. I must have missed their documentation to prove survivability. Post a link, please. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 18:40:46 GMT -6
I thought someone already did that for them. I must have missed their documentation to prove survivability. Post a link, please. Bad joke, referring to player's thread.  |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 9, 2008 18:44:25 GMT -6
I must have missed their documentation to prove survivability. Post a link, please. Bad joke, referring to player's thread.  The one that touched on 'probability' instead of 'survivability'. I noticed when I posted the distances and what happens at those distances worked up for a 24" gas pipe, the conversation pretty much came to a grinding halt... wonder why... Everyone's pretending the chance is 0 because no one wants to go down the path of 'assume it happens' then what do we do? If we can't accept the worst case, then we're obviously doing the wrong thing. |
|
to sway voters.
