|
|
Post by d204mom on May 9, 2008 18:49:31 GMT -6
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. No, it just means there is a $$ amount placed on thousands of children's safety annually. And it's pretty darn low ($3.1 M over the useful life of the building). |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 18:51:14 GMT -6
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. I agree. I still think the site is a huge mistake. The problem is that the school is actually being built there, so it's easier for everyone to just hope it won't happen or think it can't. The chance is not 0, and it will be horrific if it does occur. |
|
|
|
Post by concerned2 on May 9, 2008 19:44:07 GMT -6
All I can say after reading the motion to dismiss is WOW. It really sounds like the SB can do what ever it wants to get the yes vote, but when it comes down to the final decisions the taxpayers are to take it and shut up.
If the SB and administration have this much power I don't know if I can ever vote yes. The can say and do as they please and then change as needed after the vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 9, 2008 20:24:39 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. Yes, I remember something that could be on file in Will County about the flyers being factual: Could it be something to do with this article? District 204 flier meets Will Countymuster; FAQs not an endorsement for levy, Mock says Naperville Sun, The (IL) - February 6, 2006 Author: Tim Waldorf In a flier and in a list of frequently asked questions posted on its Web site, Indian Prairie School District 204 didn't tell residents to vote for its proposal for a third high school. Consequently, the WillCounty State's Attorney's Office has concluded that the district didn't violate election laws. Ari Rosenthal of the Will -DuPage Taxpayers Alliance asked the state's attorneys of both Will and DuPage counties to examine a flier the group believes was distributed at each of the district's elementary schools, as well as at public hearings held Jan. 17 and Jan. 19. According to Rosenthal , the flier "may be construed as advocating for the passage of District 204's upcoming third high school referendum (measure)" by lauding it as the "best solution" and predicting split shifts and the need to move gym and music classes into the hallways if voters turn down the district's request. State election laws state that "no public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition." The law does not "prohibit the use of public funds for dissemination of factual information relative to any proposition appearing on an election ballot." "At this time, we're going to withhold any comment on that situation," Paul Darrah, a spokesman for DuPage County State's Attorney, said Friday. On Thursday, WillCounty First Assistant State's Attorney Phil Mock told The Sun that, in the information he was presented, he didn't see a "clear-cut violation that would warrant further scrutiny." Mock said the District 204 school board explored the options available to it and decided that the current referendum proposal is the best solution to what it has judged to be a problem facing the district. " I think it falls under their statutory authority to disseminate what they think is factual information," Mock said. Mock also said the alleged violation isn't "egregious enough to take a look at" because very little taxpayer money is needed to print fliers and post frequently asked questions on a Web site. Simply put, Mock said taxing districts are typically safe from violating election laws as long as the information they distribute doesn't say "vote yes" or "vote no." District 204 Superintendent Howard Crouse could not be reached for comment. Will County clearly thought the information distributed in the flyers was "factual" at the time. ETA: I think it will hard for d204 to "lawyer" themselves out of this FAQ that was on their website and went home with kids in backpacks. They have already argued in Will County that the information was "factual". Yet, they are now telling us that a "reasonable voter" would only read the ballot! Good luck on this one d204! I think you are in a bit of trouble having already argued the information you put out (in print) to residents was "factual". |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 9, 2008 20:28:16 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. the 'reasonable' voters in this district will be NO voters in the future - I hope they enjoy that also, because from now on 'reasonable' voters won't believe a damn thing they say, print, write or anything else. If the suit is is dsmissed that means they can lie to your face and it doesn't mean a damn thing, so why would anyone give them one more tax dollar ? |
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 9, 2008 20:35:50 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. the 'reasonable' voters in this district will be NO voters in the future - I hope they enjoy that also, because from now on 'reasonable' voters won't believe a d**n thing they say, print, write or anything else. If the suit is is dsmissed that means they can lie to your face and it doesn't mean a d**n thing, so why would anyone give them one more tax dollar ? Dr. W, I completely agree with you. After I read the motion to dismiss, I had the same thought process. I thought I was an "educated" voter. How stupid was I do be educated. I will go to the polls from this date on as a "reasonable" voter as defined in this motion to dismiss. I now know (after reading the motion) that I should not trust any SB member to be accountable as what they are telling voters can legally be intentionally mistruthful. If they intentionally lie, they are legally protected, right? That's what I read from the motion to dismiss. |
|
|
|
Post by concerned2 on May 9, 2008 20:38:23 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. the 'reasonable' voters in this district will be NO voters in the future - I hope they enjoy that also, because from now on 'reasonable' voters won't believe a d**n thing they say, print, write or anything else. If the suit is is dsmissed that means they can lie to your face and it doesn't mean a d**n thing, so why would anyone give them one more tax dollar ? I agree with this kind of thinking. If this is dismissed and that means this SB and administration can act in this manner to get a yes vote and then have the power to change what we were sold, I don't think I can ever vote yes again. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 9, 2008 20:53:17 GMT -6
the 'reasonable' voters in this district will be NO voters in the future - I hope they enjoy that also, because from now on 'reasonable' voters won't believe a d**n thing they say, print, write or anything else. If the suit is is dsmissed that means they can lie to your face and it doesn't mean a d**n thing, so why would anyone give them one more tax dollar ? I agree with this kind of thinking. If this is dismissed and that means this SB and administration can act in this manner to get a yes vote and then have the power to change what we were sold, I don't think I can ever vote yes again. CFO's new tagline: Reasonable voters vote NO! |
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 9, 2008 21:07:09 GMT -6
From now on, I will not go to meetings and listen to "public officials" prior to voting on a referendum to increase taxes.
I'll just read the ballot carefully. I've learned my lesson from reading this motion to dismiss. What a sucker I've been listening to elected leaders.
Up till now I've been an educated voter. What an idiot I've been. From now on, I'll be a "reasonable" voter. Why waste my time educating myself? Now that I know "public officials" can "intentionally lie" to pass a referendum, I won't waste my time. I'm now a "reasonable voter" for life.
I can assure you that my vote (from reading only a ballot) will be NO from now on for any tax increase district 204 puts on the ballot.
Anyone read the response to the open meetings act violation?
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 9, 2008 21:13:20 GMT -6
What a sucker I've been listening to elected leaders. As rew astutely pointed out, (non-elected) district administration was in on the act, too, and they used our tax dollars to advise us what we were voting on. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 9, 2008 21:16:46 GMT -6
Here is the point - how far can this go?
For example, d203 advertised on their website and in mailers that they WOULD NOT issue bond premiums in conjunction with their last referendum. But it was not on the ballot. Can they now just say eff off, we're gonna do it now because there is a legal loophole that allows us to?
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 9, 2008 21:22:15 GMT -6
Here is the point - how far can this go? For example, d203 advertised on their website and in mailers that they WOULD NOT issue bond premiums in conjunction with their last referendum. But it was not on the ballot. Can they now just say eff off, we're gonna do it now because there is a legal loophole that allows us to?  Good point! |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 21:43:37 GMT -6
the 'reasonable' voters in this district will be NO voters in the future - I hope they enjoy that also, because from now on 'reasonable' voters won't believe a d**n thing they say, print, write or anything else. If the suit is is dsmissed that means they can lie to your face and it doesn't mean a d**n thing, so why would anyone give them one more tax dollar ? Dr. W, I completely agree with you. After I read the motion to dismiss, I had the same thought process. I thought I was an "educated" voter. How stupid was I do be educated. I will go to the polls from this date on as a "reasonable" voter as defined in this motion to dismiss. I now know (after reading the motion) that I should not trust any SB member to be accountable as what they are telling voters can legally be intentionally mistruthful. If they intentionally lie, they are legally protected, right? That's what I read from the motion to dismiss. This is why I think there is a chance the motion will fail. Intent. The SB has no choice but to argue in their motion that they could intentionally say one thing and then do another and it would not break the law, because that is what the NSFOC has alleged. If the SB argues different facts, then their motion will fail. The SB cannot say that they didn't lie. Instead, they must show that the law says that even if what the NSFOC claims is true, they don't have a case. Precedent, however, says that intentional lying is not legal. That the SB has to argue factually that they did not act intentionally, creates an issue of material fact. That means that their motion could be dismissed, allowing this thing to go to trial, with intent being the issue. Not saying the court will agree with this, but this is why I think this thing can go either way. |
|
|
|
Post by rural on May 9, 2008 21:54:59 GMT -6
Isn't that why they were "assuming arguendo" in their motion? They were saying: We didn't actually lie, but even if we did--which we didn't-- you can't do anything about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 21:57:58 GMT -6
Isn't that why they were "assuming arguendo" in their motion? They were saying: We didn't actually lie, but even if we did--which we didn't-- you can't do anything about it. Exactly. If they say that they didn't lie, then they will lose the motion. |
|
to sway voters.
Good point!