|
|
Post by Arch on May 10, 2008 7:48:22 GMT -6
If one believes that one of the basic truths in this country is the right to vote and have that mean something - it should make one angry. It was late. Yes, I can see being angry in general, if that is what the case law is. But I'm not angry with the SB for citing it in their motion. No argument there. Each side has to cite what they feel will help them best, and take whatever comes after that as a result of those choices. |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on May 10, 2008 13:11:23 GMT -6
The argument that we do not have legal protection to have our vote count in a taxpayer referendum (because the school code is law passed by the Illinois legislature as as opposed to the Constitution) is just silly.
IMO,the core issue remains do the statements made by the District that the referendum was to build a school at BB trump the fact that the language of the referendum on the ballot was not site specific.
I have not had the opportunity to pull the cases cited, but dollars to doughnuts they do not involve representations made by a School District in writing and in materials printed and distributed with School District (using taxpayer) dollars with the intention of inducing a yes vote.
Statements made by elected Board members may be campaign fluff (or even intentionallies)....statements made in writing by School District (vs.elected) officials using taxpayer dollars are, by law, factual (and can not intentional lies).
It will be interesting to see what Popejoy decides...
|
|
|
|
Post by slp on May 10, 2008 13:35:46 GMT -6
Rural, this will bite them in the butt because this will be reminded to the voters before any future referendum... They just gave the voteNO crowd a silver bullet for eternity. I hope they're pleased with themselves. Exactly. They have underestimated what their actions have done to future referendums for our kids. While those of us in the loop may understand the need when the next referendum comes our way ... (for A/C or for other educational needs) BUT those not in the loop will NOT be convinced again to vote YES. I know I convinced many of my empty nester neighbors to vote YES last go round. Now I am embarassed to look them in the eye. I can honestly say I will not help solicit a YES vote for our district ever again for lack of trust. I don't want to tell a neighbor one thing and have another happen. I don't work that way. I wish our board didn't either. On another note. Some posters have said everything changed after the jury verdict...I ask WHY? The jury verdict , although higher than hoped for, was within the range the district said they would and could afford. If the jury verdict had been $1 over $600,000 I would completely agree that they needed to change course. I think they saw an opportunity to run to Plan B and took it. I was told numerous times (directly from MM) that we didn't have a Plan B because we didn't need one. "BB is ours; it is just a matter of what we will pay for it". That sticks in my mind forever! Unfortunately people hide behind these facts by stating this is an issue about not wanting to go to WVHS. That (for most people) is not the case AT ALL. I am completely fine with and actually prefer attending an established institution over starting up a new school. ( I will have freshmen in 2009 and 2010) This is about keeping ones word and about community TRUST. Not to mention the site is not optimal in my humble opinion for many reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on May 10, 2008 15:56:55 GMT -6
Slp...agreed. As long as one of the current admin officials and SB members are around, I will not vote yes for one more penny of my tax money to be entrusted to this group. I can already see it now...they put up a referendum to approve A/C and once the funds are approved, the use the money to build racquetball courts or to build a Chief Matea statue.
|
|
|
|
Post by slp on May 10, 2008 17:49:17 GMT -6
The argument that we do not have legal protection to have our vote count in a taxpayer referendum (because the school code is law passed by the Illinois legislature as as opposed to the Constitution) is just silly. IMO,the core issue remains do the statements made by the District that the referendum was to build a school at BB trump the fact that the language of the referendum on the ballot was not site specific. I have not had the opportunity to pull the cases cited, but dollars to doughnuts they do not involve representations made by a School District in writing and in materials printed and distributed with School District (using taxpayer) dollars with the intention of inducing a yes vote. Statements made by elected Board members may be campaign fluff (or even intentionallies)....statements made in writing by School District (vs.elected) officials using taxpayer dollars are, by law, factual (and can not intentional lies). It will be interesting to see what Popejoy decides... what's huge for me is the written response from Howie Crouse stating that they would not be leaving the BB site for Macom. He went on to say that the voters voted based on BB blah blah blah. That is a big statement which referenced a site change and how he felt that would be against what the voters approved. So , I don't get it; they said they would pay fair market value of BB upwards to $600,000 . The jury awarded below that amount and they walked. That is going to sit with voters for a very very long time. It's not about who goes to school where...that will all settle down when time passes. What people won't get over is being deceived and that is how they see it. |
|
|
|
Post by concerned2 on May 10, 2008 18:23:48 GMT -6
Here is that letter from Howie. This will come back to haunt them, just like the Q & A.
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
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 11, 2008 15:09:14 GMT -6
> 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. This is why I think this case is different than the previous cases cited. Politicians are allowed to lie/intentionally decieve before they get elected. But here we have a non-elected district official once again using taxpayer resources to inform us that the referendum presented to the voters was based on the Brach-Brodie property. Even after the referendum, he was reminding us that the referendum was based on the Brach Brodie land. Not "we'll try." New land = new referendum. |
|
|
|
Post by 3woodgal on May 11, 2008 21:11:37 GMT -6
Slp...agreed. As long as one of the current admin officials and SB members are around, I will not vote yes for one more penny of my tax money to be entrusted to this group. I can already see it now... they put up a referendum to approve A/C and once the funds are approved, the use the money to build racquetball courts or to build a Chief Matea statue. Our wonderful "slickster" SB will place AC on the next ref also asking for approval of operating funds for Metea - hoping that all of us that are in favor of AC can only get it if we give our money also to Metea. Aint' gonna happen for me. I am not that stupid. No vote for sure. Kids will just have to go even longer without AC which is unforatunate. |
|
|
|
Post by 3woodgal on May 11, 2008 21:17:56 GMT -6
Rural, this will bite them in the butt because this will be reminded to the voters before any future referendum... They just gave the voteNO crowd a silver bullet for eternity. I hope they're pleased with themselves. Exactly. They have underestimated what their actions have done to future referendums for our kids. While those of us in the loop may understand the need when the next referendum comes our way ... (for A/C or for other educational needs) BUT those not in the loop will NOT be convinced again to vote YES. I know I convinced many of my empty nester neighbors to vote YES last go round. Now I am embarassed to look them in the eye. I can honestly say I will not help solicit a YES vote for our district ever again for lack of trust. I don't want to tell a neighbor one thing and have another happen. I don't work that way. I wish our board didn't either. On another note. Some posters have said everything changed after the jury verdict...I ask WHY? The jury verdict , although higher than hoped for, was within the range the district said they would and could afford. If the jury verdict had been $1 over $600,000 I would completely agree that they needed to change course. I think they saw an opportunity to run to Plan B and took it. I was told numerous times (directly from MM) that we didn't have a Plan B because we didn't need one. "BB is ours; it is just a matter of what we will pay for it". That sticks in my mind forever!Unfortunately people hide behind these facts by stating this is an issue about not wanting to go to WVHS. That (for most people) is not the case AT ALL. I am completely fine with and actually prefer attending an established institution over starting up a new school. ( I will have freshmen in 2009 and 2010) This is about keeping ones word and about community TRUST. Not to mention the site is not optimal in my humble opinion for many reasons. You too! I hope we all remember these lies for the next ref vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 11, 2008 22:01:01 GMT -6
Slp...agreed. As long as one of the current admin officials and SB members are around, I will not vote yes for one more penny of my tax money to be entrusted to this group. I can already see it now... they put up a referendum to approve A/C and once the funds are approved, the use the money to build racquetball courts or to build a Chief Matea statue. Our wonderful "slickster" SB will place AC on the next ref also asking for approval of operating funds for Metea - hoping that all of us that are in favor of AC can only get it if we give our money also to Metea. Aint' gonna happen for me. I am not that stupid. No vote for sure. Kids will just have to go even longer without AC which is unforatunate. Oh, I thought they had already adopted a plan to deal with the heat.. you mean that won't be good enough? I see a pattern.... |
|
|
|
Post by concerned2 on May 11, 2008 22:43:58 GMT -6
Just watching distrit 203 SB meeting. If only our SB memebers could watch and learn. They are involving community input. They appear to be listening to the taxpayers. None of this we have your money now we going to do what ever with it. So wish I lived in 203!! Instead I get sit down and shut up.
|
|
SouthernWolf
Junior
Dean Wermer; when is the parade?
Posts: 139
|
Post by SouthernWolf on May 12, 2008 13:57:04 GMT -6
I wonder if we should/could put Howie Crosse on the stand based on his written reply to a site switch ?  I briefly scanned the dismiss docs and what struck me is that the D204 lawyers did not even address THE WRITTTEN Documents. They addressed the verbal statments from the SB etc, but did not touch the flyers and the money used to disseminate said flyers. So, I wonder why? they have to know it is a key componnent of the case. I will do a deeper read of the document this week. 1. If the flyers are factual 2. Then location at BB is part of the ref language by default is it not? 3. If we voted on 3rd HS for 125M at BB location; then a site switch violates what we voted for. 4. If that is the case, then as soon as a site switch occured, the proper thing to do would be to re-engague the constituents with the alternate plan info. 5. Since the SB did not do this; I wonder if we will see a confirmation vote on Eola as a possible remidy. 6. If so, would Popejoy freeze construction with a TRO until a vote in november to rectify this mess? If, If , IF (I know) Then I would wonder if alot of folks would go ahead (reluctantly) to vote for the "site" since we have already plugged some money into it, and any change would delay the academic balancing even further (opps sorry, freudian slip; I meant ease the overcrowding) Best case scenario maybe popejoy would allow the valves to be installed to mitigate the pipeline safety risk when all is siad and done (if Eola is still "the site"). |
|
SouthernWolf
Junior
Dean Wermer; when is the parade?
Posts: 139
|
Post by SouthernWolf on May 12, 2008 14:05:24 GMT -6
A/C Proponents!!
I am totally for A/C in all the buildings that currently lack it. I realize we may have to wait until the last vestiges of the old replublic are swept away (2011 for the final 3). After that, I would hope more folks would be ready to "trust" again since the old guard that did all the deceptive decietful practices would be long gone.
I also hope that all the folks that are so outraged by all that has transpired (me included) continue to stay active.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 12, 2008 14:07:06 GMT -6
Best case scenario maybe popejoy would allow the valves to be installed to mitigate the pipeline safety risk when all is siad and done (if Eola is still "the site"). MANDATE with a $250,000 per week penalty recurring for every week not done on all pipes... Full Pipe replacement and ACVs on both the NORTH and SOUTH side of the property to isolate the segment ASAP in case of a structural failure on the premises. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 12, 2008 14:08:05 GMT -6
A/C Proponents!! I am totally for A/C in all the buildings that currently lack it. I realize we may have to wait until the last vestiges of the old replublic are swept away (2011 for the final 3). After that, I would hope more folks would be ready to "trust" again since the old guard that did all the deceptive decietful practices would be long gone. I also hope that all the folks that are so outraged by all that has transpired (me included) continue to stay active. They need to stop the 'bundling' too of the key things. Let each bump in price stand on its own on the ballot with EXPLICIT LANGUAGE. |
|
