|
|
Post by d204mom on May 29, 2008 16:05:50 GMT -6
Well if anything positive has come from this debacle, it's that the school board now knows we need better legal representation. Why is Whitt still handling the Brach/Brodie stuff??
|
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on May 29, 2008 16:08:21 GMT -6
momind 204...
I have not had the chance to read the entire opinion yet...just scanned the initial summary provided by the judge (identifying and answering each question). If you can not get past the first hurdle of the ambiguity of the referendum language, the rest becomes irrelevent as far as NSFOC's case is concerned.
In that the Judge found that the language of the referendum was unambiguous, then his finding that NSFOC does not have the right to try to challenge the District's discretion of choosing a school site (which is granted by law) is logical. The only way that the argument works if you can get past the am I thought the NSFOC arguement was valid....but the ambiguity was always the biggest challenge (much more challenging than the factual and moral arguements).
Just to be clear, I respect the Judge's ruling and only speaking for myself, am going to focus on a few things going forward:
1) Looking for how to join the "making lemonaid club" (seriously, from my perspective, time to start focusing on how to make the best out of the school splitting and transportation times from my home to WVHS);
2) Helping get the current Board members ousted as their terms come up. As I have mentioned from the start, but for Daeschner's comment on entitlement and the failure of our leaders to respect the entire community, the NSFOC lawsuit most likely would have never been filed.
I am however eager to see how the Board, District and community reacts. There is the potential of closing this chapter and bringing the community together OR making the divide even larger. I am ready to work towards the healing process (now that I feel those who have felt wronged have had their chance in front of Popejoy). Like many others, however, I could just as easily be pushed the other way depending on what happens next...
Perhaps this will be the next test of the new community relations director?
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on May 29, 2008 16:16:05 GMT -6
Well, if the SB has that much power and can lie and treat taxpayers they way the did, I will always be a no voter. As I have always said that a win is also a loss on either end. If NSFOC wins the suit, they lose in how much of the community views the supporters. If the district wins, it is only short lived. A teacher said it best to me yesterday, "If district wins then I can kiss any salary improvements goodbye. No voters will not come out of the woodwork for any future referendums." I must say that I do agree with her. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on May 29, 2008 16:17:46 GMT -6
In the end, the Judge found that the referendum language was unambiguous and thus, was not willing to look beyond the language itself to look towards the intent/representations of the SB/District (other than what was ontained in the referendum language). From the legal side, this was always the biggest challenge. I think it is a sad commentary on the trustworthiness and ethics of the SB and District (the ends justifying the means), however, I do not believe that this was a huge conspiracy from the start....just a series of unfortunate events that resulted in the SB/District choosing to move forward in a way that I think was not respectful to the entire District. Perhaps a second chance to see how the District and SB treat their victory....do they rub it in the face of those who challenged them or do they attempt to bring the District back together. indeed, will we see people moving forward or rubbing salt further into wounds? I hope to see the nasty name calling come to an end. I am proudly sending my kids to WVHS and ask that the WVHS Gold Campus REMAIN IN PLACE since it was not written on the ballot that I was agreeing for it to be removed; it only stated monies for a 3rd high school.  The first few years my kids are at WVHS it will be more crowded in the main building than it is NOW; tell me how that is supposed to make me feel good about all that has transpired? The end doesn't justify the means. The way the school board went about this entire process has unfortunately created alot of additional NO voters which cannot be good for our district in the long run. This whole debacle has brought out the worst in many and unfortunately it may be hard for taxpayers to forget each and every time they go to the polls. This entire scenario can be described as classic MISMANAGEMENT! I am sure the next school board elections will be a house cleaning! Oh we can count on that! The background checks will be quite intense!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by MustangSix on May 29, 2008 16:21:24 GMT -6
Language directly from the dismissal appears to clear School Board of wrongdoing and put the blame where it belongs ... see below .... directly from Popejoy!!!
…. However, it appears from the
record that defendants had every intention of using Brach-Brodie for the site of the new high
school, but ultimately were unable to do so due to facts and circumstances that arose afer the
referendum vote. There is absolutely no evidence of intent to deceive
Conclusion:
Though plaintiffs deny it, each of their arguents is a back door method to obtain
discretion over where the site of the new school wil be built, or at least where it wil not be built.
Ths is not their right, but the right granted to the school district by Ilinois law. See i 05 ILCS
5/19:'3; 1O-22.35A; 1
|
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on May 29, 2008 16:22:18 GMT -6
Well, if the SB has that much power and can lie and treat taxpayers they way the did, I will always be a no voter. As I have always said that a win is also a loss on either end. If NSFOC wins the suit, they lose in how much of the community views the supporters. If the district wins, it is only short lived. A teacher said it best to me yesterday, "If district wins then I can kiss any salary improvements goodbye. No voters will not come out of the woodwork for any future referendums." I must say that I do agree with her. Sad but very true......I can not envision a single referendum being passed for quite some time. I think this is going to be a real tragedy in regards to teacher salaries and improvements for many years to come. |
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on May 29, 2008 16:51:58 GMT -6
On a positive note, the SB was exposed and MV was not built on the MWGEN site. NSFOC had a slim chance of winning this but brought to light the nuts and bolts of how a SB conducts business, something we all benefitted from.
|
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on May 29, 2008 16:55:47 GMT -6
One other thing: people will hopefully come out and vote in SB elections and referendum votes, and won't take the outcomes for granted anymore. I guess that's just wishful thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by swimmom on May 29, 2008 17:02:51 GMT -6
Thanks for the info Mustang. It's good to get that info out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by researching on May 29, 2008 17:13:56 GMT -6
Great. The inmates run the asylum and will continue to go unchecked by anyone. That's just wonderful. I will not be making any lemonade that is for sure. I cannot at all think of anything good about this. We have kids at risk at this site. Lovely.
|
|
|
|
Post by momind204 on May 29, 2008 17:34:03 GMT -6
Someone on green posted that because the case was dismissed with prejudice that it can't be appealed. Any lawyers out there that can confirm or clarify this point?
|
|
|
|
Post by slp on May 29, 2008 17:40:53 GMT -6
Language directly from the dismissal appears to clear School Board of wrongdoing and put the blame where it belongs ... see below .... directly from Popejoy!!! …. However, it appears from the record that defendants had every intention of using Brach-Brodie for the site of the new high school, but ultimately were unable to do so due to facts and circumstances that arose afer the referendum vote. There is absolutely no evidence of intent to deceive Conclusion: Though plaintiffs deny it, each of their arguents is a back door method to obtain discretion over where the site of the new school wil be built, or at least where it wil not be built. Ths is not their right, but the right granted to the school district by Ilinois law. See i 05 ILCS 5/19:'3; 1O-22.35A; 1 I guess a post like this answers my question in a previous post....will people move forward or simply chose to pour more salt in wounds....  ?? Take the high road for a change please. |
|
|
|
Post by momind204 on May 29, 2008 17:41:35 GMT -6
Sashimi, it truly is interesting to read the opinion. Besides the case citations, most of it is written in English as opposed to legalese. I just thought your summation, while accurate, left out a bit of the interesting parts. I applaud your resolve to move forward in a positive manner. I hope everyone on both sides of the issue can do the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by rural on May 29, 2008 17:45:06 GMT -6
Someone on green posted that because the case was dismissed with prejudice that it can't be appealed. Any lawyers out there that can confirm or clarify this point? It can be appealed. It cannot be refiled, meaning they can't just clean up the complaint and try again. They can look to the Illinois Appellate Court to overturn Popejoy's decision, but the chances of winning there are even slimmer, as they must prove that the Court made an error in his judgment. ETA: Not an attorney, I just know a lot of them.  |
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 29, 2008 17:52:34 GMT -6
Language directly from the dismissal appears to clear School Board of wrongdoing and put the blame where it belongs ... see below .... directly from Popejoy!!! …. However, it appears from the record that defendants had every intention of using Brach-Brodie for the site of the new high school, but ultimately were unable to do so due to facts and circumstances that arose afer the referendum vote. There is absolutely no evidence of intent to deceive Conclusion: Though plaintiffs deny it, each of their arguents is a back door method to obtain discretion over where the site of the new school wil be built, or at least where it wil not be built. Ths is not their right, but the right granted to the school district by Ilinois law. See i 05 ILCS 5/19:'3; 1O-22.35A; 1 I guess a post like this answers my question in a previous post....will people move forward or simply chose to pour more salt in wounds.... ?? Take the high road for a change please. Slp, You and I think alike. I had the same feelings regarding this post. Somehow, I don't hold much hope that certain portions of the community will chose the "high road". Especially the portion of the community that tried to tank the 06 referendum with an 80% no vote. You know who I mean, those that have been writing the majority of the LTEs in the papers, those that have called a portion of the district elitists, racists, prejudiced, etc. I will find it difficult to shake those nasty insults off as I found them repulsive and hypocritical. How is all that history going to disappear so that magically we can "all come together" for the good of the district? We can thank the school board for promoting this "I win, you lose" type behavior that persists (and has gone on for too long) in this district. ETA: despite the ruling by Judge Popejoy today the BB chapter in district 204's history is FAR from over. There are a few outstanding lawsuits that still hang over our heads. |
|
??