Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

[perspective]

Arch,

I am not sure a re-vote would be with in the courts jurisdiction, I just do not know. My only point is that if one is going to interpret the statements/ flyers as factual information, then how does one decide what information to include. Who is to say the other factors that were published should NOT be included -- where does it stop. Maybe the fact that the attendance number was better vetted, or the split shift and elimination of programs message drove more affirmative votes. Why just stop at the site locations.

In thinking as I type, I could possibly see a scenario for a re-vote if the ruling were that the site/boundary language was implied and should have been part of the ref., and the ref. was ruled invalid because I do not think you can issue a ref. of this sort indicating you are going to build on land that is not owned by the SD. I really do not if that is possible, but maybe one way of thinking...

[perspective]

sashimi


Good point. IMO, in the decision as to whether it is materially to the outcome would be one of the most important factors in determining if it should be included by reference into the referendum. I think the case law that SD reps had referenced pointed to very explicitly.

I think one would need to show that ambiguity around was created around the language of the ref. materially altered the outcome

[perspective]

To all posting the statements made by the;

The ones I have looked at are all relevant to a point in time, and I do not see any of these that are after the SB failed at the condemnation proceedings. . ..

[d204mom]

May 16, 2008 9:22:32 GMT -6 perspective said:

Arch,

I am not sure a re-vote would be with in the courts jurisdiction, I just do not know. My only point is that if one is going to interpret the statements/ flyers as factual information, then how does one decide what information to include. Who is to say the other factors that were published should NOT be included -- where does it stop. Maybe the fact that the attendance number was better vetted, or the split shift and elimination of programs message drove more affirmative votes. Why just stop at the site locations.

In thinking as I type, I could possibly see a scenario for a re-vote if the ruling were that the site/boundary language was implied and should have been part of the ref., and the ref. was ruled invalid because I do not think you can issue a ref. of this sort indicating you are going to build on land that is not owned by the SD. I really do not if that is possible, but maybe one way of thinking...

I believe the laws limiting what the school district can publish to voters is very specific. I am not an expert, however, the referendum FAQs were challenged in Will County in 2006 and were found to be factual and not biased towards a YES vote.

The district published information to the best of it's knowledge on the enrollment and split shift stuff and admitted as much in the FAQs. But nowhere in the district-published information was it stated that we didn't own BB yet and the school may not go there.

It sounds like Daeschner pretty much stated at the IPPC meeting (if I interpreted SNM's notes correctly) that if MV does not open in 2009 we will operate as we are today - no split shifts. As enrollment is not panning out as they predicted.

And I'll add my welcome to you, perspective.

here's the thing - even if there's not enough to force a re-vote it sounds like there are enough legitimate questions to survive May 23 and possibly go to trial; and then it comes down to who is the better litigator, right?

[Arch]

May 16, 2008 9:32:01 GMT -6 perspective said:

To all posting the statements made by the;

The ones I have looked at are all relevant to a point in time, and I do not see any of these that are after the SB failed at the condemnation proceedings. . ..

That's the 'switch'

[doctorwho]

May 16, 2008 9:29:32 GMT -6 perspective said:

sashimi


Good point. IMO, in the decision as to whether it is materially to the outcome would be one of the most important factors in determining if it should be included by reference into the referendum. I think the case law that SD reps had referenced pointed to very explicitly.

I think one would need to show that ambiguity around was created around the language of the ref. materially altered the outcome

well not only did it alter the outcome in that some areas voted heavily yes based on where they were lead- on the flip side- some areas voted very very hevily NO based on site and boundaries. Where the SB lead everyone had an effect on many voters, not jsut those they convinced to be yes. By M2's own statements - it was the reason we got a 60%+ Yes vote.

Some of the only people it did not affect were those who voted NO for financial reasons each time.

For areas like BD to claim the boundaries/site isnot what made them vote No is ludicrous as many peeople from that area have worked long and hard for 10 years to get another new HS for themselves to attend. They were part of many support organizations for the SD & SB. Again, I understand why they voted NO, they were thrown under the bus somewhat and much like where my are stands now- although others could see something should be done ( change Hill feeders / add another Hill feeder to WV or move BD to MV ) - they were being totally ignored by the SD & SB. Trust me- I know the feeling - so I amnot blaming them for the No vote ( just so everyone understands) - and it was caused by what the SB said we were voting on at the time.

[doctorwho]

May 16, 2008 9:22:32 GMT -6 perspective said:

Arch,

I am not sure a re-vote would be with in the courts jurisdiction, I just do not know. My only point is that if one is going to interpret the statements/ flyers as factual information, then how does one decide what information to include. Who is to say the other factors that were published should NOT be included -- where does it stop. Maybe the fact that the attendance number was better vetted, or the split shift and elimination of programs message drove more affirmative votes. Why just stop at the site locations.

In thinking as I type, I could possibly see a scenario for a re-vote if the ruling were that the site/boundary language was implied and should have been part of the ref., and the ref. was ruled invalid because I do not think you can issue a ref. of this sort indicating you are going to build on land that is not owned by the SD. I really do not if that is possible, but maybe one way of thinking...

Perspective, I agree 100% with you. The other factors -- 10,400 students / split shifts etc. should all be factors - that's why the revote. This was a total sales job --What we voted on didn't happen- and is no longer true. Let's review the facts and make the right decisions - including fiduciary responsiblity that is part of their oath to the people of the district.

The misleading did not stop at the site - you are absolutely correct. They were starting to raise the 'split shifts' spectre again recently, until the March planning attendance numbers were mad epublic - then there was no way it was going to fly this time.

Because so darn much time has passed between prep for the ref vote and today - they hae that rare opportunity to get it right noe, baed on real facts.
(btw they had the attendance facts right the first time in 2001 - almot dead on with where we are today and predictions for next 5 years. Could it be another survey was sought to support the case ? Why did we switch who was doing the projections ? And looking atSt Charles SD - the same group we chose grossly over stated their projections also - but they have had time to recover.

[doctorwho]

May 16, 2008 9:32:01 GMT -6 perspective said:

To all posting the statements made by the;

The ones I have looked at are all relevant to a point in time, and I do not see any of these that are after the SB failed at the condemnation proceedings. . ..

Did we really fail ? We got exactly what we asked for land wise - the reason we filed the condemnation suit. We asked for the 80 acres and that is what we were granted the approval to buy, just as we asked.

[perspective]

We were not granted approval as teh SD backed out after the fair market portion -- only a fair market price was deterimned.

[perspective]

Arch, There is plenty of arguments that a switch would need to be premeditated in order to intentionally mislead voters. I think there is plenty of evidence to show the effort (regardless of competency) that was expended was in line with the original intent. I think it would be extraordinary difficult to prove a bait and switch was enacted.

[doctorwho]

May 16, 2008 10:22:15 GMT -6 perspective said:

We were not granted approval as teh SD backed out after the fair market portion -- only a fair market price was deterimned.

and we could have purchased the land at that time - as we had said many times we would - to qote M2 - it's just a matter of when and how much

[perspective]

The problem in terms of legitimate arguments is that SC has written his response, IMHO, with a single point of failure -- that site/boundary published statement should be included by reference into the referendum. All of his other arguments are predicated on this being true. The SD has listed there rationale for dismissal and even indicted that if the court finds SC inclusion point to be true it should not go to trial (i.e., court jurisdiction to grant plaintiffs’ requested relief, etc.) I was part of a case a while back on land development where the REIT backed out of a deal with the landowner, and while the judge did grant some monetary relief to the land owner, he clearly stated that it was not within the courts jurisdiction to force the REIT to purchase the land – I know it is not apples to apples, but there may be some truth for that either way.

I also think there may be a problem in that there are only a limited number of plaintiffs claiming to have been infringed on the ambiguity concept SC outlined in his filing – I think the court has an obligation to look at the total district when making this decision. The Illinois School code is very clear on the language they use in terms of authority and responsibility it bestows on the SBs around the state, I think, if the court ruled to grant the requested relief sought by NSFOC, it would de facto be declaring the Illinois School Code unconstitutional – this is what is being implied, IMO, by SC’s language in his filings. To me, at least, I think that is a huge issue that would transcend our little world of problems.

I believe that the SD is making the case One of several) in its dismissal filing that the suit is legitimate because in order to be so the court would need to be able to grant the requested relief sought by the plaintiff, So if the court does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief the suit should be dismissed.

Just my thoughts

[perspective]

doctorwho,

I agree we could have. My personal belief is that the SB -- through arrogance, ignorance, just plain incompetence -- had no idea the land value would come back at the amount it did for the BB land. I think they were planning on a worst case scenario of $400K per acre -- supposition on my part.

To me it is like the conversation between two people at a bar -- one asks "are you arrogant or just ignorant?" The other replies "I don't know and I don't care". :-)

[doctorwho]

May 16, 2008 10:51:56 GMT -6 perspective said:

doctorwho,

I agree we could have. My personal belief is that the SB -- through arrogance, ignorance, just plain incompetence -- had no idea the land value would come back at the amount it did for the BB land. I think they were planning on a worst case scenario of $400K per acre -- supposition on my part.

To me it is like the conversation between two people at a bar -- one asks "are you arrogant or just ignorant?" The other replies "I don't know and I don't care". :-)

While I agree in their minds they may have been planning on that amount as a worse case - but talking to them ,as well as what they conveyed in public was that we could afford a worse case scenario wihich included $660K per acre.

As they were selling this the statements were we could afford worse case- and that worse case limit was set 2 months before the general election. If they could only afford up to $400K then that is what shouls have been said, not we can afford the worse case. The reason they dd not, IMHO< was that it would put the vote at risk again. Did they decide that or did their marketing firm decide that - that is another question maybe we will find out shortly.

[doctorwho]

May 16, 2008 10:27:23 GMT -6 perspective said:

Arch, There is plenty of arguments that a switch would need to be premeditated in order to intentionally mislead voters. I think there is plenty of evidence to show the effort (regardless of competency) that was expended was in line with the original intent. I think it would be extraordinary difficult to prove a bait and switch was enacted.

what if one could show a correlation between what the ballot was going to read, then what it ended up reading ? ( just hypothetical now of course ) - then tie that to many direct conversations at PTA meetingsd by SB members and our finance director that reassured people the ballot was going to read BB but it was too late to change it , as we were now within the limit ( 101 days ? ) where you cannot change the ref wording without removing it and waiting for the next vote. That was the reason given more than once - I know I asked those specific questions at more than 1 PTA meeting - for the generic wording.

If someone who would know testified the wording was changed for just this eventuality - then what would be your thoughts.

of course this coming forth would be hypothetical