Boundaries - One More Time - Nap. Sun 4/12

[doctorwho]

Well especially for those who continue to say - put it in writing - here it is in writing , 'one more time' --

and it's still a non-issue ??


204 candidates take on boundary issues
Should the board revisit this controversial topic?

April 12, 2007
By BRITT CARSON Staff Writer
On Feb. 1, 2006, months of grueling late-night meetings on new boundary options for the third high school in Indian Prairie School District 204 came to an end.

A plan was implemented, and on March 21, 2006, residents approved a $124.6 million referendum measure to fund the purchase of land and construction of Metea Valley High School.

Early voting
Today is the last day to vote early for the April 17 election. Those wishing to vote must be registered and must present a government-issued photo I.D. DuPage County offers 10 early-voting sites:

• Naperville Municipal Center, 400 S. Eagle St., Naperville


• Lisle Township assessor's office, 4721 Indiana Ave., Lisle


• Downers Grove Village Hall, 801 Burlington Ave., Downers Grove


• DuPage County Election Commission, 421 N. County Farm Road, Wheaton


• Glen Ellyn Civic Center, 535 Duane St., Glen Ellyn


• York Township office, 1502 S. Meyers Road, Lombard


• Bartlett Community Center, 700 S. Bartlett Road, Bartlett


• Stratford Square Mall, 152 Stratford Square, Bloomingdale


• Addison Township office, 401 N. Addison Road, Addison


• Winfield Township office, 130 Arbor Ave., West Chicago

Visit www.dupageelections.com or call the Election Commission at 630-407-5600.


District 204 took the unusual step of deciding the boundaries before the referendum, even after a survey determined many residents wanted to know what the boundaries would be before casting their votes.

Some might say that forethought was the clincher for passing a referendum.

The school is slated to be built on 80 acres, commonly known as the Brach-Brodie property, along 75th Street and the future extension of Commons Drive in Aurora. The condemnation lawsuit for 55 of those acres is scheduled for trial in September, with a request for quick-take powers in the state legislature. The district already owns the adjacent 25 acres.

If the quick-take authority is granted, the legislation, which is before the state Senate, would enable the district to take immediate possession of the land and let a jury later decide the price per acre.

The topic of the third high school has been a focal point of the 2007 school board election in District 204. The Sun asked each of the seven candidates what they thought of the boundaries and if they would want to reopen the issue. The seven are vying for three seats, each with a four-year term. The positions are not paid.

Knight
Candidate Kevin Knight is in favor of the board establishing a policy to address future boundary decisions to avoid the emotional process of 2006.
"District 204 has one of the most liquid housing markets in the country - with a lot of families and children moving in and out," Knight said. "That means our district is dynamic - we cannot be content to 'set boundaries' and then walk away from the decision, as if we will never have to address it again. With that in mind, I was not satisfied with the process utilized by the board during last year's boundary deliberations. But I would not arbitrarily vote to change boundaries - first I would want to fix the process, and then use that process to determine if there is indeed a need to evaluate boundaries."

Bradshaw
Incumbent Curt Bradshaw said residents approved the referendum based on the boundaries and because of that, the door to the new high-school boundaries should remain closed.
"The community's energy should be focused on the future and making District 204 the best district in the state. Therefore, I would not support revisiting the high school boundaries," Bradshaw said. "With middle school boundary decisions upon us, I encourage you to elect board members who have a proven track record of placing the best interests of the district ahead of their own. "

Davis
Candidate Michelle Davis said now is the time to look back on the boundary process and see how the process could be improved.
"There is time to reflect if this decision-making effort represents the best we can offer our children. I do not intend to challenge the board's decision," Davis said. "However, I remain hopeful that before the doors of Metea Valley open, the community can collectively say we did everything in our power to promote success for all."

Metzger
Incumbent Mark Metzger said he supports the boundaries as they currently stand.
"I would support the boundaries as selected unless the district was faced with a substantial change in the commercial/residential building mix that requires a revisit of the boundaries or something unforeseen, such as a cul-de-sac cut off from the rest of a neighborhood," Metzger said. "Although some are fond of saying that the boundaries were not on the ballot (which is technically true), the reality is that the boundary decision was a basis of the bargain for many voters and to change short of overwhelming need would smack of a bait-and-switch maneuver."

Tyle
Incumbent Alka Tyle said changing the boundaries now would be a bad decision.
"The community made it clear that they wanted to know where their child would go to school before they approved the building of a high school, and we would be breaking our promise and going back on our word if we decided to redo the boundaries," Tyle said. "It is not impossible that while working on the middle-school boundaries, some streets might get 'orphaned,' especially in cases where subdivisions straddle major roads. We might come across some compelling cases where adjustments need to be made to keep a subdivision together."

Calcaterra
Candidate Steven Calcaterra said he wasn't happy with the boundary process, but isn't interested in reopening the issue unless extreme circumstances arise, such as the district not securing the Brach-Brodie property.
"I believe that the boundary process last year was a tremendous embarrassment to the district, Calcaterra said. "Rather than invite the public to establish clear criteria upon which the district would be redrawn, a number of hypothetical positions were offered, many of which would have destroyed the 'neighborhood' character of many of our areas. I am a candidate today because of my disappointment in the way that this process was conducted."

Lyons
Candidate Leanne Lyons said she is not out to change the boundaries.
"I am not seeking a seat on the school board in order to create new boundaries," Lyons said. "The process leading to the decision was very divisive for our community, and I would not want to put them through this process again. My intentions are to work with the other six board members and select boundaries for the middle- and elementary-school boundaries."

Contact Britt Carson at [e-mail] or 630-416-5269.



www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/337965,6_1_NA12_204ELECTION_S1.article

[bob]

Davis
Candidate Michelle Davis said now is the time to look back on the boundary process and see how the process could be improved.
"There is time to reflect if this decision-making effort represents the best we can offer our children. I do not intend to challenge the board's decision," Davis said. "However, I remain hopeful that before the doors of Metea Valley open, the community can collectively say we did everything in our power to promote success for all."

What hole did the COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ALL BOUNDARIES fall into?

Lyons
Candidate Leanne Lyons said she is not out to change the boundaries.
"I am not seeking a seat on the school board in order to create new boundaries," Lyons said. "The process leading to the decision was very divisive for our community, and I would not want to put them through this process again. My intentions are to work with the other six board members and select boundaries for the middle- and elementary-school boundaries."

Cause she is seeking to put additions on NV and WV so no need of new boundaries.

[momof3]

doctorwho said:

Lyons
Candidate Leanne Lyons said she is not out to change the boundaries.
"I am not seeking a seat on the school board in order to create new boundaries," Lyons said. "The process leading to the decision was very divisive for our community, and I would not want to put them through this process again. My intentions are to work with the other six board members and select boundaries for the middle- and elementary-school boundaries."

I had to read this about 4 or 5 times and I'm still not sure what she means.
Does she mean she doesn't want to change the ES to HS assignments but wants to 'select boundaries' for the elementary schools (ie change the subdivision assignments?)
IMO the problem is she is just not at all articulate. (based on this quote and what I saw at the forum.) It would be very hard to be an effective board member if you can't think and respond on your feet.

[macy]

I agree that some answers on future boundary changes are hard to decipher.

Alka Tyle's response to changing high school boundaries in the future is very confusing to me.

taken from her site:

Would you vote to change those boundaries? Why or why not?

No. I would, however, vote to change them if a significantly better solution
became apparent, or if there was a significant change in enrollment numbers in
the future, which is unlikely.

So first it's NO, then it's I WOULD. Which is it? Sounds like doublespeak to me.

ETA: It sounds like a big YES to me. Why say No but go on to add that you would indeed do so?

[bob]

She still wants the third HS which is more than L2's additions for NV and WV and no 3rd HS.

[macy]

bob said:

She still wants the third HS which is more than L2's additions for NV and WV and no 3rd HS.

I've read through Leanne's site very thoroughly. She clearly communicates she is in favor of the third high school.

ETA: Taken from Leanne's site:

Additions to the High Schools
At the forum on March 15th, I was asked a question pertaining to the new high school land. To the best of my knowledge, my interpretation of the question was what would I do if the Brach/Brodie land and other properties were not available. When I said that we should build additions, I was referring to the fact that if we were going to be overcrowded and no other land options were available, that was our only alternative. (Please read my response (8) to relocating the Brach/Brodie land.)

[bob]

That clarification sounds more like a backpeddle.


I don't think the question was IF BB and EVERY OTHER PIECE OF OPEN PROPERTY IN THE SD IS NOT AVAILABLE.

[doctorwho]

macy said:

bob said:

She still wants the third HS which is more than L2's additions for NV and WV and no 3rd HS.

I've read through Leanne's site very thoroughly. She clearly communicates she is in favor of the third high school.

ETA: Taken from Leanne's site:

Additions to the High Schools
At the forum on March 15th, I was asked a question pertaining to the new high school land. To the best of my knowledge, my interpretation of the question was what would I do if the Brach/Brodie land and other properties were not available. When I said that we should build additions, I was referring to the fact that if we were going to be overcrowded and no other land options were available, that was our only alternative. (Please read my response (8) to relocating the Brach/Brodie land.)

I will agree this is clear, but I can tell you I heard first hand responses at 2 of the forums that made no mention of it the Brach Brodie land or other land was not available, only spoke of going back to look at additions to the schools. I know I did not mis-hear. Now maybe this was due to 45 second - 1 minute time limits, or maybe because as she admits, she is not a good public speaker, but either way the message printed here is not what she conveyed in person.

She never framed the responses around land not being available in one public forum.

And so no one gets upset, I am not saying she is saying 2 different things on purpose.....just that the message inserted here was not the way it came across in public.

[doctorwho]

macy said:

I agree that some answers on future boundary changes are hard to decipher.

Alka Tyle's response to changing high school boundaries in the future is very confusing to me.

taken from her site:

Would you vote to change those boundaries? Why or why not?

No. I would, however, vote to change them if a significantly better solution
became apparent, or if there was a significant change in enrollment numbers in
the future, which is unlikely.

So first it's NO, then it's I WOULD. Which is it? Sounds like doublespeak to me.

ETA: It sounds like a big YES to me. Why say No but go on to add that you would indeed do so?

She has covered this numerous times in numerous forums. The net is - never say never - but unless a 'perfect' solution falls from the sky that makes ALL ( and she clearly has said ALL ) - happy, or there is some drastic, unforeseen change in the district population - neither of which she expects -- the answer for HS boundary changes is NO.
It is not a big YES, not even a little yes, but just stating that one cannot say 100% no, but 99.9% No is OK.

and of course since you quote L2's web site, I am sure you just forgot to go to Alka's web site for her clarification befiore your confusion on whether her answer was a no or yes, so I'll help out and print her explanation - AGAIN.

www.alkatyle.com/Clarification.html

Clarification:

By “a much better solution was possible,” I meant that I do not wish to change the
boundaries, but if there was a magic solution out there which none of us had thought
of until now, and it was one which would be acceptable to all of us, I would be very
interested in considering it.

While I am at it, I would also like to emphasize that in the future, I would ensure that
we allowed enough time for the middle school boundary process. This would ensure
that we got input from the community regarding selection of criteria, and how to
prioritize them. Getting buy-in would minimize the emotional upheaval, maximize
objectivity during the process, and hence ensure a superior outcome.
Back to Q&A

[bob]

She said that she looked at WV and said an addition could be put on.

Her addition plan contradicts her argument of not building MV with students attending MV. Unless we convince the builders to work on Sundays and only from June to August.

[chicoryowl]

doctorwho said:

macy said:

I've read through Leanne's site very thoroughly. She clearly communicates she is in favor of the third high school.

ETA: Taken from Leanne's site:

Additions to the High Schools
At the forum on March 15th, I was asked a question pertaining to the new high school land. To the best of my knowledge, my interpretation of the question was what would I do if the Brach/Brodie land and other properties were not available. When I said that we should build additions, I was referring to the fact that if we were going to be overcrowded and no other land options were available, that was our only alternative. (Please read my response (8) to relocating the Brach/Brodie land.)

I will agree this is clear, but I can tell you I heard first hand responses at 2 of the forums that made no mention of it the Brach Brodie land or other land was not available, only spoke of going back to look at additions to the schools. I know I did not mis-hear. Now maybe this was due to 45 second - 1 minute time limits, or maybe because as she admits, she is not a good public speaker, but either way the message printed here is not what she conveyed in person.

And so no one gets upset, I am not saying she is saying 2 different things on purpose.....just that the message inserted here was not the way it came across in public.

Does anybody have a link to the second forum, the one in downtown Naperville?

I was at this forum when she mentioned adding on to Neuqua and I don't recall it being related to a question about BB or other land options not being available.

If I had dentures, I would have spit them.

[doctorwho]

chicoryowl said:

doctorwho said:

I will agree this is clear, but I can tell you I heard first hand responses at 2 of the forums that made no mention of it the Brach Brodie land or other land was not available, only spoke of going back to look at additions to the schools. I know I did not mis-hear. Now maybe this was due to 45 second - 1 minute time limits, or maybe because as she admits, she is not a good public speaker, but either way the message printed here is not what she conveyed in person.

And so no one gets upset, I am not saying she is saying 2 different things on purpose.....just that the message inserted here was not the way it came across in public.

Does anybody have a link to the second forum, the one in downtown Naperville?

I was at this forum when she mentioned adding on to Neuqua and I don't recall it being related to a question about BB or other land options not being available.

If I had dentures, I would have spit them.

It was not, also was not at at least 1 other forum....

[chicoryowl]

doctorwho said:

chicoryowl said:

Does anybody have a link to the second forum, the one in downtown Naperville?

I was at this forum when she mentioned adding on to Neuqua and I don't recall it being related to a question about BB or other land options not being available.

If I had dentures, I would have spit them.

It was not, also was not at at least 1 other forum....

ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=sb&action=display&thread=1174005284&page=7

Sorry for being lazy. The link above is from the forum. Post #91 in the middle of the pages has the links I was referring to.

Also, if you take a look at a page back or two, you'll see some summaries from people who watched and attended.

Without confirming the specific questions asked, LL indicates that she's not convinced NV can't be added onto as well as one of her answers indicating that she doesn't understand the difference between building funds and education funds. This was my recollection from the forum as well.

[bob]

At the 1:06:45 mark is L2's reply.

She mention additions and why they weren't considered. And then she questioned if we are really overcrowded.

[macy]

doctorwho said:

macy said:

I agree that some answers on future boundary changes are hard to decipher.

Alka Tyle's response to changing high school boundaries in the future is very confusing to me.

taken from her site:

Would you vote to change those boundaries? Why or why not?

No. I would, however, vote to change them if a significantly better solution
became apparent, or if there was a significant change in enrollment numbers in
the future, which is unlikely.

So first it's NO, then it's I WOULD. Which is it? Sounds like doublespeak to me.

ETA: It sounds like a big YES to me. Why say No but go on to add that you would indeed do so?

She has covered this numerous times in numerous forums. The net is - never say never - but unless a 'perfect' solution falls from the sky that makes ALL ( and she clearly has said ALL ) - happy, or there is some drastic, unforeseen change in the district population - neither of which she expects -- the answer for HS boundary changes is NO.
It is not a big YES, not even a little yes, but just stating that one cannot say 100% no, but 99.9% No is OK.

and of course since you quote L2's web site, I am sure you just forgot to go to Alka's web site for her clarification befiore your confusion on whether her answer was a no or yes, so I'll help out and print her explanation - AGAIN.

www.alkatyle.com/Clarification.html

Clarification:

By “a much better solution was possible,” I meant that I do not wish to change the
boundaries, but if there was a magic solution out there which none of us had thought
of until now, and it was one which would be acceptable to all of us, I would be very
interested in considering it.

While I am at it, I would also like to emphasize that in the future, I would ensure that
we allowed enough time for the middle school boundary process. This would ensure
that we got input from the community regarding selection of criteria, and how to
prioritize them. Getting buy-in would minimize the emotional upheaval, maximize
objectivity during the process, and hence ensure a superior outcome.
Back to Q&A

Funny thing is, I did not get that quote off the daily herald clarification page. It's right under her responses in the Q&A section of her website. www.alkatyle.com/QandA.html Maybe she should clarify it there as well. I would have thought after she clarified her Herald response, she would have taken the time to go into her own Q&A as well.