|
|
Post by d204mom on May 29, 2008 11:56:07 GMT -6
Just called my husband at the office to read the interpretation of what we were voting on in the 2006 ref. His exact response, "I voted to convert the WV Golf Campus to a middle school. Where was that written on the ballot?" I thought it was me. Maybe it was written in with all the literature I received saying BB, BB, BB, BB! If we're going to stick to the letter of the law ( what's the matter, can't these people read their ballots ? ) - then there should be no Gold Campus conversion - just a 3rd high school - period. They legally can't spend any referendum money on the conversion of WVHS gold. Wonder if this is a shot at attempting that? I can't imagine there to be anything to spend money on... a new sign and you're done, right? Also interesting that they got so many people to sign a document that states that the WVHS gold conversion was in the verbiage (when it was not). If anything, that proves that the ballot wording could not be taken solely on it's own and needed the district's supporting documentation to be correctly interpreted. |
|
sardines
Soph
We can fit a few more diagonally
Posts: 73 
|
Post by sardines on May 29, 2008 12:11:30 GMT -6
What I find ironic is that many of these individuals voted no because they were not happy with the boundaries. That they didn't get out of WV. Sounds like they voted accoriding to boundaries and not for a 3rd HS. Isn't that same thing??? I think NSFOC can use their no votes in their case. It shows how the SB information caused many to vote they way they did. I just wanted to comment that while I do not live in the area where the petition originated, I am perplexed by comments made that "those folks" voted no over boundaries. I know a lot of folks from that area, and everyone I know voted yes all the while assuming they would remain at WV with a less crowded school to boot!  I am in a position in which I could have children at both WV and MV and while I would LOVE for them to all go to WV ( we have had AWESOME experiences there), I do want smaller schools for everyone. I think it's the right way to go for the kids. That's why I voted for it. |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on May 29, 2008 12:13:32 GMT -6
Just called my husband at the office to read the interpretation of what we were voting on in the 2006 ref. His exact response, "I voted to convert the WV Golf Campus to a middle school. Where was that written on the ballot?" I thought it was me. Maybe it was written in with all the literature I received saying BB, BB, BB, BB! If we're going to stick to the letter of the law ( what's the matter, can't these people read their ballots ? ) - then there should be no Gold Campus conversion - just a 3rd high school - period. Obviously they are talking about something they were told and not something they read. My question is "why weren't the rest of us told the same thing." |
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on May 29, 2008 12:15:40 GMT -6
Proschool - We WERE told the same thing, just as we were also told it would be BB. Both of those intentions were made abundantly clear.
We (D204 residents) were told BB AND converting WV Gold to an MS.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 29, 2008 12:26:31 GMT -6
What I find ironic is that many of these individuals voted no because they were not happy with the boundaries. That they didn't get out of WV. Sounds like they voted accoriding to boundaries and not for a 3rd HS. Isn't that same thing??? I think NSFOC can use their no votes in their case. It shows how the SB information caused many to vote they way they did. I just wanted to comment that while I do not live in the area where the petition originated, I am perplexed by comments made that "those folks" voted no over boundaries. I know a lot of folks from that area, and everyone I know voted yes all the while assuming they would remain at WV with a less crowded school to boot! I am in a position in which I could have children at both WV and MV and while I would LOVE for them to all go to WV ( we have had AWESOME experiences there), I do want smaller schools for everyone. I think it's the right way to go for the kids. That's why I voted for it. Not sure what is perplexing - the vote totals by voting precinct are pretty clear. Also did you not see the orange shirt march before hand and listen to that rhetoric ? p.s. - is either HS the furthest from your home as it is for me ? Is either well oer 30 minute commute in rush hour ? Do you have 2 middle schools closer to your home than the one your area attends ? Welcome to my world. I know exactly what I worked for and voted for also. You feel it's the right way to go for the kids - what about the kids in the 4 areas that have similar circumstances as mine - is it right for them also ? I don't |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on May 29, 2008 13:22:02 GMT -6
I know I sound like a broken record, but..
The 2005 referendum failed! As a result (and in that the District was committed to getting a third school built), the Board and District took great pains (and spent our taxpayer money) to research and devise a plan on how to get the 2006 referendum passed (including hiring a consulting firm).
As a result of these great pains, the District did something that I imagine is perhaps unprecedented in the history of school referendums. Before presenting the referendum for a vote, the District held a comprehensive public land selection process (announcing BB as their selection) and it held upwards of 25 community meetings with the sole intention of defining boundaries based on community input and the defined BB land location (to openly gerrymander voting results).
The District and Board committed unquivically, consistently and very openly to identifying the exact boundaries and land location prior to presenting the referendum ....with the explicit representation the land location and boundaries would be part of the referendum!. The District engaged in this activity because the first referendum failed and because this is what the Board and school leadership concluded needed to be done to get the referendum passed! Anyone who argues otherwise it simply wrong and blinded by their own self interests (I do not know any other way of saying this in that it is just that black and white!).
And the District and Board had the answers...
When asked why the exact land location was not on the proposed referendum language, residents were assured that it was only because of technicalities, and that the referendum was nonetheless tied to the BB land (they explained there was not enough time to include the results that came out of the 25 plus town meetings with the language that would have to be submitted to get on the March ballot).
In response to any doubts about the condemnation proceedings, the District assured residents that it could afford to pay even the worst case scenario of 600k per acre (the verdict came in much less than this).
Thus, in complete contrast to the revisionist history now being presented by the District (and self interested supporters), there was not an obvious expectation if the condemnation failed, the referendum would allow for construction elsewhere. THIS IS IN FACT IN COMPLETE CONTRADICTION to every representation made by the District and Board leadership (ie...there is no Plan B; to change boundaries would be tantamount to bait and switch; and, in passing the 2006 referendum, the voters relied in part to the representations that the third school would be built on BB).
Unlike the legal cases that the District is relying on in trying to justify its immoral conduct ("we are allowed to lie"), these promises by the District were not incidental or commitments to "try to build on BB). These representations were clear, deliberate and for the specific purpose of inducing voters to vote in favor of building the third school (otherwise, why would all of this activity been done before the March election date?).
As a we all know by now, in order to induce the yes vote, the District went so far as to distribute taxpayer paid pamphlets representing, AS A FACT, that the referendum was specifically to build a third high school on BB (consistent with hundreds if not thousands of consistent messages leading up to the referendum).
For some yes voters, perhaps the land location was not important (I am sure this is true). However, for many yes voters (and in fact, many no voters up North), the land location was central to their vote! Again, to argue otherwise is dishonest and convenient revisionist history to try to justify improper and immoral conduct. Again...that black and white.
No, the District did not have to define the land location as part of the referendum process (I agree with the District lawyer on this). However, it chose to deliberately do so in that it believed that this was necessary to secure the passage of the referendum.
And then we have the NSFOCfrauders, orange shirt contingency and Dr. D's neighbors, for whom it is now so crystal clear that the referendum was never about the BB site. Let's be honest folks....the orange shirts voted no in 2006 because of the BB land location (but it is now about the children and overcrowding). For the District to engage those who obviously benefit the most from the AMES location to justify its conduct and actions is reprehensible.
|
|
sardines
Soph
We can fit a few more diagonally
Posts: 73
|
Post by sardines on May 29, 2008 13:25:08 GMT -6
I just wanted to comment that while I do not live in the area where the petition originated, I am perplexed by comments made that "those folks" voted no over boundaries. I know a lot of folks from that area, and everyone I know voted yes all the while assuming they would remain at WV with a less crowded school to boot! I am in a position in which I could have children at both WV and MV and while I would LOVE for them to all go to WV ( we have had AWESOME experiences there), I do want smaller schools for everyone. I think it's the right way to go for the kids. That's why I voted for it. Not sure what is perplexing - the vote totals by voting precinct are pretty clear. Also did you not see the orange shirt march before hand and listen to that rhetoric ? p.s. - is either HS the furthest from your home as it is for me ? Is either well oer 30 minute commute in rush hour ? Do you have 2 middle schools closer to your home than the one your area attends ? Welcome to my world. I know exactly what I worked for and voted for also. You feel it's the right way to go for the kids - what about the kids in the 4 areas that have similar circumstances as mine - is it right for them also ? I don't Doctor Who, You are correct. I still can't figure out why some of those areas are directed to the schools they are. My kid has friends that live in the Watts area. They walk for about a mile to go past NC to get downtown all of the time. I honestly thought that area would have been 203. I guess the point I am making is that I think a lot of folks went on rants during the whole boundary snafu but when push came to shove most (as evidenced by the majority vote) felt that a third high school was the best thing for the district. I think it sucks that some kids will be on buses longer but some will be on shorter bus rides. Ultimately, I do think the benefits and opportunities of smaller HS's outweigh the cons for everyone. I drive my kid about 5-6 miles now for school sports etc. and honestly would continue to do so if allowed to keep my younger kids at WV . Ironically, my younger one may want to go to Benet  as we gave the private school option to each kid . I do realize that some would prefer closer, very packed schools as opposed to further smaller schools. But it also appears that we may have similar preferences since you chose a further, smaller school yourself when you sent your kid(s) to Benet? |
|
|
|
Post by slp on May 29, 2008 13:30:23 GMT -6
I find it disturbing that the change of site "just so happened" to satisfy the very group that voted NO. I think that is what makes many feel that 'something ain't right'.
If the change of site caused a shift of say WE/TG to WV and moved SB/Welch to MV, I doubt that there would be such outrage right now. I think it puts an uncomfortable feeling in the hearts of many that the final site is where it is due to deception and lies.
Personally, in hindsight , I now believe that the SB knew it was a long shot to get a fair price at BB and all along knew they had a good shot at leaving BB and going to Eola. I believe JC was at the helm of this brainstorm and loved the fact that a new super would come in that they could 'convince' to look elsewhere (not an easy thing to do when HC was in place)
I feel that if a court of law determines that what the school board did to taxpayers is out of line, then they should be punished. Should that punishement mean stopping a 3rd high school....NO! It may simply mean it may add another year onto the plan and may mean chosing a different site other than Eola (based on a vote). OR at a minimum require each sb member to resign.
|
|
|
|
Post by snerdley on May 29, 2008 13:37:35 GMT -6
I am interested in knowing if there was some sort of survey that went with the petition that stated Fry and WE (?) didn't "deserve" to go to a new schoool, and that no matter what happened they should be moved to WVHS. This was the rumor I heard a while back and coupled with CB's statement that 19 of 21 elementaries had a negative opinion of the Fry community.....makes me wonder.
Where is "part 2" of the petition? And were the PTA's used to facilitate anything?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 29, 2008 13:37:39 GMT -6
The district won the condemnation suit. They lied about being able/willing to pay the ceiling level price; even stating one higher than the price that was set by the jury.
Now, we will all pay the price.
Does anyone have a transcript of what was said in court or deposed to see if they said words to the effect of being ready, willing and able to pay the price set by the jury (or even a higher one)? That would constitute perjury, would it not?
|
|
|
|
Post by jftb on May 29, 2008 13:42:40 GMT -6
I just received a copy of the petition that was circulated about a month ago and presented to the SB in April (it appears primarily signed by residents from communities within close proximity to the AMES site location). The petition is in support of the SB, and declares that the signors of the petition would not support a forced purchase of the BB land (and that the signors also would not support a new referendum to approve additional funds to support buying BB). This is not meant to be an attack on those who signed the petition, in that it is certainly within their rights to advocate their collective position (and the petition is a respectful and constructive attempt to communicate their position). But I do have an observation that I found interesting. The first paragraph of the petition read: "In voting for the 2006 referendum, I understood the verbiage did not include a specific site location, only an allocation of dollars to build a third high school and conversion of the Waubansie Gold Campus to a 7th middle school." Anyone else see the irony here as it relates to one of the central points against the NSFOC position? My point is simply as the debate continues to rage within our community and personal attacks continue to fly, it is obvious that most everyone has some self interest in the outcome (and perhaps everyone's viewpoint is slightly skewed depending on these interests). So no suprise to me where most of the signatures came from -- funny, it didn't circulate much here . WHHHHHAAATTTT? SERIOUSLY?  Why isn't this getting picked up by the news? Where is Dave Savini? Our school board has so majorly crossed the line if this is true. Dr. Who, if you have copies of these e-mails showing origination from our school board members, will you please get them to the Chicago Tribune? I want an expose!!!! This is truly insane. I will say as someone from the 19 of 21 elementary schools who are not White Eagle or Fry, that I saw no e-mails to this effect whatsoever. If I do, watch out!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by slp on May 29, 2008 13:52:04 GMT -6
This was the petition driven by certain SB members using PTSA leaders from brooks ( had the early e-mails as they were organizing) - and original emails circulating to drum up support were anything but nice. List of who to contact was supplied by another SB member ( also named in emails) -So no suprise to me where most of the signatures came from -- funny, it didn't circulate much here . WHHHHHAAATTTT? SERIOUSLY? Why isn't this getting picked up by the news? Where is Dave Savini? Our school board has so majorly crossed the line if this is true. Dr. Who, if you have copies of these e-mails showing origination from our school board members, will you please get them to the Chicago Tribune? I want an expose!!!! This is truly insane. I will say as someone from the 19 of 21 elementary schools who are not White Eagle or Fry, that I saw no e-mails to this effect whatsoever. If I do, watch out!!!! I am not surprised to hear this as many who were involved with 204thekids were also 'fed' info when necessary to support information the SB wanted released to the public. Unfortunately, many of those supporters did not question the validity of what they were told.....a mistake that will NEVER happen again. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 29, 2008 14:14:20 GMT -6
If I recall, shortly before spring break the path went: SB member(s) --> attorney --> PTSA people --> people assigned to collect signatures from neighborhoods (complete w/ word docs and excel spreadsheet of who is in charge of what neighborhood) also indicating a notary was standing by to notarize the completed forms. It also could have been just one too many Molson Ices and I imagined the whole thing...  |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on May 29, 2008 14:23:32 GMT -6
I recall seeing something recently where school officials were INDICTED for gathering information of political foes during work hours (and using school resources). If this trail is accurate (and there are emails from District officials as opposed to Board members), I would imagine there would be some potential legal ramifications.
If the trail is from SB members, most likely just another reason why these people need to resign or be voted out.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 29, 2008 14:23:47 GMT -6
I hate to sound jaded, but this is SOP in D204. Pit areas against each other to get what you want. Feed bits and pieces of information/slander to the right "groups" to acheive the goal.
The ends always justify the means.
Everyone remembers how Ashbury was hung out to dry in 2001 to get the freshman centers approved, right? It was pretty bad, but nothing like they are doing today.
|
|
as we gave the private school option to each kid . 
