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

[bob]

L2's clarification has nothing to do with her answer at the forum. The was no mention of other properties.

[momof3]

bob said:

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.

OK I know this is off topic but 59:28 is CB's response on the pay-for-performance question that I think is a great idea.

www.naperville.il.us/dynamic_content.aspx?id=2803

[doctorwho]

macy said:

doctorwho said:

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.

Not funny to me, rather than going back and 'altering' responses from a set of questions she answered - she took the time to add the clarification - I believe it is the better way of updating a web site with regards to what was said when.

If she did it the other way people would be criticizing her about her not having said that the first time... this way it's a nice clean record of events.

[doctorwho]

bob said:

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.

seems to conflict with the most recent web site statement...

[macy]

doctorwho said:

macy said:

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.

Not funny to me, rather than going back and 'altering' responses from a set of questions she answered - she took the time to add the clarification - I believe it is the better way of updating a web site with regards to what was said when.

If she did it the other way people would be criticizing her about her not having said that the first time... this way it's a nice clean record of events.

I see it differently. It appears she made the same statement twice. After the Herald, she felt the need to clarify but left the original statement on the Q&A. While I understand what you are saying about the cleanness of the record of events, any reader that goes onto that board and into her Q&A will not get to read the most current clarification she's provided. Wouldn't it have been prudent to have added a clarification onto that part of the site?

I see it as either a misstep or intentional. Either way, its fuzzy to me.

[doctorwho]

macy said:

doctorwho said:

Not funny to me, rather than going back and 'altering' responses from a set of questions she answered - she took the time to add the clarification - I believe it is the better way of updating a web site with regards to what was said when.

If she did it the other way people would be criticizing her about her not having said that the first time... this way it's a nice clean record of events.

I see it differently. It appears she made the same statement twice. After the Herald, she felt the need to clarify but left the original statement on the Q&A. While I understand what you are saying about the cleanness of the record of events, any reader that goes onto that board and into her Q&A will not get to read the most current clarification she's provided. Wouldn't it have been prudent to have added a clarification onto that part of the site?

I see it as either a misstep or intentional. Either way, its fuzzy to me.

your call-- it becomes more fuzzy to me when someone updates their website and erases the original conversations and notes -- I know it is not intentional from talking to Alka.

[EagleDad]

So macy, what would you like? A little sub-note in the QandA page, indicating that there was clarification and a hyper link to that page?

Let me know, I'll see if I can pass on that feedback so it's added.

[bob]

After the Herald, she felt the need to clarify but left the original statement on the Q&A.

That is what you are suppose to do. If she changed the DH answer then it would be sneaky. This is a pretty up and up move.

It is much better than changing an answer on one's website after people point out a problems.

Wasn't she the one who had our SD with 6 MS after MV opens.?

[bob]

On Leanne's website, under "Referendum Debate (New)," she states that "There is no doubt in my mind that the enrollment in District 204 has increased during the past years. I am duly aware of the fact that our enrollment during this last year has declined."

Did she ever get around to fixing this lie?

[macy]

eagledad said:

So macy, what would you like? A little sub-note in the QandA page, indicating that there was clarification and a hyper link to that page?

Let me know, I'll see if I can pass on that feedback so it's added.

It's not really what I'd like at all but it would be clearer to whomever visits Alka's Q&A site if a clarification was placed there as well.

[bob]

Macy then you should get L2 to clarify that she only knew 6 MS when MV opens.

[macy]

bob said:

Macy then you should get L2 to clarify that she only knew 6 MS when MV opens.

Bob

I'm sure you can get L2 to clarify that (if she hasn't already done so).

Since this thread was about boundary changes, I brought to light Alka's comment on her site because It wasn't clear to me. If a clarification was placed under her answer, it would have been much clearer to me when I read it.

These people are under a tremendous amount of pressure. I'm willing to let a few missteps go if someone provides clear clarification.

I don't expect anyone to be perfect. They are human beings after all.

[chicoryowl]

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 transcribed the question and LL's answer.

Q: If you can not get the property for the new High School in a timely manner, what would you suggest be done as an alternative?

LL: When and how much are huge questions for me and I don’t accept either one of them. We shouldn’t be over a barrel as we are right now. There should have been an option B and because of it our students will suffer and it’s not acceptable to have a building that’s in construction while the students are there. I’ve been in a situation like that and it’s an extremely disruptive and I’m not advocating for that. We need to start looking immediately for places to house these students, if in fact we are overcrowded. I’m not really sure why we didn’t look at additions onto the existing schools. But this is a real problem and when and how much are just too big of questions. It should not have been left to that and I’m not satisfied with that.

[bob]

if in fact we are overcrowded.

Doesn't Scullen which is right down the street from her home have trailers to hold the overflow at that school?

[macy]

Chicory Owl

By transcribe are you putting words into someone's mouth?